Senate
18 October 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1961

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

page 1193

QUESTION

COAL

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate mentioned yesterday that there had been a great reduction in the number of industrial disputes on the New South Wales coal-fields. Can he give the Senate facts or figures to illustrate his remark?

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

– Yes, Mr. President. 1 have obtained some figures from the last report of the Joint Coal Board. They are very interesting. The report shows, amongst other things, that the production loss from industrial disputes on the New South Wales coal-fields has not exceeded 3 per cent, of possible production during any one of the last three years. In the preceding eleven years losses ran from 5.7 per cent, to 18.3 per cent. In 1960-61, the percentage of man-shifts lost as a result of industrial disputes fell below 2 per cent. That is probably the lowest level in the history of the New South Wales coal-mining industry. In the first half of this calendar year, 1961, man-shifts lost as a result of industrial disputes - the figures relate to underground mines only - on the Cessnock.NorthWest field, fell to .12 per cent, and for the Newcastle district, they fell to .06 per cent. In other words, I do not think it is an overstatement to say that, for the first six months of this year, losses because of industrial difficulties have been negligible on the Cessnock and Newcastle coal-fields.

page 1193

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. I presume he has noticed the disparity in the numbers of males and females in the various States. In Tasmania, as in other States, the disparity has been brought about by the immigration policy. In 1950, there were 102 males to every 100 females, but by the end of 1960 there were 112 males to every 100 females. As this development is causing concern, and as certain action has been taken in other States to alleviate the position, will the Government, in deciding future immigration policy, consider the increasing imbalance of the sexes in Tasmania?

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

– I have noted the disparity, although I have not seen the most recent figures for Tasmania, which Senator Cole mentioned. I agree with the honorable senator that this is a problem which should be rectified as soon as possible. I undertake to place the matter before the Minister for Immigration, stressing the position in Tasmania, and asking him to keep this well in view when considering the policy for the coming year.

page 1193

QUESTION

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs a question which relates to the published report that the Prime Minister of Malaya proposes to discuss with the United Kingdom Government the future of the Singapore base and to prevent United Kingdom forces from using that base for purposes in any way connected with the South-East Asia Treaty Organization. If that situation does occur, and the great Singapore base is rendered virtually useless for the purposes of Seato, will it not also be rendered virtually useless in all other respects? If I am right in assuming that it will, would I be correct in saying that it might be desirable for the Australian Government to commence discussions with the United Kingdom Government for the purpose of ascertaining where that base might be shifted to?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– The Prime Minister of Malaya, the Tunku Abdul Rahman, is, 1 understand, going to the United Kingdom to discuss with Mr. Macmillan a wide range of subjects related to the possible merger between Singapore and Malaya and various proposals which have been made for the establishment of a Greater Malaysia, which would mean some form of political closeness between North Borneo, Sarawak, Brunei, Singapore and Malaya. I did read in a newspaper that the Tunku had stated he would discuss, in this general context, the future of the Singapore base, but I am not able to say whether the quotation given by Senator Vincent is completely accurate. If the future of the Singapore naval base is one of the subjects to be. discussed, it is a matter that lies between the United Kingdom, which built and owns the base, and the Malayan Government. I am quite sure that the Australian Government will be kept informed of any discussions concerning this matter. Last week, I think it was, I read newspaper reports that the United Kingdom had decided to remove the naval base. I do not believe that those reports are true. I know nothing of them, and I think that I would have known something of them had they been true. Lord Selkirk, United Kingdom Commissioner-General for South-East Asia, who lives in Singapore, said that he knew nothing of the proposal and that he would have known of it if it were true. At this stage I think that this matter is being played up by the press rather more than it should be.

page 1194

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. First, is it a fact that Scott Brothers, owners of pearlshell fishing craft in Western Australia, received a permit from the Department of Immigration to indenture labourers from outside Australia to work their pearling luggers? Secondly, did Scott Brothers contract to employ the indentured labour exclusively on their pearling luggers and to return them to the place of engagement upon completion of the pearling season? Thirdly, have Scott Brothers carried out their contract in respect of the labourers indentured by them? Fourthly, who was responsible for dumping the indentured labourers on the shores of Derby, Western Australia, and not returning them to the place at which they were engaged?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I am not aware of the individual contracts that were made through the Department of Immigration. Naturally, the honorable senator would not expect me to be aware of them at this stage, i am confident that if Scott Brothers entered into a contract they will honour their obligations under it. If the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper I will obtain for him a full reply from the Minister for Immigration.

page 1194

QUESTION

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister fori the Navy. It is addressed to him also in his capacity as

Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. Will the Minister keep the Senate informed of the progress of discussions that we understand are to take place in London concerning the future of the Singapore naval base insofar as those discussions affect Australia’s defence? If the United Kingdom Government decides that the Singapore naval base is of no further use to it, will the Minister see that steps artaken to build a naval base on the coast of Western Australia, as has been requested previously, where it will be able to assist in the defence of sea routes in the Indian Ocean?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I would like to make it clear that all that I said in reply to a previous question on this subject was that I had seen reports attributed to the Tunku in which he stated that in general discussions with the United Kingdom Government he would raise the matter of the Singapore naval base. Whether those reports are accurate 1 do not know. Should such discussions take place now or in the future, particularly if they take place between the representatives of two other countries, and if information concerning them is conveyed to Australia, i! would, be unusual for that information to be made available publicly in the Senate.

page 1194

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Leader of the Government whether it is a fact that the flow of private capital into Australia has risen from £102,000,000 in 1956-57 to £326,000,000 in 1960-61. If this is a fact., and if this rate continues, is it not possible that Australian industries could slip out of the control of Australians into the hands of foreigners? If that happened would it lead to the development of colonialism - a system that is causing a good deal of trouble throughout the world? Has the Government power to prevent such undesirable consequences?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Senator Brown raises a very important matter - one that requires some consideration. This Government has continued a policy of endeavouring to attract into Australia as much overseas capital as possible. That has been done in the belief that there is so much for us to do in Australia that it is beyond the resources of Australian savings and that, by having overseas capital invested in Australia, we can quicken the rate of our development and at the same time get the benefit of overseas knowledge and experience. I hope that will continue to be our policy. I do not share the apprehension that has been expressed about the possibility of losing control of our industries. I do not believe that will happen. However, there is always the possibility that capital will come in to acquire an already established industry. That capital would come in not to develop the country but to get the benefit of development that has already taken place. The introduction of such capital needs to be looked at in a different way. I forbear to say what the powers of the Commonwealth are in those circumstances. It is rather difficult to say what powers are readily available. The. inflow of capital needs to be encouraged; it is not automatic. People with capital must have confidence in a country. Such people are always careful to observe the policy of the country in which they contemplate investing their money, and to adhere to it.

page 1195

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– J address these questions to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: Is it a fact that representatives of the Australian dried fruit industry have been negotiating with representatives of the same industry in certain overseas countries with a view to reaching some agreement on prices and marketing? If so, with what countries have negotiations been held? What success, if any, has attended those negotiations?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · VICTORIA · LP

– I have been given to understand that such negotiations have been taking place, but I am not sufficiently well informed about the countries involved or the matters under discussion to give the honorable senator an intelligent answer. If he will place his question on the noticepaper, I shall see that it is brought to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 1195

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, relates to the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, which deals broadly with the rights of action for death, injury and damage as a result of air disasters and accidents, and damage to, and loss of, goods carried by air. The Minister may recall that when this legislation was before the Senate the matter of its applicability intrastate was raised. Has the Minister been successful in persuading the States to pass complementary legislation If so, what States have passed such legislation? Have any States refused to pass it?

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

– Quite soon after the passing of the legislation through this Parliament I took up with all the States the matter of the adoption of similar legislation with application to intra-state travel. The matter was taken up first by correspondence and was then processed through the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The point has been reached where a model bill has been drawn up and circulated to the States. I think I am right in saying that most of the States have agreed to it and that Western Australia has actually passed the legislation.

page 1195

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Because I have been seriously embarrassed in my position as a senator, I ask for your indulgence, Mr. President, to make an explanatory preface to my question. Some weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Minister for Social Services on behalf of one of my electors. He was in receipt of both an age pension and a war pension. After the recent increases he was overpaid and certain adjustments had to be made. This man did not want the local Liberal member of the House of Representatives to know of his circumstances, and he asked me to take up his case. 1 did so. Last week, I received from the Minister a letter in which he set out all the circumstances, and in the last sentence said that he had communicated all of the information to the member of the House of Representatives for the relevant area. I have always understood that the confidences of a senator in the performance of his duties were respected by the Ministers of this Government. I ask the Leader of the Government: Is it now the practice that such confidences are broken by Ministers? If it is, and he does not approve the practice, will he take the matter up with the Prime Minister with the object of stopping the practice before it is extended further?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I confess that I am at fault in this case. This matter was raised in the Senate a week or so ago. I was told that there had been a change from previous procedures, and I said that I would make some inquiries about the matter. I am sorry to say that it slipped my memory. I will now make some inquiries and let Senator Arnold know the result.

Senator Benn:

– And let me know, too. I asked the question. It is on the notice-paper.

Senator SPOONER:

– Then I will ensure that an answer to the question that is on the notice-paper is obtained quickly. Guessing at who the relevant member of the House of Representatives is, because of the geographical positions of the electorates, I am sure that that member would respect the confidence.

Senator Willesee:

– That is not the point.

Senator SPOONER:

– It is not immaterial in the particular case.

Senator Willesee:

– You are only guessing; you do not know.

Senator SPOONER:

– There are two aspects of this matter. One is the general principle, and in relation to that 1 have said that I will have the inquiry expedited. The other is the particular case.

Senator Willesee:

– But you do not know.

Senator SPOONER:

– I try to go about it in a decent way, but you do not understand decent ways. All that you are concerned to do is to stir up the pot and try to produce some political capital out of it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

page 1196

QUESTION

POSTAGE STAMPS

Senator TANGNEY:

– Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware that the issue of a special Christmas stamp is warmly approved by the general public? Wall the Minister translate into action the Christmas message of this year’s stamp, and create goodwill by re-introducing concession rates of postage for Christmas cards, as was formerly the practice?

Senator WADE:
LP

– Senator Tangney has suggested that I ask my colleague, the Postmaster-General, to translate the message On the special Christmas stamp into reality by reducing the postage rates for cards. This matter has been traversed fully in the Budget discussions. The Budget has been framed and presented to and accepted by the Parliament. At least for the present financial year, I can see no point in even raising the matter with the PostmasterGeneral.

page 1196

QUESTION

DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer tell me whether it would be possible to provide the Senate with a break-down of the expenditure of the various Commonwealth departments during the last financial year, showing the expenditure by each department in each State?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The question asked by the honorable senator is similar to a question that was addressed to me recently, asking for details of Commonwealth expenditure in one State. I think the answer given by the Treasurer to that question was to the effect that it would not be possible to provide such information in respect of one State because very frequently moneys that are debited to a branch of a Commonwealth department within a State are not, in fact, spent within that State, the moneys being applied to the purchase of materials, stores and a number of other things in other States. Such entries do not relate necessarily to expenditure within one State. As that is the kind of question that Senator Wood has addressed to me, I expect that the same kind of answer will be given. However, if he will put the question on the notice-paper I will look at it and find out whether any information of the kind for which he asks can be supplied.

page 1196

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

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

How many pensioners receive the supplementary assistance of 10s. per week?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied this answer - On 28th August, 1961, the following numbers of pensioners were in receipt of supplementary assistance in the Commonwealth: -

page 1197

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice; -

  1. Is it a fact that in our immigration policy there are some twelve to fourteen provisions allowing for Asian people to live in Australia, either permanently or under contract to leave at a special time?
  2. Is it also a fact that almost all Asian countries have clauses in their immigration policies which exclude certain nationals from living in their countries?
  3. As there is a serious lack of knowledge both in Australia and overseas regarding our policy, will the Minister consider giving wide and repeated publicity to the provisions allowing entry to Australia of Asian nationals, first, by publicizing the relevant clauses in the press, and secondly, by printing small pamphlets of a size suitable for distribution with, and if desired, inclusion in, every passport issued, so that Australians intending to travel overseas can familiarize themselves with these aspects of our policy, thus enabling them to answer correctly any queries or criticism arising from uninformed sources in foreign countries?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has given the following answers: -

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. The Asians Relations Conference at New Delhi in 1947 recognized the right of every country to determine the nature of its population. This prerogative is exercised freely by all countries including countries of Asia, Africa and the Americas.
  3. Whilst 1 cannot agree that there is a serious lack of knowledge, both in Australia and overseas, of our traditional immigration policy, there is no doubt that it is often misrepresented by people who should know better. I can assure the honorable senator that the Minister will examine her proposal for giving greater publicity to the conditions under which Asians may enter Australia.

page 1197

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– I direct attention to the fact that there is on the notice-paper a question in my name which was asked on 24th August, almost two months ago. It is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. Will the Minister tell me when I can expect a reply to that question?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I direct the attention of the Senate to the fact that the provision of an answer to this question will involve almost a major statistical exercise. A great deal of information will have to be collated before an answer can be supplied.

I like questions to be answered promptly, but I think some indulgence could be granted to the department in collecting the detailed information that will be required to supply an answer to this question.

page 1197

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee: -

Fifty-sixth Report - Expenditure from Advance to the Treasurer - Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund for the year 1960-61.

This fifty-sixth report presents the results of the Public Accounts Committee’s investigations into the accuracy of departmental estimating for the year ended 30th June, 1961. The committee’s inquiries are influenced, in the main, by estimating achievements as reflected by the use made of the Advance to the Treasurer in the last financial year.

Public hearings were held in connexion with a large number of votes, and the committee’s comments appear at the conclusion of the report on each separate vote investigated by it. In addition to the votes reported on in detail, the committee lists the relatively large number of votes to which consideration was given after departmental explanations had been obtained.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1197

ORDER OF THE DAY

Discharge of Motion

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That Order of the Day, No. 3, General Business, be discharged from the notice-paper.

I inform the Senate that I have the concurrence of Senator McKenna, the mover of the motion covered by the order. The position is that while the motion, which relates to the report of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, remains on the notice-paper unresolved the paper cannot be printed as a parliamentary paper. Supplies of this very informative and very much sought after paper are required, and in order to clear the way for the printing of further copies, I have moved accordingly.

Question resolved’ in the affirmative.

page 1198

QUARANTINE BILL 1961

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to effect amendment of the Quarantine Act to facilitate administration of certain quarantine provisions in their application to aircraft arriving in Australia from overseas.

At present the Quarantine Act provides for the inspection of passengers and crews of vessels, that is ships and aircraft, on board the vessels. This provision has never been, in practice, applicable to aircraft because of the difficulties which would be occasioned. Instead, inspection of passengers and crews of aircraft has taken place at some suitable place in the airport buildings. This bill ratifies the existing practice by making provision for these inspections to take place in the vicinity of the aircraft. In addition, a reference to inspection of ship’s papers has been clarified to remove any doubt as to whether the reference includes the official papers of an aircraft. I commend the bill to honorable Senators.

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

page 1198

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1961

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill which I introduce seeks the repeal of section 16 of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1960. Section 16 of the Post and Telegraph Act does not permit the Commonwealth to enter into contracts for the carriage of mails unless the contract provides that only white labour will be employed on such work. This section has its origin in an amendment agreed to by the Parliament during the debate on the Post and Telegraph Bill 1901, and was intended primarily to ensure that only white labour would be employed on the ships on which mail was conveyed. However, in view of the specific terminology used in section 16, the same conditions have been observed in the contractual arrangements for the carriage of mails overland, in which, of course, there has been considerable development since 1901.

The present provisions are considered to be unduly restrictive, since they involve discrimination against coloured people, including aborigines, in our Australian community. In all, there are now some 5,900 Post Office mail contracts which may involve a payment of as little as £1 annually and, or, actual working time of less than one hour a week. Many of these contracts represent a very minor part of a contractor’s business activities, which may be principally concerned, for example, with road transportation or some other community service. Under the existing legislation, Mr. President, such a mail contractor is unable to engage a coloured person for duties which include the carriage of mail, even if the mail work represents only a very small proportion of the total work to be performed.

Over the years, section 16 has been interpreted to allow for the employment of people in whom coloured blood is not preponderant. Consequently, it has been permissible for half-caste people to be considered for mail contract duties. Nevertheless, in a community such as ours, the existing legislation is too restrictive, for there is a responsibility upon us all to pay proper regard to the contribution that everybody, including coloured people, is able to make to community life, in which communication by mail plays such an important part.

The Post Office, under the normal employment provisions of the Public Service Act 1922-1960, employs suitable aborigines in various capacities, including work at post offices, telephone exchanges or with line parties. Consequently, there are no valid reasons why these people should not be permitted to apply for employment on work associated with the carriage of mail under contract with the Post Office. The bill seeks, therefore, to remove these most undesirable restrictions to which I have referred and to give coloured people the opportunity for employment on mail contract work. I commend the bill for consideration by the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 1199

QUESTION

ESTIMATES PAPERS 1961-62

In committee: Consideration resumed from 17th October (vide page 1192).

Department of Air

Proposed expenditure, £63,462,000.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I refer particularly to Division No. 531 - Royal Australian Air Force, and Division No. 535 - Aircraft and other equipment, repair and overhaul. The Air Force is a branch of the armed services, and it seems to be very efficient. Apart from the comments that I am about to make, I think 1 can say that it is the best equipped of the services. We. do not see, in relation to the Air Force, the same ministerial strutting all over Australia that is seen in connexion with the other services, nor is there the same attempt on the part of the Air Force administrators to make good fellows of themselves. The Air Force is a working force. Each time that the members of an air crew board an aircraft they take their lives in their hands. For that reason, they become, more or less fatalistic in their outlook.

As I have said, the Air Force is efficient. From the point of view of the defence of Australia, it is probably our first line of defence. We of the Australian Labour Party for years have been advocating that the Air Force should be kept in proper order, that there should be a sufficient number of aircraft and that aerodromes should be constructed at strategic locations, so that the Air Force could be used to keep prospective aggressors away from Australia. Of all the armed services, the Air Force is the only one that is up to date.

Five or six years ago, there were references to the purchase of jet fighter aircraft from America. The former Minister for Defence. Sir Philip McBride, went to America, and on his return stated that the aircraft which it was at first thought would be purchased would not be available and that, anyhow, they were not good enough for our purpose. The proposal was therefore abandoned. Investigations were made in other parts of the world with a view to obtaining suitable jet aircraft for the Air Force. Only recently I asked in the Senate whether the Government had decided to purchase from France Mirage jet fighters, and I was told that it had. I have found on inquiry - my information may be wrong, and I should like the Minister to correct me if it is - that the Australian authorities, whoever they might be, have arranged that the Rolls-Royce engines at present used in the Mirage aircraft are to be taken out and other engines installed in their place. The information I have is that the new engines that are to be used in the aircraft are not up to date, and are not as efficient as the Rolls-Royce engines. I understand that, so far as upkeep is concerned, the Rolls-Royce engines are miles ahead of the other engines. My information may be wrong. Has there been some arrangement to replace the Rolls-Royce engines with engines which even the French Air Force has declared obsolete and inferior to Rolls-Royce engines? Apart from this, may I compliment the Minister and the Air Force upon the efficiency of the service. This is a new departure for me.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– My remarks may be regarded by the Minister as somewhat premature, but on second consideration he might think that there is something in this subject to discuss. I refer to the possibility of including in the Royal Australian Air Force personnel from Papua and New Guinea, with the ultimate objective of training them to take over the air defence of their own country. That is, of course, a long-term project. It would take a long while for those people to be trained as members of the R.A.A.F. and ultimately as members of the New Guinea Air Force, but the situation must be faced eventually. Has any thinking been done along these lines?

Undoubtedly Papuan and New Guinea men make splendid fighters; they are probably second to none and their reputation is world-wide. I refer, of course, to fighting on the ground. Naturally, the idea of fighting in the air is new to them. I do not disparage them when I say that the race is by no means airminded at present. It will take some time to encourage these people to look to the air, but we must face the problem ultimately.. Will, the Minister say whether the R.A.A.F. has considered incorporation of Papuan and New Guinea personnel, with the ultimate objective of forming within the R.A.A.F. a New Guinea Air Force unit and eventually an exclusively New Guinea, service?

Senator DRURY (South Australia) [3.49J. - I refer to Division No.. 533, item 12, Concessional postage for servicemen - Payment to Postmaster-General’s Department. The appropriation last year was fi 10,000 and the expenditure £75,979. 1 realize that these concessions were eliminated some time last year. To what service personnel or to which part of the services will the concessional allowance apply?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator O’Flaherty has been very generous in his commendation of the Air Force, and that is appreciated. He asked specifically whether it was a fact that Rolls-Royce engines were being removed from Mirage fighter aircraft and replaced by Mirage engines. Such is not the case. I shall give, briefly, the history of negotiations for the Mirage fighter. Naturally, we were after the most efficient aircraft of this kind in the world. After very thorough examination of all counterparts in the world, the air frame itself appealed very greatly to our experts. We in this country, and indeed the world generally, have a very great appreciation of Rolls-Royce equipment. We have used it in this country for years and it has given magnificent service. We were particularly interested in it because we are British people and desirous of supporting British industry. For these reasons, we arranged for a Rolls-Royce engine to be fitted to a Mirage fighter, not that that might be the last word but that we might be able to make a comparison of performances of the aircraft with a Rolls-Royce engine and with a Mirage engine.

I must be very guarded in what I say. Far be it from me or anybody else in this country to suggest that the Rolls-Royce engine is inferior to any other make. That would not be fair to the Rolls-Royce people or to British people generally. Let me put the position in this way: The performances of the Rolls-Royce and the Atar engines were- almost identical. I think that we could let it go at that. But there were other factors that had a very big bearing on the decision that we took. The Mirage aircraft was designed for an Atar engine. Therefore, it stands to reason that the fitments are simpler and modifications more easily attained. Another important factor was that other countries are attracted by the performance of the Mirage fighter with a Mirage motor. Had we fitted a Rolls-Royce engine, we might well have been the only country flying a hybrid aircraft, if I might use this term. It will be readily understood that in this modern world modifications are being made to aircraft from day to day. The people of Australia have to pay for those modifications to keep our aircraft modern and up-to-date. Our decision to buy the Mirage aircraft with an Atar motor puts us in the category of other nations who are buying the same aircraft. In the main, the French Air Ministry will develop that aircraft and motor until they have, as nearly as possible, reached the ultimate.

Senator Vincent:

– What other countries are using the aircraft?

Senator WADE:

– Two that I recall are Israel and Switzerland. I think it is fail to say that the aircraft has attracted so much attention that it is difficult to say just how popular it will become as time goes on.

Senator Vincent suggested that we consider training personnel from Papua and New Guinea so that they might ultimately be in a position to effect the air defence of their own country. We could all agree in principle with that suggestion, but I should like the honorable senator to ponder the difficulties that immediately present themselves upon examining this proposal. Flying an aircraft to-day is a highly specialized occupation. Flying, servicing and backing an aircraft that flies at twice the speed of sound requires a degree of perfection that takes years to attain. It is not easy to transpose into that occupation people who have so far to go to reach the starting point from which we commence operations. I would not suggest that the thought is unworthy of consideration. Senator Vincent has suggested that this would be a long-term project. I have seen the people to whom he has referred, and I know that they are making great strides in their educational attainments. 1 think the time will come when they shall be able to commence training them for some of the occupations to which Senator Vincent has referred.

Senator Vincent:

– We have them at our universities now.

Senator WADE:

– That is so. I think the time will come when they must be considered as prospective entrants for training in work of the specialist type associated with the maintenance and flying of aircraft. I do not think any one would suggest that we should bring these people to this country and be satisfied to see them doing only unskilled work. I do not think that is what the honorable senator is thinking of.

Senator Vincent:

– No.

Senator WADE:

– For that reason I will give some consideration to the matter raised by Senator Vincent.

Senator Drury:

asked why £5,000 was to be appropriated for payment to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in respect of concessional postage for servicemen, having regard to the fact that postage concessions were withdrawn some time ago. The £5,000 will provide a concession for Royal Australian Air Force personnel serving in Malaya, and elsewhere overseas.

Senator RIDLEY:
South Australia

– I wish to refer to Division No. 542 - Aircraft and Associated Initial Equipment, Purchase and Manufacture. Under this division the Government seeks to appropriate this year £11,764,000. Will the Minister say how much will be spent on the purchase of aircraft, and how much on the manufacture of aircraft in Australia? In what States will the money provided for the manufacture of aircraft be spent?

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER (Queensland) [3.58]. - I refer to Division No. 536, item 02, Guided missiles, armament, bombs and explosive stores. Last year, £1,057,330 was spent on this item, and this year the Government is seeking an appropriation of £2,581,000. Will the Minister say why the extra amount is needed this year? Is it to provide for more guided missiles?

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- In referring to Division No. 531 - Royal Australian Air Force - I wish to support the remarks passed by Senator O’Flaherty concerning the operations of the Royal Australian Air Force. I commend the R.A.A.F. on its efficiency and the work that it has done both in the Korean War and in peacetime training. I am speaking specifically of its activities since the Second World War. However, I must join issue with Senator O’Flaherty in one respect. I deprecate his insulting remarks about the Navy and the Army, whose personnel he said simply strut about Australia-

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! The committee is no longer dealing with the Navy or with the Army.

Senator HANNAN:

– I am dealing-

The CHAIRMAN:

– With the Air Force.

Senator HANNAN:

– Yes. I pay a tribute to the officers and men of the R.A.A.F., who have served Australia well in war and in peace. It was unfortunate that Senator O’Flaherty should have felt obliged to pass insulting remarks about the men who fly jet aircraft from a moving flight deck, and about the men who fly bombers from a moving flight deck. Those men, as the honorable senator said, take their lives in their hands whenever they go on a training or operational exercise with the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Australian Navy. Senator O’Flaherty should know that men fly in the Army. The Army has an aerial spotting service, and the men who fly planes in the Army take their lives in their hands. While paying due tribute to the men of the Royal Australian Air Force, we must remember that personnel of the other services perform difficult and dangerous work for the community, both in peace-time and in war-time.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Ridley asked whether I could give him some information about the proposed appropriation of £11,764,000 under Division No. 542. The sum of £1,266,000 is provided as an initial payment on eight Bell helicopters ordered for search and rescue work. These helicopters will be coming forward in the new year. Provision is made for the payment of £3,911,000 for the P2V -7 Neptunes, delivery of which will commence in January next. Two a month will be delivered until the whole squadron has been delivered. An amount of £60,000 is provided, representing payment on the Vampire trainers. Provision is made for £13,000 for Canberra bombers. The sum of £1,488,000 is provided as a final payment on the Hercules transport aircraft. The sum of £2,927,000 is provided this year for the Mirage fighters. The sum of £1,067,000 is set aside for expenditure locally with the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the Government Aircraft Factory. As honorable senators are aware, both these organizations are undertaking the manufacture of engines for the Mirage fighter on the one hand and the assembly of aircraft on the other, with great benefit to the Australian aircraft industry.

Senator Ridley:

– In what State?

Senator WADE:

– In Victoria, at Fishermen’s Bend.

Senator Sir Walter Cooper:

asked for an explanation for the increase in the appropriation sought under Division No. 536, item 02, Guided missiles, armament, bombs and explosive stores. The increase is explained by reason of large payments in connexion with the Bloodhound missile, and the establishment of reserves of ammunition and explosives that are now coming off the production lines and taking their place in the scheme of things.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

.- Will the Minister say whether there is a reserve of officers who fought in the Second World War?

Senator Wade:

– There is a reserve.

Senator BROWN:

– A year or two ago I was speaking in Brisbane to some former Royal Australian Air Force pilots. They were on the reserve list, but when they attended to their duties, as was required of them, they were looked at askance and they felt they were not wanted. They spent many hours doing nothing, with the result that many of them threw in the job. Evidently they believed that they were not wanted by the present officers. I have been unable to find any item covering the payment of these reserverists

I should like to ask the Minister a question about the number and fighting power of the aircraft we have available for defence, having in mind our nearest neigh bour to the north. We know from press reports that Russia has given to this northern neighbour aid amounting to approximately £200,000,000. Possibly a good deal of that has been spent on fighter aircraft. Can the Minister tell us anything about the relative numbers and fighting power of the aircraft held by Australia and by this northern neighbour?

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– i had to leave the chamber for a while and I am not sure whether any honorable senator has referred to the proposed expenditure of £35,000 on the hire of equipment, for which provision is made under Division No. 533. A similar sum was appropriated last year. I should like to know just what is involved in that item. A sum of £2,400,000 has been allocated for Division No. 535 - Aircraft and other Equipment - Repair and Overhaul. I should like to know whether that sum includes provision for work on aircraft through the Department of Supply or whether it relates solely to overhaul and repair work done under the jurisdiction of the Department of Air.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Brown asked whether we still have reservists, whether their services are appreciated, and what payment, if any, they receive. I should like him to know that we have reservists and that they are very highly regarded. Without exception, they have given great service to this country. The younger men in the Air Force know that these older men learnt their lessons the hard way. We have 8,000 part-time reservists, and provision has been made for the payment of £80,000 to them.

The. honorable senator referred also to our northern neighbours. I can only assume which country he was referring to. If 1 am correct in my assumption, it is a friendly country. I have no knowledge of the equipment which is held by that country. We are not an arrogant or an aggressive nation. We are building up our forces merely for the defence of Australia; we have no designs against any other country. The honorable senator will appreciate that we are building up our defences to the greatest possible degree with only that thought in mind. [Quorum formed.] Senator Toohey asked for information about the allocation of £35,000 for the hire of equipment. Provision for that expenditure has been made so that we will be in a position to hire special equipment such as cranes to meet our temporary needs. There would be no justification for making an outright purchase of such equipment. We find it more economical to hire the equipment from industry.

Senator Toohey sought information also about the proposed expenditure of £2,400,000 under Division No. 535. This item represents a commitment to outside industry generally. As honorable senators know, we have our own workshops; but they are able to cope only with a certain quantity of work. The more specialized and technical aircraft become the more specialized and technical is the equipment that is required to service them. A certain amount of our work is given to outside specialists. Provision for that expenditure is made under Division No. 535.

Senator McKELLAR:
New South Wales

– I direct attention to the fact that the proposed expenditure under Division No. 553 - Meteorological Services, is £143,300. Last year the expenditure was £133,885. Does the increase mean that the same services as those provided last year will cost more or that we shall have improved services?

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I relate my remarks to Division No. 533, item 11, Payment to Repatriation Department and others for medical and dental services. Can the Minister tell me how much of the expenditure of £116,636 in 1960-61 was for dental services? I realize that he may not have with him the information I am now seeking; but if it is available, will he let me know the number of personnel who received denial treatment?

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– T refer again to Division No. 535. I do not know whether the Minister misunderstood me. I asked him whether any of the proposed expenditure of £2,400,000 would be incurred in respect of factories under the jurisdiction of the Department of Supply which are engaged in aircraft work. I think the Minister said in his reply that it had to do with outside organizations. I wanted to know whether this expenditure would be incurred in respect of other government departments or private organizations.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator McKellar asked whether the increased provision for meteorological services meant that we would have improved services or whether the same services as those provided last year would cost more. The increase is the result of the rise in the basic wage, and the appropriation is for almost identical services. I have not the information concerning dental treatment for which Senator Branson asked. I will see whether it is available. If it is available, I will certainly see that be receives the information.

Senator Toohey:

asked about the appropriation of £2,400,000 for aircraft and other equipment - repair and overhaul. He asked specifically whether any of that amount went to the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation or the factory. The answer is, “ Yes “. Both of those establishments have technical equipment and knowledge with which the Air Force is not equipped. Naturally, when specialized work is required by the Air Force, it is done by those two organizations, as well as by other people in this industry.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I hope that the Minister does not think that I am trying to crucify him. The question I should like him to answer, if he can, is whether any specific information about the transactions in which the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation engages is included in the Estimates, particularly those for the Department of Supply.

Senator RIDLEY:
South Australia

– I refer to Division No. 557 - “ Repairs and Maintenance, £2,140,000 “. This division is under the control of the Department of Works. Is that appropriation for repairs and maintenance of aircraft? If it is, where are the repairs and maintenance carried out?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– I shall answer Senator Ridley’s question first. The appropriation is for repairs and maintenance of property and buildings. The increase is the result of the increase in the basic wage. Senator Toohey sought specific information which, at the moment, I am not in a position to give him. I hope to be able to give it to him before the debate proceeds much further.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Senator Toohey:

– The Minister said that before we concluded dealing with the item with which we have just dealt he would have the information that I sought. I want to know what my position is. Will the Minister revoke his assurance now, or does he intend to honour it?

Senator Wade:

– The information that Senator Toohey seeks is somewhat complicated. It will take some little time to compile. I undertake to have it put in his hands with the least possible delay.

Department of Primary Industry

Proposed expenditure, £2,945,000.

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER (Queensland) [4.20].- I refer to Division No. 359, subdivision 2, item 04, Printing of publications. The expenditure last year was £8,134. The appropriation for 1961-62 is £11,000. I should like to know the reason for that increase. Are extra publications being printed, or what is the reason for the appropriation being so much greater?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– The main reason for the increase is the drive to increase wool consumption. I can give the honorable senator some details of the expenditure. It includes survey reports, poultry, dried fruits and superphosphate studies, and so on. In the main, the additional provision is being made to meet what the Government considers is a pressing need to publicize and foster the wool industry.

Senator RIDLEY:
South Australia

– I refer to Division No. 358, sub-division 2, item 05, Payments under Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. Last year, the appropriation was £4,000 and the expenditure was £4,770. This year, the appropriation is £2,000, half the amount of last year’s appropriation. Is there any reason for expecting expenditure to be less this year than it was last year?

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister under Division No. 355, sub-division 3, item 03, “Wheat research (for payment to the credit of the Wheat Research Trust Account), £200,000 “. Last year, the appropriation was £170,000. Comparatively recently, the Parliament passed legislation providing for a contribution of, I think, one farthing a bushel from wheat sales for wheat research. We all realize that it is very desirable that the wheat industry itself should contribute to wheat research, which is extremely important in relation to the product itself and to world markets. I should like to know what amount has been collected under the act which provided for wheatgrowers to contribute, I think, one farthing a bushel. Is this £200,000 the total, or only part of the money that has been collected? I take it that it is only part of the money. What is the full amount that has been collected? What proportion of the fund does this £200,000 represent? Where are wheat research stations established?

Recently I read that a wheat research station was established somewhere in the north-west of the New South Wales wheat belt. I cannot remember the name of the town. Are there any other wheat research stations in Australia? Are some of the agricultural colleges in the various States receiving money from this fund? I should be interested to know whether the Roseworthy Agricultural College in South Australia receives any part of this wheat research fund, which could be devoted to the improvement of wheat varieties, and to wheat research generally.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– I refer to Division No. 355 - Other Services - item 04, “Tobacco research, £25,500 “. During tie last few weeks various honorable senators on this side of the chamber have asked questions about tobacco, and the answers given seemed like funeral notices. They offered no hope that anything would be done for the Australian -tobacco industry, which seems to be struggling with the overseas tobacco monopolies for a place in the Australian market. Would I be wrong in suggesting that there is some inconsistency in proposing to spend £25,500 on research for the purposes of an industry which, according to answers to questions, is at the end of its tether, at any rate temporarily? Is this money to be spent on trying to find ways and means to break the hold of the big overseas monopolies so that the Australian tobacco industry can find its rightful place in the Australian market?

Senator McKELLAR:
New South Wales

. -I direct attention to Division No. 355, sub-division 3, item 07, “World Poultry Science Congress, 1962- Contribution, £3,500 “. The amount appropriated in 1960-61 was £1,000. Will the Minister tell me why the appropriation sought this year is so much greater than the appropriation last year?

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I refer to Division No. 355, sub-division 2, item 05, Fisheries services. I am very interested in fisheries research in the waters adjacent to the coast of South Australia, and particularly in research centring on Port Lincoln. I understand that the Department of Primary Industry, through a company organized under its aegis, was interested in a vessel which was carrying out fishing operations and also providing valuable data on the availability of fish. Advertisements appeared in the press recently stating that the vessel was to be sold.

Senator Hannaford:

– It is “Southern Endeavour “, is it not?

Senator LAUGHT:

– Yes. I should like to know whether the vessel has been sold, and, if so, to whom. Will “ Southern Endeavour “ be retained in South Australian waters? If not, where is it proposed to use the vessel in future? If a sale has not been effected, will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry discuss with his colleague the desirability of ensuring that whoever buys “ Southern Endeavour “ will use it in South Australian waters? If the vessel is to be used in South Australian waters, will the Minister for Primary Industry consider supplementing the work of the vessel by providing smaller trawlers to work with it? I understand that during the last year or so the work of “ Southern Endeavour” has been made less effective because the vessel has had to return to port with its catches, thereby losing contact with the fish amongst which it was operating.

I suggest to the Minister that the future use of “ Southern Endeavour “ is very important to South Australia, that better methods of using the vessel should be sought, and that the department, with its specialized knowledge, should give assistance to those who take the vessel over.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Ridley asked for information about payments made under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act He pointed out that the appropriation for this purpose last year was £4,770 and that this year only £2,000 is sought. The explanation is that in 1960-61 a lump sum payment was made to an officer for compensation. Such payments cannot be foreseen and, therefore, are not provided for in advance.

Senator Ridley:

– I asked why over £4,000 was appropriated last year and only £2,000 is asked for this year.

Senator WADE:

– If a lump sum payment which was not foreseen had to be made again this year, provision would be made in the Estimates for next year to cover it. Such payments are unusual. No department can budget for unforeseen expenditure, although in some instances some provision is made for it.

Senator Ormonde:

asked whether he was right in saying that the tobacco industry is at the end of its tether and, therefore, the expenditure of over £25,000 on tobacco research cannot be justified. This industry is far from being at the end of its tether. During the last ten years it has made a wonderful contribution to the economy of this country and has saved us from spending a great deal of money overseas. It is true that at present the industry is facing some difficulties. For some of those difficulties the industry itself is responsible, but others arise from factors over which it has no control. As I said in this chamber only to-day, the Government is trying to meet the situation that has arisen. It is doing all that it can do to encourage representatives of the States and of the industry to co-operate with it in finding solutions for the problems that face the industry. The sum of £25,500 to which Senator Ormonde has referred will be made available to State universities and to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Anybody who knows anything about the activities of those organizations in relation to tobacco will concede readily that that money will be very well spent.

Senator Hannaford wanted to know the total amount collected by the operation of the wheat research tax. The total is £734,000. Of that amount, £200,000 will be used to finance the Wheat Research Council’s programme of wheat research in 1961- 62. I have a list of the wheat research stations that have been established. I take it that Senator Hannaford would like to know the payments that are to be made to the various research institutions.

Senator Hannaford:

– Yes.

Senator WADE:

– The University of Melbourne will receive £17,650; the Waite Agricultural Research Institute, £26,550; the Bread Research Institute, £3,500; the C.S.I . R.O., £46,600; the Victorian Department of Agriculture, £17,550; the Western Australian Department of Agriculture, £12,400; the University of Sydney, £14,400; the University of Western Australia, £14,300; the University of New South Wales, £6,700; the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, £5,800; the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock, £1,250 and the University of New England, £1,000. I think that that is sufficient to give Senator Hannaford an indication of how the money is to be allocated.

Senator Hannaford:

– Is there a farm in New South Wales which is financed from this fund? I imagine that there is. I think I have read about it.

Senator WADE:

– I shall seek the information and let the honorable senator have it. Senator Laught asked for information about the “ Southern Endeavour “. The vessel has not been sold yet, and therefore it would be futile for me to speculate as to what its future activities might be. I shall bring to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Laught’s thinking on this matter, and I shall emphasize the points that he made. I realize that Senator Laught has a very lively interest in fishing research in South Australian waters. As the vessel has not yet been sold it might be that the point of view Senator Laught has expressed could assist the Minister in arriving at a final decision.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

. -I refer to Division No. 355, subdivision 2, item 09, Sugar Industry - Committee of Inquiry. This committee is under the chairmanship of Mr. McCarthy. I ask the

Minister: Do the terms of reference include investigation of the increased utilization of mechanization in the sugar industry and the effect of mechanization in depopulating northern Queensland? We have seen the effect of bulk handling on the waterfront. In Mackay over one week-end practically 400 men were dismissed, and in seven mills in the Mackay district baggers, sewers and stackers had to find other work. The same thing has happened in practically all the sugar ports of Queensland.

I am not suggesting that we should deny the advent of increased mechanization or automation, but I do say that the Government has a responsibility to maintain settlement in northern Queensland to which the sugar industry has made a substantial contribution over many years. The Government has a responsibility to find other avenues of employment for the men who will be dismissed. We have had the advent of mechanical harvesting in the sugar industry, and there are mechanical loaders in virtually every district. Up to the present, mechanical harvesters can be used only on level ground and not on undulating territory. They are being used in Bundaberg, Ingham, Babinda and other places. I was wondering whether the terms of reference of the inquiry embrace the effect of mechanization on the industry and also whether it is likely to have any effect, ultimately, on the price of sugar to the Australian consumer.

Recently a number of sugar farmers in Queensland raised the question of the control of the sale of sugar farms. Such control does not operate in northern New South Wales where there is some measure of sugar cultivation. In Queensland the sale of farms has always been regulated, sales having to be approved by the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board. Devious methods are utilized to frustrate the efforts of the board, but nevertheless, the law provides for this control. Cane-growers are seeking the abolition of this control. I was wondering whether this matter was included in the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry.

In regard to the Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry, a rather interesting speech was made by the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) in another place in relation to sales at Portland where the wool-buyers of Australia adopted stand-over methods to determine that sales should not be held, or not be effective if they were held. A direction was issued to members of the wool-buyers’ association that they were not to participate in the sales. The honorable member for Wannon, who knows quite a deal about the wool industry, documented his case very substantially. His speech is available to be read, and I think the Minister would have a responsibility in respect of that matter. Of course, we had previous definite evidence, as the result of the inquiry conducted by Mr. Justice Cook in New South Wales, that there were pies, or buyer arrangements, which adversely affected the interest of the wool-growers.

I pass to the committee set up by the Government to inquire into the dairying industry. I understand that committee has recommended the abolition of the subsidy to the dairy industry. What is the attitude of the Government in this matter? Is it going to announce before the general elections that it will accept the finding of the committee and abolish the subsidy to the dairying industry?

I pass to the item dealing with tobacco research. Does it include research into buying arrangements and the marketing of tobacco? As honorable senators know, the tobacco industry throughout Australia is in the doldrums to-day. Many growers are thinking of walking off their farms. If there is a repetition of buyers’ methods next year similar to those which characterized sales this year, growers from north Queensland to Western Australia will have to walk off their farms. We know that many of the Western Australian growers are comparatively new to the industry and that their leaf was not of a high grade. This is a difficult industry in that special attention is required right from the time of sterilization of the soil until the marketing of the crop. Men who have been in the industry for many years claim that the quality of the leaf this year is no different from the quality of the leaf produced last year. Yet prices were totally different, and much of the leaf was discarded at open auction although subsequently negotiated sales took place. The price of leaf being utilized in tobacco was recently raised by 2d. for every 2 oz. I think that the percentage of Australian leaf compulsorily required to be utilized in the production of tobacco is 43 per cent. I should be pleased if the Minister would supply answers to the questions I have asked; they call for very simple replies.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– I refer to Division No. 355, sub-division 3, item 01, Dairy Industry - Extension grant, for which the appropriation this year is £250,000. Just how is that grant to be expended?

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I should like a little information on pearl shell surveys. What is the nature of these surveys? In what way are they carried out and who benefits from the information collected?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator McKellar sought information about the increased vote for the World Poultry Science Congress to be held in 1962. The Commonwealth will contribute £5,000 towards the cost of staging the 12th World Poultry Science Congress to be held in Sydney in August, 1962. This provision is to meet the balance of the contribution this year to include the cost of a congress committee and to finance the preliminary expenses, as very little revenue is expected from the congress prior to 1962. This congress could well introduce a new era for the poultry industry in Australia.

Senator Dittmer:

asked about the terms of reference of the sugar industry committee of inquiry, what stage the committee had reached and whether the terms of reference included an inquiry into mechanization. The terms of that inquiry were to investigate - I emphasize the word “ terms “ - the circumstances of the sugar and fruit industries and their relationship. Mechanization will be covered in the report, of course, and the report is expected to be available very shortly.

Senator Dittmer:

asked also about the committee set up to inquire into the problems of the dairy industry. The Government announced some time ago that it was willing to discuss with State governments and the industry organizations several issues arising from the report and recommendations of the Dairy Industry Committee of Inquiry. The two items to be discussed are the new five-year stabilization plan in respect of the present agreement which terminates on 20th June, 1962, and the reconstruction of that section of the industry which the committee believes is in an unsatisfactory economic position. Negotiations with organizations concerned with the industry, regarding new stabilization proposals, will commence at an appropriate time when the ideas of the Government and the industry have been fully formulated. The reconstruction aspects are to be considered at the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council which, on present indications, will take place early in 1962.

Senator Lillico:

asked for information about the dairy ‘ industry extension grants. The present five-year period of the grants will end on 30th June, 1963. Under the terms of the current grants, the allocations are as follows: - New South Wales, £64,880; Western Australia, £17,400; Queensland, £65,840; South Australia, £18,360; Victoria, £64,880; Tasmania, £8,640; and Commonwealth, £10,000. The object of the grants is to promote the adoption of approved practices on dairy farms. Unexpended funds, up to 50 per cent, of the above allocations, may be carried forward by the States under prescribed conditions for use in subsequent years.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to the fishing industry, which comes within the items mentioned in Division No. 355. I invite the Minister to give the committee his observations on the matters related to the fishing industry that I am about to mention. I think he will agree with me that, by and large, the retail price of fish in Australia, particularly in Western Australia, is inordinately high. There are reasons for that, one being, of course, that there are not sufficient fish in Australian waters. I imagine that the fishing industry is having a lucrative time because of that situation. No doubt there are other reasons which account for the ridiculously high price of fish, but they are by the way. I shall confine my argument to the shortage of fish. I ask the Minister: Has the department, in its research, come to the conclusion that Australian waters are deficient in fish? What is the nature of the research that has been conducted in regard to our fishing beds? Does that research disclose that there is a deficient quantity of fish available for the nation, at least for the time being? Does it also disclose that fish may be taken economically from our waters so as to compete with overseas supplies?

There is no doubt that the fish that we purchase from overseas is competing very favorably in price with local fish. Why is it that the fish which we import from Great Britain and South Africa can be sold at prices which, generally speaking, are lower than those we pay for fish caught in Australian waters? These are matters that merit investigation. The price of fish in Great Britain, South Africa and the European countries is very much lower than it is in Australia. The reason for the high price of Australian fish may well be that we are short of fish, or that our seas have relatively so few fish in them that is is too expensive to take them out.

Senator Kendall:

– There are enough fish for the Japanese to send 40 ships down to the Coral Sea and take them out.

Senator VINCENT:

– These are questions that I am posing to the Minister, not to Senator Kendall, although I know that be is well able to answer such questions.

Senator Dittmer:

– Senator Kendall has the answers at his finger-tips, and the Minister might not have them readily available.

Senator VINCENT:

– I appreciate Senator Kendall’s comments, but I want to put my own argument. If our seas are insufficiently stocked with fish I think we face a pretty gloomy future. I should like the Minister to state the nature of the research that is at present being conducted by the department. Where is it being undertaken?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– May I reply to Senator Vincent while the many points he has raised are fresh in my mind. I can speak only in general terms because I must confess that I am not a fisherman. My knowledge is confined to the steps that have been taken recently to meet this situation which is causing concern to Federal and State governments alike. It is obvious that the demand for fish exceeds the supply. The position has become so acute that the State governments, in collaboration with the Commonwealth Government, have taken action which it is hoped will be of great benefit to the industry. Recently, an Australian Fisheries Council was established on the same basis as the Australian Agricultural Council. In effect, the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry is the chairman of the council and its members consist of the Ministers for Agriculture of the various States. I understand that they include also a representative of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

It is the task of the council to be responsible for research into the fishing industry in Australian waters. Such research could be concerned with the breeding habits - because it has been indicated that some kinds of fish are not now breeding as well as they might - and feeding habits, which have a great deal to do with the matter.

Senator Ormonde:

– That is due to the credit squeeze.

Senator WADE:

– No, I do not think the credit squeeze has affected the waters of the Pacific Ocean at all. These are the facts of life in relation to the fishing industry. I am sure that the decision to establish the Fisheries Council will meet at least some of the points that Senator Vincent has raised. At this stage, it would be premature to forecast the lines along which the activities of the council will move. I have no doubt, however, that the problems of the industry are in good hands. We shall await with interest the results of the council’s work.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- Obviously, one of the tasks of the Department of Primary Industry is to examine and conduct research into matters concerned with the welfare of our primary industries. I hope that the amounts shown in the estimates for the department do not represent all that the Australian Government is doing in the way of research and inquiry into the problems of our primary industries. I should like information on that point. If we disregarded the items of expenditure which relate to travelling allowances, subsistence, postage, and so on, we could come to the conclusion that we are spending on research and inquiry into our primary industries only about £800,000 or £900,000 a year. That is a miserly sum in compari son with the immense returns that we receive from those industries.

Senator Wright:

– We have to add to that the expenditure on the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Senator McMANUS:

– We may have to add to it. Nevertheless, I should like information on the mater. The sums that are shown in the estimates for the department appear to be very small, and not commensurate with the returns that we get from our primary industries. I make no apology for saying that I think we have gone overboard with secondary industries in the last ten years and we are a little over-inclined to say that the primary industries are so prosperous that they can look after themselves.

Senator Wright:

– Prosperous?

Senator McMANUS:

– Yes. We have spent a lot of money and attention on the development of our secondary industries and we have been a little inclined to allow the other industries to look after themselves. The sum proposed for fisheries services is so small as to be laughable. This is an island continent. Other countries send fishing vessels thousands of miles to our shores to reap big harvests of fish. We in this country, as Senator Vincent said, are poorly supplied with fish and the fish with which we are supplied is very highly priced indeed. Apart from the “ Fisheries Newsletter “, we are spending on fishery services £10,000. I cannot help wondering what it is that is preventing us from taking some action to develop our fisheries services properly. When the assets of the Australian Whaling Commission were sold some time ago, we were told that the receipts from the sale would be put into a fund to be administered by a committee for the purposes of the fishing industry. Some Australians who had ideas about developing some of our fisheries, including the crayfish industry, told me that they had made inquiries to see whether money would be available from that fund for developmental purposes and had been informed that no money was available. So far as I could make out from the last balance sheet of that trust fund, virtually the only money spent had been that expended on the vessel to which Senator Laught referred. It appeared to me that the people on that committee were not particularly active or else they were being impeded in some way in doing anything real to develop our fisheries.

We hear a lot of talk about the need fo; good foodstuffs and the need io develop our primary industries. Here is a primary industry that is almost entirely undeveloped, on which we are spending a paltry, miserable sum of £10,000. Even the trust fund established from receipts from the sale of our whaling industry seems to be in a moribund state. I regret that Australia is not doing more research to assist her primary industries. One industry that is obviously not being given one-tenth of the attention it deserves is the fishing industry. Activity in regard to that industry is moribund. When we consider the returns that other countries are getting from fisheries, it is clear that Australia is throwing away tremendous possibilities.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– In relation to Division No. 355, I refer to the Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry and to tobacco research. With due deference, I re-submit to the Minister the questions I asked relating to buyers’ rings in wool marketing, and research into tobacco buying and marketing.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that in relation to Division No. 355 I asked a question concerning pearl shell survey. I do not know whether he overlooked it, but he has not yet given an answer.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise to refer to two or three matters, but at the outset I should like to underline what Senator Vincent and Senator McManus have said with regard to fisheries. In doing so, I pay tribute to the persistent efforts that our colleague, Senator Kendall, has made to develop the fishing industry as a primary industry. The debate will be the poorer if we do not hear a comment from him before the proposed expenditure is noted. Can the Minister obtain from his officers figures showing the imports of fish over the last five years? I relate that matter to the need to get on with fisheries development along the lines mentioned by Senator Vincent.

Division No. 359 relates to the proposed vote for the Division of Agricultural Economics. I am happy to be able to say without qualification that I have the utmost appreciation of the work of this division. The services that it gives personally and through its periodicals are most valuable to the Parliament, the farming community and the public generally. In the first place, we should remind ourselves that, contrary to a good deal of propaganda that has been forthcoming on the European Common Market, this division of the Department of Primary Industry has, for the last three or four years, been producing forceful articles on the impact of that development on Australian primary industries. They are most comprehensive and penetrating articles.

From the point of view of keeping our rural industries in proper perspective, the division’s “ Quarterly Review of Agricultural Economics “ is invaluable. It would not be out of place to remind ourselves of the opening statement in its article on the estimates for 1960-61, in which it is stated that the aggregate volume of production of Australian rural industry in 1960-61 was estimated to be 6 per cent, above that of the previous year and 3 per cent, higher than ever before. However, the gross value of production was expected to rise only by li per cent, to £1,345,000,000 and the net farm income to fall by more than 4 per cent. The article goes on to give a very short statement on volume of production and value of rural production and exports. This shows in graphic form, not something that can properly be referred to as prosperity such as Senator McManus mentioned, but rather a dwindling return such as to bring most of these industries to the cost line. Net income, except from larger properties, has to a great extent ceased to exist. This is illustrated by the fact that although rural production increased from an index number of 122 in 1953-54 to an index number of 154 in 1960-61, the gross value increased from £1,160,000,000 to only £1,345,000,000. Although the volume of exports of rural origin increased from an index number of 116 in 1953-54 to an index number of 155 in 1960-61, the value f.o.b. of those exports fell from £687,000,000 to £684,000,000. With the concurrence of honorable senators I incorporate the following table in “ Hansard “: -

1 should like the Minister to tell honorable senators just what is being done in relation to our primary industries. Will the Minister say what proposals concerning the dairying industry are being put forward in connexion with negotiations on the European Common Market.

The Division of Agricultural Economics has revealed that in 1957-58 the tobacco crop exceeded 10,000,000 lb. By 1959-60, production had exceeded 20,000,000 lb., and the estimate for this year is about 31,000,000 lb. Tobacco production is increasing at the rate of about 10,000,000 lb. a year. We have been told of the marketing problems for tobacco. May we have the department’s analysis of the troubles that beset the tobacco industry?

When may we expect the report of the committee inquiring into the wool industry? What are the four or five basic problems to which the committee is particularly directing its attention?

Finally, may I have an assurance that the work of the Division of Agricultural Economics is fully utilized by the Department of Labour and National Service each year when the important process of assessing the basic wage is undertaken? I believe that the chief deficiency of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is that it fails to make a proper assessment of the economics of the agricultural industries. Tn view of the wealth of information available from the Division of Agricultural Economics I ask the Minister to ensure that the Department of Labour and National Service presents that information to the Arbitration Court so that it may fully understand the position.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Toohey sought information in relation to Division No. 355, sub-division 2, item 08, Pearl shell surveys. This year, £18,500 is to be appropriated for this purpose, compared with an appropriation last year of £20,000. The reason for the appropriation this year is that a survey is being made of the pearling beds in northern Australian waters. The estimate covers the balance of the 1961 charter, and the first stage of the 1962 charter, and the first stage of the 1962 charter, of the vessel “ Paxie “. The charter is on a calendaryear basis. Details of the item are -

That makes a total of £18,500.

Senator Toohey:

– Who benefits from the survey?

Senator WADE:

– The industry as a whole. Anything that benefits an Australian industry benefits Australia. T think Senator Toohey will concede that.

Senator McManus has sought information concerning the amount spent by Australia on research into the requirements of our agricultural industries. Senator Wright claimed that in his opinion sufficient money is not being spent on research into the problems affecting our agricultural industries. In 1960-61. a total of £2,630,925 was provided-

Senator Vincent:

– Is that exclusive of amounts spent by the States?

Senator WADE:

– Yes. It may be argued that that amount is sufficient or that it is insufficient. Australia is such a vast country that there is no limit to the amount of money that could be spent on research into our primary industries, provided we have the funds. I will give a break-up of the amount being spent on research. The Commonwealth has contributed £980,000 towards research into the wool industry. In addition, the industry provided £490,000. making a total of £1,470,000. The Government’s contribution to the wheat industry for research purposes was £200,000. A similar contribution was made by the industry itself. The dairying industry received £100,000 from the Government. The industry itself provided £130,000. The beef industry received £50,000 from the Commonwealth, and the industry itself provided £250,000. The tobacco industry received £25,000 from the Commonwealth. The industry itself contributed £187,000.

Senator Wright:

– Apparently those figures do not include amounts spent on research into rural industries by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Is that so?

Senator WADE:

– Some of the amounts include expenditure undertaken by the C.S.I.R.O., and some do not. In most cases they do not.

Senator Wright:

asked what was being done to develop the fishing industry. Senator McManus also sought information on that subject. The honorable senators claimed, perhaps with some justification, that the amount provided in the Estimates is not sufficient to meet the needs of the industry. It may be that several factors have highlighted the needs of the industry. Over the last decade or so our population has increased enormously. It is true that a percentage of the persons who account for that increase have for generations been fish eaters. There is a great demand for our fish. That is one factor that contributes to the problem. From the little I know of the industry I am aware that the industry faces great technical problems associated with the breeding and feeding of fish in our waters. All I can do is repeat that the States and the Commonwealth realize the need to take some positive action to solve the problems confronting the industry. They have set up a council. Whether the sum that has been provided in the Estimates will prove to be adequate is a moot point. I suggest that the amount that has been set aside is a starting point. I am sure that as the need for assistance is made known the Government will meet that need to the best of its ability. I think all of us hope that an investigation into the problems confronting the industry will produce worthwhile results.

Senator Wright:

asked what the Government was doing to safeguard the interests of the dairying industry from the effects of the European Common Market. I cannot comment on that matter except to say that I know that two of the most able negotiators from the Department of Primary Industry are raising their voices in the negotiations on the European Common Market. I do not think that our interests could be in better hands.

Senator Wright:

– My inquiry was. directed to the problem that the European, production of butter seems to be sufficient, for local requirements.

Senator WADE:

– That may well be so.. I take it that your suggestion is that our objective must be to obtain other markets.. On that count, I would say that we must solve our problems in relation to the European Common Market before we finally cut the painter with the United Kingdom.

Senator Wright also highlighted the fact that the production of tobacco in Australia had soared to some 31,000,000 lb. over the last four years. I make bold to say that that may well be one of the reasons for some of the problems with which the industry is now confronted. I know so little about the tobacco industry that I cannot speak with authority. But there are some things I do know. I know that climate plays a vital part in the production of saleable and usable leaf. I know, too, that the soil in which the plant is grown has a vital influence on the kind of leaf produced. Because the Government has adopted the policy of stepping up the content of Australian leaf in the finished product, growers have seized upon the opportunity to increase their plantings with little regard to the type and quality of leaf they intend to produce. The Commonwealth Government has no jurisdiction over the restriction of plantings in the States. That is a matter which the State governments will have to face up to if the overall problem is not to be accentuated.

Senator Hannaford:

– Do you say that over-production is part of the problem?

Senator WADE:

– I would say that it is not so much a matter of over-production as it is a matter of over-production of unusable leaf. Members of the committee of inquiry which has been appointed by the

Government to examine all the leaf for which no bid was received are unanimous about the fact that a significant proportion of that leaf is unusable. I point out that the committee consists of representatives of the manufacturers, growers and the brokers. The industry has been expanding in areas and climates which have not been conducive to the production of the kind of leaf that is required. This Government is hopeful - indeed, it is confident - that when the two committees which are operating throughout the States finally draw their conclusions, the State governments will accept their responsibility in relation to plantings. This Government will accept its responsibility. It is hoped that together they will be able to place the industry on a much sounder basis.

Senator Wright:

asked when the Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry could be expected to present its report. I have no specific information, but I understand that it will do so early in the new year.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– I address my remarks to the proposed expenditure on fisheries services, for which provision is made under Division No. 355. I should like to know whether the problem which confronts us is that there are not sufficient fish in the sea or whether it has to do with increasing the birth-rate of the fish.

Senator Wade:

– I am all for increasing the birth-rate.

Senator ORMONDE:

– If there are insufficient fish in the sea, I do not see how we can get sufficient there. An equally great problem is that of increasing the birthrate of fish. I have spoken to fishermen on the north coast of New South Wales who probably catch their quota of fish, but I have been left with the impression that it is a poor man’s industry. I ask the Minister what is the nature of the research that is being conducted in the fishing industry.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– I, too, relate my remarks to the proposed expenditure on fisheries services. I refer to an answer that was given to a -question asked earlier in the afternoon about the fishing craft “ Southern Endeavour “, which is at present in South Australian waters. Did the Minister say that up to this point of time the vessel had not been sold? I am wondering whether he can assure honorable senators that, if the vessel is sold to some outside organization, one of the terms of sale will be that it must remain in South Australian waters. The fishing industry of South Australia is making a substantial contribution to our overseas balances. >The sale of crayfish is producing a substantia] income. It would be a tragedy if this vessel were to be sold to private enterprise and taken away from South Australia to be used in another State or even in some other country.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Ormonde and other honorable senators have raised the matter of research into fisheries. The discussion has reached the stage where I am obliged to rely on technical advice. To that end, 1 make the following contribution to the debate: Waters in the Southern Hemisphere generally are not as rich in fish as are Northern Hemisphere waters. Some Australian waters are not rich in fish. The Fisheries Division and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization are engaged in oceanographic and biological research which is directed mainly to an evaluation of fishing resources. Some State departments are engaged in scientific research. The Fisheries Division is beginning a programme of economic research into fisheries. Research has shown that the major Australian fisheries can be sustained and that there is scope for development in certain sections of the industry, such as tuna-fishing.

Senator Drury:

asked for further information about the sale of the “Southern Endeavour”. I repeat that that trawler has not been sold up to now. He also asked whether one of the terms of sale could be that the vessel remain in South Australian waters. I suggest that it would be very difficult to write into the contract of sale for such a vessel any term restricting its use to a certain section of the coastline. I remind the honorable senator of the undertaking that I gave Senator Laught - that I would bring to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, the very strong case that Senator Laught made for the retention of the “Southern Endeavour” in South Australian waters. Senator Drury has stated his support for that contention. I will impress upon the Minister the support that is coming forward for the retention of the vessel in South Australian waters.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– I am pushed into this debate by the fact that so many of my colleagues have spoken about the “ Southern Endeavour “. Fisheries research was dear to my heart, although recently I have more or less given it away because 1 did not think I was getting anywhere. I was very interested in the Minister’s remark that this amount of £10,000, which has been allocated for fishery surveys this year, is a good starting point. As last year’s allocation was £12,000, all I can say is that we are starting to go backwards again. This appropriation is ludicrous in comparison with what is done in other countries. As my friend, Mr. Setter, the Director of the Fisheries Division, knows, it must take a great deal of keenness on his part for him to carry on without the encouragement from the Government to which he is entitled, but which he does not receive.

As some of my colleagues will remember, it took me five years of almost constant speaking in this chamber, going to the Minister time and time again, and forming a federal body, which cost me £150 of my own money, to get something done for the fishermen of Australia. All I managed to have done was to have fishing proclaimed as a primary industry. That made a difference, because fishermen now receive various benefits which other primary producers receive, such as averaging under the income tax law.

Canada spends about 10,000,000 dollars -not 10,000 dollars - a year in this field, and has about fourteen large and small ships doing survey work, pure and simple. It has an extension service at the Brunswick University, which costs about 78,000 dollars a year, and to which fishermen may go. The United States of America has about ten ships of various types, from the tuna clipper that costs about £350,000, to the smaller estuary vessels. Those ships are working in that country in the interests of the science of fisheries. Great Britain has not only ten or twelve vessels on survey work, but also the tenth minesweeper flotilla to keep the fishermen out of trouble. In all the more central fishing ports, from Yarmouth, Hull and Grimsby right around to Brixton on the south coast, there are meeting places for the fishermen where films are shown of new types of nets, where lectures are given, and where instructions are given for the stopping of over-fishing. Even in South Africa and New Guinea small ships are doing nothing but survey work.

When the Nor’ West Whaling Company Limited was sold, and there was money to be used, I was in great heart. I thought that we were really going to get somewhere. For twelve months I have watched the activities of the “ Southern Endeavour “, which cost about £350,000. One of the things for which I asked time and time again was long-term loans to fishermen. At the end of the war our fishing fleets were in a bad way. The fishermen themselves had left the industry and, obviously, it was going to be quite a hard job for them to get the fishing industry back to the position in which it was before the war. Their vessels were out of date. They had been used by the three services. I was hoping that long-term loans would be available to fishermen, as they are in Canada, the United States of America and Great Britain. Such loans would have enabled the fishermen to repair their vessels and engines, and to do anything else that they wanted to do. I hoped that the loans would be provided from the £800,000 that came from the sale of the Nor’ West Whaling Company.

I am not quite sure of this statement, but it is as near as I can get to the facts. So many fishermen applied for long-term loans that it was decided not to give anybody a loan. To my way of thinking, that was an extraordinary way of handling the matter. Nevertheless, I think that statement is pretty true. This miserable £10,000 that is appropriated for this year will not go anywhere.

I refer now to the setting up of the new council. I spoke to the appropriate Minister from my State after he had attended the conference here in Canberra. I asked him whether it would help in any way if I gave him a precis of the notes that I had collected over about five years of studying this problem. His reply was: “ Oh, yes, you might send it in. I do not suppose that I will have time to look at it; but still, send it in.” That was not very encouraging. It does not give me the impression that this new council will get very far if the Ministers from the other States are so busy that they have to adopt the same attitude as the Queensland Minister has adopted.

I rose to say that this year’s appropriation is not encouraging to the department, and certainly is not a step forward. As I said hear the beginning of my remarks, it is a step backwards of £2,000. Instead of the appropriation being £10,000, it should be something like £100,000. That amount will have to be provided before we are likely to get anywhere and have real research into fisheries. The Japanese know more about the Coral Sea than we do, as far as fisheries are concerned. The position will remain that way until the Government really lets its head go, puts up more money and takes more interest in this subject. In the meantime, we shall go on importing at least half of the fish that we require for consumption in Australia.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

.- Will the Minister answer the question that I and Senator Wright put to him - namely, what is the value of fish imported into Australia over the last year or so, or perhaps the last five years? I should like that figure to be given. Also, if the Minister can give them, I should like some figures showing what proportion of the fish consumed is imported from overseas. Finally can the Minister tell the committee what has happened to the proceeds of the sale of the Nor’ West Whaling Company Limited, to which some reference has been made this afternoon? It has been suggested that that money should be utilized for fisheries research. Can the Minister tell us what has happened to that money?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Vincent has asked for the value of fish imported into Australia. 1 understand that imports amount to about £4,000,000 a year, or about 50 per cent, of the total Australian consumption. Let us be quite frank with ourselves about the fishing industry. A great deal has been said in criticism of the Government because there is a shortage of fish. Generally, that is a statement of fact; but I defy any honorable senator to stand up in his place and say that he has gone into a recognized fish shop in an established town and been refused a meal of fish because it was in short supply. 1 concede quite readily that with our growing population and diminishing fish resources the Government has an obligation to do what it can to solve this problem. In its wisdom, the Commonwealth Government, in collaboration with the States, has established a council which, I believe, despite the rather uninterested approach to his responsibilities by the Queensland Minister, will be able to do a very worth-while and very necessary job in ensuring supplies of fish for the Australian people and reducing our annual expenditure on imports of fish by at least a portion of the £4,000,000 that we spend now.

Senator Vincent:

asked for information about the proceeds of the sale of the whaling station. I understand that the proceeds of that sale were paid into a trust account and that at 30th June, 1961, the account showed a credit balance of £436,670.

Senator Vincent:

– Can you tell us what will be done with that money?

Senator WADE:

– Not being the Minister for Primary Industry, I am not in a position to answer that question now, but I give the undertaking that I will confer with my colleague, find out his ideas on that subject, and let the honorable senator know of them.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I understand that a large part of the proceeds of the sale of the whaling station was used to form a company to undertake trawling operations in the Great Australian Bight. I understand also that that company has become bankrupt or insolvent, whatever is the appropriate word. I remember that the Government said that if the company was a success, it would be disposed of to private enterprise, and that if it made a loss, that loss would be borne by the taxpayers. The company has gone broke, as I understand, and I am wondering whether the Minister can give us an idea of how much money will be received from the sale of its assets. I said at one time that if the company failed, it would be a total loss to the Government, but Senator Kendall corrected me - I accepted the correction at that time - and said that the sale of boats and other assets would bring in a substantial amount of money. Can the

Minister give me any information about that? I should also like to know how much money the Government put into this abortive business.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

. -I do not pretend to be fully informed on this matter. The information I have is that loans to the Southern Trawling Company Limited, which is fully owned by the Commonwealth, total £120,000. I understand that the trawler that we have discussed this afternoon was a part of the company’s equipment and that, as yet, it has not been sold. I do not think there is anything else that I can say at present on that matter.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Proposed expenditure - Department of Primary Industry - Capital Works and Services, £7,000 - noted.

Bounties and Subsidies - Department of Primary Industry - Dairy Products

Proposed expenditure, £13,500,000.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I direct attention to the item relating to wheat industry stabilization, under which an appropriation of £13,022,000 is sought.I wonder whether the Minister has at his command a statement showing all the transactions carried out this year that have required the Australian Wheat Board to call on the Government for a subsidy of that magnitude. Will the subsidy take the form of an advance to wheat-growers in anticipation of recovery when sales are made, or will it take the form of a straightout payment to the board, the money then being distributed to the growers and never recovered? The wheat stabilization scheme has thrown up for the first time the need for a subsidy, and the committee will agree that £13,000,000, the amount sought, is a sizeable amount. It is asked for in a year of record crops and, I believe, of record sales. As a background, I should like to be told, if the Minister has the information at his command, whether the subsidy takes the form of an advance to wheat-growers or of a straight-out payment to the board. I should also like to know the circumstances that necessitate the payment of a subsidy this year.

Perhaps the Minister would permit me to make one other comment. We are all taking a very keen interest in the sales of wheat by the board to Communist China. I follow these matters with such powers of understanding as I have, and very rarely do I voice complaints until I have seen that responsible opinion confirms my anxiety. I was disquieted theother day when I learned that the Export Payments Insurance Corporation had refused to stand behind the outstanding liability of the board in respect of the sales to Communist China.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKellar:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I point out, Senator Wright, that we are dealing only with Division No. 661, which relates to dairy products.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Am I wrong in raising the question of wheat at this stage?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-I think you are. Division No. 661 relates only to dairy products.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Senator Hannaford:

– To give Senator Wright an opportunity to continue his remarks on the subject of wheat industry stabilization–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! We are not dealing with that now. That division has already been considered.

Senator Wright:

– I was permitted to submit those remarks when we were under the impression, Mr. Temporary Chairman, that you had called on for consideration the list of bounties and subsidies set out on page 105. You directed my attention to the fact that the item under consideration related only to a subsidy in respect of dairy products. Then you put the question and declared that the proposed expenditure for that purpose had been noted. I believe that quite a few honorable senators are interested in the subsidy for dairy products. I am interested in it myself. I hope that you will not consider that item as having been dealt with, because I want to make a brief reference to it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– It has been dealt with. The motion for the noting of the proposed expenditure was put and carried.

Senator Wright:

– If you insist that the item has been disposed of, I must protest. I protest very strongly against your having put the question on an item such as that before the members of the committee had had time to take it into their understanding. If necessary, I shall ask that the item be recommitted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– If you wish, you can ask for leave of the committee for that to be done.

Senator Wright:

– I ask for leave to have the item recommitted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted? As no one objects, I declare that leave is granted. The item will be recommitted.

Bounties and Subsidies - Department of Primary Industry - Dairy Products

Proposed expenditure £13,500,000.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- The McCarthy report relating to the continuance of this subsidy has been in our possession now for about six months. I rise in an endeavour to get a clear understanding of the obligations that this Parliament has to the dairy industry at present. I know that, under present arrangements, the subsidy will continue until June of next year.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Before the suspension of the. sitting I was referring to the proposed vote for the subsidy of £13,500,000 for the dairy industry. I think it is proper to ask the committee to consider the implications of the McCarthy committee’s report in relation to the continuance of this subsidy. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the committee, after a very full investigation of the industry, reported in August, 1960, that a rather different attitude should be adopted to the dairy industry in the next decade from that which has been adopted in the past, and that a period of ten years should be set aside for a programme of what the committee called rehabilitation. This meant that a transition period should take place, commencing in the present year with the subsidy of £13,500,000 we are now voting, the subsidy continuing at that amount until 1963-64, and then reducing over a period from 1964-65 to 1969-70 from £13,500,000 to £2,000,000.

The committee, considering the interests of the productivity of the industry, suggested that the. money be devoted not to a consumer subsidy as the present subsidy is but to the eradication of disease and the assistance of factors in the industry that would promote production. We are all interested in the idea of the elimination of subsidies as such, but there are two factors that I want to bring before the committee to-night which I think should receive the urgent consideration of the Minister and the Cabinet before these recommendations are adopted. The first matter I wish to bring before the committee is that in this industry, as in agricultural industries generally, the net farm income has become, relative to other sectors of the Australian economy, so low that it is doubtful whether it is wise politics to dispense with a consumer subsidy in the circumstances. In fact, we have reached the stage where the dairy industry requires the support not only of a subsidy of a consumer nature but also of a more generalized subsidy.

The second thing that I think requires the most earnest consideration before this report is adopted is the probable impact of the European Common Market proposal, not upon primary industries generally in Australia, but particularly upon the dairy industry, which will be difficult to sustain if European economic unity is achieved. I ask the Minister, therefore, if he will be good enough to tell the committee what the Government’s obligations to this industry are. Will he assure the industry that until June, 1962, the subsidy is assured, and that even if the McCarthy committee’s proposals are adopted there will be no diminution of the subsidy before 1963-64. I am quite sure that the Government has obligated itself to the industry to a continuance of the subsidy for that period, but I ask the Minister if he would be good enough when replying to these comments to state that there is no doubt as to the continuance of the subsidy at least for that period.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– I think Senator Wright will readily agree that the matters to which he has referred are to some extent bound up with Government policy. Therefore, in as few words as possible, I shall enunciate Government policy and set out the position as it is to-day. What I am about to read is taken from a statement issued by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann). He said -

The Government at the outset wishes to express its appreciation of the great value of dairying in Australia, and in accordance with its longstanding policy on the stabilisation and maintenance of Australian industries, it intends to preserve the dairy industry, and to improve to the extent practicable its economic stability.

The Government has an agreement with the State governments and the dairy industry which runs until 30th June, 1962. On 9th March last the Minister for Primary Industry announced the Government’s intention to complete this agreement, and details of subsidy and pricing were subsequently announced by the Minister on 23rd June last. The substance of this announcement was that the Government would maintain the subsidy at £13,500,000 for the final year of the stabilization agreement - the sixth year in which the subsidy has been paid at this level - and that butter and cheese prices in Australia would remain unchanged during 1961-62.

It is anticipated that negotiations with the States and the industry on a further five years stabilization agreement from 1st luly, 1962, will commence early in the new year, as also will discussions with the States on reconstruction measures for the industry, and other matters raised by the Dairy Industry Committee of Enquiry in its report. That is where the matter stands to-day.

Proposed expenditure noted.

War and Repatriation Services - Department of Primary Industry. War Service Land Settlement.

Proposed expenditure, £1,500,000.

Re-establishment Loans for Agricultural Occupations.

Proposed expenditure, £45,000.

Rural Training.

Proposed expenditure, £1,000.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– 1 refer to Division No. 682 - War Service Land Settlement, item 01, Financial assistance to States in connexion with war service land settlement. Could the Minister tell honorable senators just how this money is being allotted at the present time. The appropriation last year was £1,500,000 and the expenditure was £1,642,942. The appropriation this year is £1,500,000. Can the Minister explain why less is being appropriated this year than was spent last year and can he also explain how this money is being distributed?

Senator WADE:
Minister foi Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Drury has asked for detailed information concerning the allocation this year of £1,500,000 shown in the estimates for the department. Provision is being made for Commonwealth contributions as follows: -

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– In referring to Division No. 682, I wish to raise with the Minister problems affecting war service land settlement in Western Australia. My remarks are concerned particularly with the war service land settlement schemes in the areas known as Rocky Gully and Mount Many Peaks, in the southern part of the State. Mount Many Peaks is not far from the city of Albany. I do not intend to develop an argument on the matter at this stage because I do not think it is necessary to do so, but I propose to state briefly the situation in which the settlers find themselves. Most of the properties are gradually reaching the stage at which they will be fully developed. There is a belief current in the district, and held by many of the settlers, either that the properties have not sufficient carrying capacity or that the planned area under developed pasture, of approximately 600 acres, is not sufficient. In other words, the settlers believe that the planned area of pasture should be more than 600 acres, and that something should be done to enable them to run a greater number of sheep. The number of sheep that can be carried at present is not economic, having regard to present prices and costs of production.

Having said that, I wish to refer to the corollary of that position; that is to say, the problem that will face the settlers in the future. Most of them have been on their properties for some years. Many of these settlers, who are men of a good type, are getting on in years. They have growing families and are concerned about the prices that ultimately will be charged for the properties, or the ultimate rental value, as the case may be. Therefore, they are concerned about their equity in the properties, and that, of course, is related to economic value and carrying capacity.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann), who is in charge of war service land settlement, visited Western Australia earlier this year and, in company with Senator Drake-Brockman and me, spent a most interesting few days in that area discussing the projects with the settlers there. Their case was put to the Minister at that time. I am interested to know whether he has had an opportunity to review the matter, and whether he has arrived at any conclusions. I should also like to know whether he agrees that the problem as presented by the settlers in fact exists and, if so, how he thinks it might be solved. I assure the Minister that in the minds of the settlers they have a genuine difficulty. There are other minor problems which are not relevant at this stage. Basically, the matter is one of economics. I should be grateful if the Minister would state the views that the Government may have about the difficulties of these men who are doing such a fine job.

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

– I am interested in the matter raised by Senator Vincent. I assure him that the problem does not apply only to Western Australia. The settlers who have been on properties for some years are now beginning to look to their security. When the. areas were subdivided originally, the acreage allowed to each settler was considered to be adequate to enable him to maintain a reasonable standard of living. However, with the reduction of prices that has occurred, the need has arisen either to increase the area or to increase the carrying capacity to enable the settler to derive a reasonable return.

Senator Vincent:

– To which area is the Minister referring?

Senator HENTY:

– I am referring particularly to the war service land settlement farms on King Island, which I recently visited with Senator Lillico. Those settlers face the costly task of coping with the regrowth of rushes and other problems.

I think that the problem, by and large, involves economic security. It is more than fifteen years since World War II. ended, and I think it is fair for soldier settlers to ask about the position of their holdings and the amounts that they will have to pay either by way of permanent rental or purchase price. I am not by any means levelling any criticism in this matter. I am simply stating the view that we should let these men know where they stand. I wonder whether the Minister has any information he can give the committee as to the possibility of dealing with these properties on the basis of an economic rental or a purchase price which would enable the soldier settlers to make a reasonable living and to know where they stood. As Senator Vincent said, there are some very fine men on these properties. They have devoted a lot of time and hard work to improving the properties. There are some very fine soldier settlement areas in Tasmania, but wherever one goes the same problem arises. These people want to know where they stand. They want some sense of security. I was impressed by what Senator Vincent said on this most interesting matter.

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER (Queensland) [8.21].- 1 refer to Division No. 684 - Rural Training. Very small amounts are proposed to be provided. Do these relate merely to a matter of cleaning up training? Division No. 685 relates to technical training. Will the Minister say how many persons are taking advantage of that training at present? It is proposed that £154,000 be provided for the purpose this year.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

.- 1 rise to support Senator Henty’s statement on soldier settlement. Some time ago he and I visited King Island in Bass Strait, where there are about 138 soldier settlers. We came away with the impression that most of these people were up against an impossible task in meeting their commitments. The Minister referred to the problem of regrowth. The areas were faultily cleared in the first place. This was ti-tree country. Most of the land was just turned over without being worked very much. Grass was sown, and ti-tree growth has come up with the grass. The department has spent a good deal of money in trying to eradicate that ti-tree growth. We found that these settlers have no possible chance of meeting their commitments. 1 believe that their case is urgent and that something should be done.

About ten years ago a committee of the State Parliament, which included at least three men who had had much experience in land development, after an investigation recommended that the blocks be let to the settlers at a fair rental. The position must be faced. The sooner it is faced, the better it will be. It is now sixteen years since the war ended. Some years .after World War I. there had to be a writing-down of values. This action is long overdue in respect of King Island. If these men are to stay on their properties with the security of which Senator Henty spoke, there must be a substantial writing-down. I hope that the Minister will take notice of the comments that have been made.

During the last twelve months the price of beef in Tasmania has fallen, probably by 35 or 40 per cent. The same position applies to King Island. It costs the settlers there approximately one-third of the price of a lamb to export it to the Melbourne market. I know that the State Government is involved. With the decline in primary production, if there is to be any resurgence amongst these settlers, their commitments must be substantially written down and they must be placed on a new basis. 1 believe that a reasonable basis would be that which was recommended by the committee ten years ago.

Senator Mattner:

– What is the acreage of the holdings?

Senator LILLICO:

– From memory, about 200 acres for a dairy property and upwards of 600 acres for a sheep property. Most of it is borderline country, which the early settlers on the island did not bother about. They did not think that it was good enough to bother about. With the conclusion of the war, the department took it in hand, developed it to a certain extent, and placed soldier settlers on it. It cannot be over-emphasized that under existing conditions they have no earthly chance of meeting their commitments.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I think that every honorable senator would agree with the statements made by Senator Henty and Senator Lillico. Most of the people who were put on the land under this scheme were settled by the States with advances made by the Commonwealth. In some States the system was different, but the advances were made by the Commonwealth. There are some fine settlements of returned people up on the River Murray in South Australia. With the co-operation of the Commonwealth and the State, they have made a magnificent job of settling there, growing dried fruits and grapes. But to-day these people cannot meet their commitments. Only on very rare occasions is this because of being unable to produce the commodities from the land. That might be the position on King Island and in some other fringe areas, but it is not the case with these people on the River Murray. 1 think that the Commonwealth Government is to blame. I was pleased to hear Government supporters criticize the Government for its handling of soldier settlement. The Government has created difficulties for soldier settlers by its handling of the economy. The soldier settlers are producing goods for which they cannot find markets. Senator Lillico pointed out how costly it was to send goods from King Island to the Melbourne market. The same problem confronts all settlers. Many ex-servicemen have been settled on wheat-growing land. The amount of wheat grown to-day is much greater than was grown ten or fifteen years ago. Senator Wright compared production in 1954 with production in 1959, and pointed out that although production had increased, less money was going into the pockets of the producers. That is the position in which the soldier settler finds himself to-day. His problem is not solely one of being on fringe land. His problem is accentuated by the state of the economy. The Government’s credit squeeze has affected him detrimentally. Many settlers are unable to obtain overdrafts from the banks in order to buy necessary equipment for their properties. They are forced to seek finance from the hire-purchase companies, but they must pay high rates of interest on whatever money they obtain. They are worse off now than ever before. A searching inquiry should be made into the problems confronting soldier settlers. Representation on any committee set up to inquire into this matter should not be limited to members of the Government parties. It should be an all-party committee. The committee should inquire thoroughly into the position of soldier settlers in order to see whether legislation should be introduced to relieve their plight.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– There is no simple solution to the problem mentioned by Senator Vincent, I think it will be conceded that the land settlement schemes operated by the Commonwealth and the States after the Second World War compare more than favorably with the schemes that were introduced after the First World War. An essential ingredient of the schemes put into operation after the Second World War was that a reasonable living area should be made available to the settler. That precaution was not taken in the schemes that operated after the First World War, with the melancholy result that many returned servicemen were obliged to walk off their properties because they did not have a reasonable living area. But those who remained on the land ultimately were able to increase their holdings to a reasonable size. The problem mentioned by Senator Vincent cannot be solved by increasing the size of the allotments now held because most of them are in well developed areas, and are producing. With the passage of time the settler is forced to look further afield. I suggest that Senator Vincent discuss with the Western Australian Government the closer settlement scheme now being developed in Victoria by the Victorian Government on the same lines as the soldier settlement scheme. When that scheme is finally under way, and is accommodating the land-hungry young men of the State at the same rate as the soldiers were settled, I believe that Senator Vincent will have a solution to his problem.

Senator Vincent:

– Of which area in Victoria does the Minister speak?

Senator WADE:

– The entire State is involved in a closer settlement scheme. The scheme is not confined to any one quarter. It is being developed wherever there is good rainfall and productive country. The scheme is proving successful.

Senator Henty raised matters concerning the final valuations placed on property. I remind him that the scheme was designed to allot farms to be developed to set standards. While development has been taking place it has been necessary to put settlers in occupation. I am informed that the valuations will be undertaken as early as possible.

Senator Lillico raised some matters concerning King Island. I shall be very happy to pass on his submissions to the Minister for Primary Industry. Science is playing a big part in developing what Senator Lillico referred to as marginal lands. The addition of lime and trace elements to the soil is making possible the growth of productive pastures where once it was impossible to get even a semblance of growth. I am informed that when the final valuation is made, costs will be written down to meet the economic requirements of the settlers involved.

Senator Lillico:

– Is not the State Government concerned in this also?

Senator WADE:

– Yes, Tasmania and Western Australia are agent States under the scheme. They act on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir Walter Cooper referred to rural training and asked why the estimate for 1961-62 had been reduced. We have only one trainee at present. Eligibility for rural training is limited to ex-servicemen from operations in Malaya. In other words, rural training has practically been completed.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I thank the Minister for his courtesy in endeavouring to answer the question that I put to him. I am well aware that this is a difficult matter. I am well aware that there may not be a short answer to it, particularly off the cuff in a debate such as this. I wish to say only one thing more about this matter, and I do not expect the Minister to deal with the aspect that I now raise. The problem of soldier settlement is complicated because the venture is a partnership between the Commonwealth, the State and the soldier settler. Nothing in this world is more frustrating to a participant in a scheme such as a soldier settlement scheme than to be told, when problems are raised, that the matter is not one coming within the scope of the Commonwealth; that it is a matter for the State. I know that at some point that must be done, but it should not be done to the settler. I feel that because the Commonwealth introduced this rehabilitation scheme of soldier settlement it has, despite the constitutional problems involved, a very strong moral responsibility to approach the States when something unfortunate happens. Something unfortunate is happening in Western Australia. The soldier settlers there are definitely not satisfied. They placed their problems fairly and squarely before the Minister for Primary Industry at Mount Barker some months ago. They put the position to him frankly and with no holds barred. They put to him four or five questions and problems. In all fairness, those questions should be answered. It would be a grave injustice if they were not answered fairly and squarely and those concerned were told to go elsewhere for an answer. Will the Minister for Air be courteous enough - I am sure he will be - to convey my remarks to the Minister for Primary Industry? Some time has elapsed since this problem was raised with the Minister. I repeat that in all fairness these very fine young men who are growing up - unfortunately, they are not so young now - are entitled to the courtesy of a reply.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Department of the Interior.

Proposed expenditure, £6,664,000.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I refer to the proposed expenditure on Commonwealth elections and referendums under Division No. 239 - Electoral Branch. I note that this year £420,000 has been allocated for this item, whereas the appropriation last year was £10,000. I am quite aware, of course, that this tremendous increase is due to the forthcoming general election on 9th December. I should like to know from the Minister for Air (Senator Wade) whether matters raised by me some time ago during the normal question-time of the Senate have been attended to. At that time I referred to the condition of lighting in the polling booths. I indicated that I had received a number of complaints about the lighting and about the fact that many elderly people whose sight was failing were experiencing difficulty in marking ballot-papers, especially in the late afternoon and early evening. Has the Minister been able to have an inspection made of all places where polling is likely to take place? Is he thoroughly satisfied that the lighting will be adequate at the next election?

I direct attention also to complaints I had received about the roughness of the ledges upon which voters had to place their ballot-paper to record their votes. Complaints had been made to me that the ledges were very old, that they were constructed of tongue-and-groove timber in which there were gaps and surface splinters. Can the Minister assure honorable senators that at the forthcoming general election voters will not be inconvenienced by having to rest their ballot-papers on ledges with rough surfaces?

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I relate my remarks to Division No. 239 - Electoral Branch, sub-division 2, items 05 and 06. I ask the Minister for Air whether any special preparations are in train to publicize the correct method of voting for the Senate. Every member of the Senate - in fact, every member of the Parliament - ‘knows that for years we have been complaining about the extraordinarily high number of informal votes which are recorded at Senate elections. I do not know of anything special having been done by the electoral authorities to try to remedy that situation. I ask whether they have anything in mind in an effort to remedy what is a very serious state of affairs. Large numbers of people now qualified to vote have come from countries where methods of voting are entirely different from ours. Those people have not been used to our system of voting, particularly in relation to the Senate. That is one reason for the very considerable number of informal votes that are recorded.

Senator Kendall:

– It is only one reason.

Senator McMANUS:

– It is one reason. Therefore, I strongly urge the Electoral Branch to consult authorities experienced in these matters about the best way to publicize the correct method of voting for the Senate. I strongly urge the branch to use the newspaper columns for advertising and particularly to use television to illustrate the method of voting. Also, I strongly urge the branch to examine the desirability - I am not altogether sure about this myself - of printing instructions in a number of languages to indicate the correct method of voting to migrants. I believe that if we seriously want to do away with the scandal of the large number of informal votes we must do something positive to instruct the people.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– In New South Wales at the last federal election 248,000 informal votes were cast. If another 10,000 such votes had been cast, we would have had an “ informal “ here as a senator. The number of informal votes cast was very nearly equal to the quota required for a candidate to be successful. That is a very serious state of affairs in a democracy. As Senator McManus has said, the Government should try to educate the people in the method of casting a formal vote. There are several reasons why informal votes are cast. One is that a Senate candidate has not the same personal appeal as a candidate for election to the House of Representatives. The personal appeal of a candidate for election to the House of Representatives has an effect on the voter, but the Senate vote is almost impersonal. The result is that people are not so careful about the manner in which they vote for Senate candidates. They do not think it is particularly important for them to cast a formal vote; so they do not try.

Moreover, on both sides of the political fence there is not the same party drive to ensure that formal votes are cast for the Senate as there is behind the campaign for candidates seeking election to the House of Representatives. Even in the experience of the Australian Labour Party, one can go into areas where a great campaign is being conducted on behalf of the candidate for the lower House but only a secondary interest is being taken in the Senate election.

Senator Toohey:

– Perhaps the Senate should be abolished.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I am not in favour of abolishing the Senate while 1 am a member of it. When I came into the Senate I was asked whether I was the youngest senator. I replied. “ Yes, in years of service”. I was then asked, “ What is your ambition?” And I answered, “ To become the oldest senator “. The abolition of the Senate is improbable. We of the Labour Party know that quite a few hurdles have to be surmounted before the Senate can be abolished. In the meantime we have to get the best possible vote for it. I believe that the same duty applies to the Liberal Party and, to an extent, to the Democratic Labour Party, although sometimes those parties have the advantage of being first on the ballot-paper. I believe that drawing for positions on the ballot-paper is a very good idea, lt is a pity that it could not be done in the House of Representatives elections. The Australian Labour Party would have a greater chance of winning then.

Senator McManus:

– That was not done in the 1930’s when the Labour Party had four New South Wales senators whose names started with the letter “ A “.

Senator ORMONDE:

– That may be so, but circumstances alter cases. We have not tried to repeat that. In certain dire circumstances, when political parties are fighting desperately to hold a position, they do that sort of thing; but in my view it is not the right thing to do.

I believe that in the interests of all parties we should do something to educate the people to cast a formal Senate vote. Liberal Party candidates are in the same position as Labour Party candidates. A Senate candidate has not the same kind of campaign behind him as a House of Representatives candidate has. Of course, the party machine puts out the publicity, but a Senate candidate still has to get the active support of the people in the branches and the districts who often have their interests centred in the House of Representatives candidate, and not always in the Senate team. Therefore, I believe that in all sections of a political campaign the inclination of all party machines is to forget the Senate.

I suggest that it is the duty of the Government to supply the funds and, as Senator McManus said, to develop a campaign, designed to get the largest possible formal vote for the Senate. It is scandalous that 248,000 people in New South Wales voted informally in a democratic system of government. I think the figures in the other States would show a similar proportion of informal votes. I see nothing wrong with the Government expending money to ensure the casting of formal votes. The Labour Party would be prepared, as it always is, to abide by the result. We think that every person should cherish the vote. Those people who do not cherish it enough to vote formally should be given some assistance if they are voting informally because of ignorance. I commend that idea to the Minister.

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER (Queensland) [8.53]. - I wish to ask the Minister a question on Division No. 233 - Real Estate Management, sub-division 2 - Administrative Expenses, item 03, Postage, telegrams and telephone services . Last year, the expenditure was £12,376. This year, the Government is budgeting for an expenditure of £37,100. I should like to know why the expenditure under this item has increased threefold.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Laught referred to a question that he asked in the Senate some time ago about conditions in polling booths. Lighting and writing desks were the matters that he mentioned, and I discussed them with the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth). The Minister informed me that in spite of the fact that there are many thousands of polling booths throughout Australia, some of which are in rather remote areas, he has laid down a standard which he thinks should meet the requirements that Senator Laught suggested. He did not go so far as to say that he could guarantee that in every instance satisfactory amenities were provided, but he did say that he was impressed with the points made by Senator Laught, and he will do his utmost to bring the amenities up to the level that he considers is necessary to meet the needs of the people.

Senator McManus and Senator Ormonde put up a rather novel suggestion, namely, that the Government should undertake a campaign of educating the people to avoid the casting of informal votes. Any thinking and responsible person deplores the high percentage of informal votes that is cast in this country. I might be so brave as to say that that could be a pretty sad commentary on our standards of education, or perhaps the political interest of the people. I am not at all impressed with the suggestion that the Government should undertake the responsibility of financing and organizing an education programme to reduce the number of informal votes.

Whilst I am prepared to concede that our political opponents, perhaps, are charitable in some respects, I feel that the

Senator O’Flaherty:

– In its own interests.

Government would be chided for undertaking the expenditure of public moneys to finance a campaign–

Senator WADE:

– Yes, in its own interests. Senator O’Flaherty said it and saved me the trouble.If the time ever comes when the present Opposition party is the government, it will then have an opportunity to put into operation the suggestion made by Senator Ormonde. But, at present, I certainly could not support the suggestion that the Government should expend public money to do the things that have been suggested.

I believe that all political parties have an obligation to do their utmost to see that informal voting is reduced to the absolutely irreducible minimum. That is the only way that we can get a true reflection of the thinking of the people. We have an obligation to do all that we possibly can to achieve that objective.

Senator Sir Walter Cooper sought information about the additional provision for postage, telegrams and telephone services under Division No. 233. In addition to the normal provision under that item, provision is also made for the salaries of telephonists on loan from the PostmasterGeneral’s Department - that is, an amount of £21,230 - and for initial installation costs in the Commonwealth Offices, Wharf-street. Brisbane. That is the explanation.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I enter this debate after having listened to the remarks of Senator McManus and Senator Ormonde, and to the Minister’s reply in regard to matters under Division No. 239, sub-division 2, item 06. I feel impelled to enter the debate very briefly because I do not accept the Minister’s contention that the basic reason for the informality of votes, which has become quite a problem in our electoral system to-day, stems almost solely from a lack of political education. I believe that that is a contributing cause, but perhaps we are overlooking the real cause. That is the complex nature of the ballot-paper itself.

Voting for the Senate is a formidable task even for anybody who has had a reasonable degree of political education. An elector has to vote for anything up to 26 candidates on a Senate ballot-paper, not necessarily consecutively, or in the order in which their names appear on the ballotpaper. I understand that that method has been termed by a newspaper reporter the “ donkey vote “ or the “ unthinking vote “. A person who wants to cast a vote, in accordance with his beliefs as to the proper order of the parties, on nearly every occasion has to start somewhere near the middle of the ballot-paper. There he votes for the team of his choice, the team which he hopes will be returned. Then, in order to follow his party’s requirements in respect of the remainder of the paper, having in mind the necessity for validity, he has to jump to another group and then back to another. That is a formidable task even for a person in full possession of his faculties and with all the political knowledge that is required.

In my view, political parties should not content themselves with placing the blame for informal votes on factors that are not basic to the problem. If we accept that it is a formidable task for a person at the height of his mental form, so to speak, to cast a formal vote, we must accept that it is a much more difficult task for old people and for people with poor sight, having regard to the ill-lit places in which votes are cast. We should be directing our thoughts to the question of voting reform. I did not know until recently that in the United States of America - a country which is a pioneer in many fields - a person can vote for a party by electing to do so, or may vote according to a series of ballots associated with State elections, as the Americans know them, or with the federal elections at which a president is chosen. In America, by electing to support the party for which he wishes to vote, a person can cast a valid vote without having to face the mental hazards and other hazards arising from the necessity to put consecutive numbers on a ballot-paper. I believe that we should be working along those lines rather than that we should be reflecting on the mental ability of people who cast informal votes.

Senator Wade:

– There was no reflection on their mental ability.

Senator TOOHEY:

– Then let me say that there was a reflection on their educational standards. I do not want to misquote the Minister. The problem could be solved to some extent by doing something which, unfortunately, is not done in most of our public schools. If lessons in electoral procedure were given to school children, when the children attained voting age they would perhaps be better equipped to avoid some of the pitfalls presented by our present voting system. However, the final solution to the problem will not be found in that.

Senator McCallum:

– That is a regular thing in New South Wales.

Senator TOOHEY:

– That is the practice in the schools in some States but, unfortunately, it is not, as it should be, the practice in the schools in all the States. However, as I have said, I do not think the final solution to the problem will be found in such lessons. I believe it will be found in voting reform. I suggest that we study the American system. I do not say that we should adopt that system in its entirety, but some aspects of it could well be considered by this Parliament. If we adopt the attitude that the casting of an informal vote is due only to a lack of political education, we shall not be grappling as we should with this vexed problem.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– For the Minister’s benefit, let me say that I shall relate my remarks to Division No. 239 - Electoral Branch. It is rather interesting to note that yesterday the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner) said that members of the Opposition, lazy and incompetent, wasted time during the last sessional period in discussing an electoral bill and that to-night a great amount of time is being devoted to a discussion of electoral matters.

When the electoral bill to which the Leader of the Government referred was being discussed, members of the Opposition tried to persuade the Government to agree that polling booths should be closed at 6 p.m., but the Government, acting completely unreasonably, irrationally and irresponsibly, would not accept that suggestion, nor would it agree that, if voting were to continue until 8 p.m., better lighting facilities should be provided in polling booths. I believe that inadequate lighting is responsible in no small measure for the fact that so many informal votes are cast.

I refer next to Division No. 233 - Real Estate Management. I ask the Minister: For what purposes will the sum of £334,000 that is sought be used?

Senator Wade:

– Will you state the number of the division to which you are referring?

Senator DITTMER:

– It is Division No. 233, on page 41. The first section of that division deals with salaries and payments in the nature of salary, for which £334,000 is sought. I ask: How much of that money will be paid to people who supervise the bridges that have been constructed or are being constructed in preparation for the lake that is to be provided for Canberra? What is visualized as the expenditure for that purpose this year? We are all aware of the real needs of Australia from the viewpoint of production.

The CHAIRMAN:
Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid

– Order! That matter will arise under the items to be considered next.

Senator DITTMER:

– I am asking how much of that money will be used to pay people who supervise that work.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! You can raise that matter at the appropriate time, which will be when the estimates for the capital works of the Department of the Interior are being considered.

Senator DITTMER:

– I will leave that subject now, Sir, but I will not forget it.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– Prompted by Senator Toohey’s very interesting contribution to the debate, I want to make brief reference to Division No. 239. I do not agree with Senator Toohey very often, but I find myself in complete agreement with him in his diagnosis on this occasion, and probably every one in the chamber is in agreement with him. I think that Senator Toohey really agreed with the Minister. They expressed themselves in different ways but they both agreed substantially on the causes of the problem presented by the great number of informal votes now cast. I believe that Senator Toohey will agree with me when I say that many informal votes are cast because of the emotional stress that an elector feels when going into a polling booth. I have been concerned with elections for many years, and I have come to the conclusion that there is a degree of emotional stress involved in casting a vote. Old ladies or, for that matter, many young ladies and people of the other sex become quite nervous in a polling booth. I believe that, in considering the problem of informal voting, we must start from there.

When you peruse the informal votes that have been cast you can come only to one conclusion, which is that a great many of them are due to honest mistakes made because people are emotionally disturbed or excited by the process of recording a vote, particularly when they have to write down a series of figures from one to 24 or one to 27, not necessarily in the order in which the names of the candidates appear. I think that is the chief reason for informal voting. You can put it down perhaps to lack of intelligence or lack of education. I do not think the reasons are important.

Senator Toohey:

– Or lack of concentration.

Senator VINCENT:

– Or lack of concentration. There are many reasons. How often do you find a ballot-paper marked starting with the figures 1, 2 and 3, missing the figure 4, and continuing with the figures 5, 6, 7, &c? I have seen many of them. 1 do not think that a great proportion of these informal votes can be corrected, because people have trouble in adding from I to 27 and putting the numbers down in the correct form. Senator Toohey postulated an answer to this problem. He suggested the American system of pushing buttons. With very great respect to Senator Toohey, I do not agree with him. I think we would have as many, or more, informal votes with that system as we have now. Let us transpose our problems into the American system. Electors would need to push some 5, 6 or 7 buttons in a given order. That would mean you would need to have a “ how to vote “ card showing the buttons and showing the order in which they have to be pressed. Senator Toohey may be right and I may be wrong, but with great respect to him I suggest that that would present just as great a mental hazard as writing down the numbers.

Senator Branson:

– Is it not a fact that these machines will not register an informal vote?

Senator VINCENT:

– They will not register an informal vote, but they will register a wrong vote. If there were six or seven groups on the ballot-paper you would have to inform the elector of the buttons to be pressed and the order in which they were to be pressed. There would be a number of combinations. I am not a mathematician, but it would be factorial seven. That gives you a great number of numbers. You could have a very high incidence of potential error by pressing buttons in the wrong order. You might even put a D.L.P. candidate in.

I do not think that the Hare Clark system related to the American automatic system of button pushing would work. I think we have to face this problem realistically. The only answer is probably the long answer; I do not think there is a short answer to the problem. I think that the long answer is a long, and perhaps tortuous, system of education. It may take several generations. There is no quick solution to the problem of how to cut down to a reasonable minimum the number of informal votes. Schools could play their part, and I think that political parties could do more about the problem than they are doing. I was interested in Senator Ormonde’s thesis. Political parties should approach the proposition of voting for the Senate by emphasizing the need of electors to vote for every candidate on the ballotpaper.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! I direct the honorable senators attention to the fact that political parties are not related in any way to the estimates before the committee.

Senator VINCENT:

– I am speaking on the division that relates to expenditure on elections, and I think it concerns elections for the Senate as well as elections for the House of Representatives.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The point I am making is that these estimates do not in any way relate to the funds of political parties.

Senator VINCENT:

– With great respect, I think it is definately incidental. I do not see how I can talk about elections unless I talk about political parties. I am merely carrying the argument a little bit further than members of the Opposition did. If I am not in order, neither were members of the Opposition. However, I shall conclude by saying that I feel a long process of education is needed. I do not think that any of the parties devote sufficient time to the education of electors along the lines I have suggested, namely, the insistence that electors must vote for every one on the ballot-paper.

Let me make one more suggestion before I conclude. Perhaps the chief ballot clerk at each polling place could issue certain instructions when handing out Senate ballotpapers. He could be requested to tell even elector to whom he hands a ballot-paper something to this effect, “ This is a Senate ballot-paper. You must vote for every candidate on the ballot-paper. Do you understand that? “ Perhaps that could be said to each elector as he receives a ballotpaper. That is something I pass on to the Minister for his consideration. After all there is no reason why such a suggestion could not be made to each elector in exactly the same way as an elector is asked, “ Your name and address? “, and “ Have you voted before? “ Those are questions that are put to electors, and I think a further instruction could be given namely, “ You must vote in order of preference for every name on the paper “. There are many other ways to help but I will not go into them. I do not agree with Senator Toohey that a complete switch to the American system is the short answer to the problem, or is any answer to the problem. Nor do I agree with the proposition of Senator McManus that it is the Government’s responsibility to cater for the various national groups who come to Australia.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Dittmer referred to Division No. 233 - Real Estate Management. That division refers to Commonwealth owned and rented buildings. It has no connexion whatever with construction projects. His reference to construction projects, I would remind him, comes under the estimates for the National Capital Development Commission.

The method of recording votes in Senate elections has been raised. All those matters were canvassed previously in this chamber during the last sessional period. As some honorable senators attach so much importance to some of the points that have been raised, I shall again bring them to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for the Interior.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I cannot accept the contention of the Minister for Air (Senator Wade) that it is not the concern of the Government, or its electoral authorities, that in one State, for example New South Wales, nearly 250,000 informal votes were cast in a federal election. I do not agree with him that the duty of remedying the situation lies with political parties or with the schools. I have been a teacher and I know that children would be taught the method of voting at about the age of twelve years. They would probably be taught it in one lesson of about 40 minutes. It is asking a lot to suggest that the schools, in 40 minutes, should teach twelve-year-old children something which they will not apply until they have reached the age of 21.

It is true that the political parties are busy just before an election, but this is a matter that I should like to see publicized before nominations close. I do not think any of the parties is sufficiently financial to provide money for publicity on an appreciable scale in order to show people the correct method of voting.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The financial position of political parties does not come within the scope of the estimates that we are discussing.

Senator McMANUS:

– I am pleased with the statement of the Minister that he will ask his colleague to have a further look at this matter. I hope he will also suggest that the question of publicity be considered. Why should not the Electoral Office give publicity to the correct method of voting? Should not that be an obvious duty? I am not suggesting that the Electoral Office does not want to do so, but of course it is bound by the views of the Government.

We have some very fine printing techniques these days, as we see when the various reports are tabled in the Parliament. I suggest that expert printers consider the method of setting out ballotpapers so that it might be made easier for the person who goes into the polling booth to record his vote. I was interested in Senator Ormonde’s reference to what he called the donkey vote. I did not hear him complain when his party had three senators instead of two elected for Victoria at the last Senate election because it had first place on the ballot-paper.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I wish to put forward a suggestion which I think could help to solve some of the difficulties associated with this matter, and consequently reduce the expenditure involved in Senate elections. It has always seemed to me that an elector faces a very difficult task when he has to place figures against 27 or 28 names on a ballotpaper, many of the names being quite unfamiliar to him. I can understand that bis interest tends to wane after he has placed figures opposite half the names. In Western Australia, for many years there were several individuals who stood for election on every possible occasion, whether the election was for the Senate, the municipal council, the roads board or anything else. They had a perfect right as citizens to stand for election, but the fact that they did so made the ballot-paper much more confusing.

When there is a large number of candidates, or if there are, say, only five vacancies to be filled by the candidates, surely a person who states his preference for five or more candidates makes his intention clear. If it were provided that candidates who voted for one more than the number of vacancies would record formal votes, there would be a much greater number of formal votes. In addition, it would mean an end to the practice of declaring informal ballot-papers on which electors had voted for 26 of the 28 candidates, but had failed to place figures alongside the names of the remaining two candidates. In Western Australia, there is always a large number of informal votes. When I was a teacher we taught the need for civic responsibility. We carried out class elections to teach students the way to vote. The subject was not taught in a special lesson of 40 minutes. Of course, Mr. Temporary Chairman, many of the things that we learn at school are never used by us afterwards. For instance, I remember learning how long it would take to fill a bath and pull out the plug. The fact that a subject that is taught at school will not be used for some years is not sufficient reason for failing to teach it. A great deal more could be done in our schools to teach civic responsibility. The actual use of the machinery of voting comes later after civic responsibilities have been assumed by those who have become adults.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I appreciate the remarks of Senator Vincent, but I think he misunderstood me on two points. First, he based his speech on the voting machine used in the

United States of America. I did not mention that. I said that, separate and apart from the voting machine, two other methods of election were open to the electors. The system that I mentioned was that whereby the voter may elect to vote for a party. The parties are designated clearly by means of symbols on the ballot-paper. Each of the political parties in the United States of America has a symbol, which is well known, and with which it is associated as a political group.

Senator Vincent:

– They do not have preferential voting.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I did not say they had. The point I am trying to make, and on which the honorable senator obviously misunderstood me, because he referred to the voting machine and I did not, is that regardless of the system that is in use in the United States, there is a clear and simple method whereby a voter may elect to vote for a political party. He may record his vote easily, and it will be valid. As Senator Ridley reminds me, the voter in the United States, if he wishes, may vote in his own way in accordance with the requirements of the ballot-paper.

Senator Vincent:

– Can you apply your remarks to circumstances in which the elector has to vote for seven parties in a given order, or else his vote will be invalid?

Senator TOOHEY:

– There is a party ticket which the voter may use if he so desires. The United States electoral authorities state that much informality in voting is avoided by the use of the method I have mentioned. The voting machine is another matter altogether.

Senator Vincent also misunderstood me when he suggested that I had said that we ought to adopt the United States system. I did not say that. What I said was that we ought to consider other voting systems, including that of the United States, and apply our minds as a Parliament to the question of creating the ideal situation, or as near to it as possible, with a view to reducing the number of informal votes.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Proposed expenditure - Department of the Interior - Capital Works and Services, £2,558,000- noted.

Civil Defence.

Proposed expenditure, £300,000.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– The returned soldiers organization of Queensland recently resolved that the Commonwealth Government had neglected its responsibilities in regard to civil defence. 1 have no doubt that you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, being a Queenslander, will have read about that in the Brisbane “ CourierMail “. I ask the Minister whether he has an answer to the expression of opinion by that organization.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– 1 do not want to evade the question asked by Senator Dittmer, although I know that I shall be charged with having done so, but I think that the purpose of this discussion of the Estimates is to consider Commonwealth expenditure on certain undertakings. The honorable senator will have an opportunity to debate this matter in the near future, and I suggest that he do so on that occasion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Yes. There will be an opportunity to discuss it when the Appropriation Bill is before the Senate.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

.- I understand that the main responsibility for civil defence lies with the States. This is a very serious matter. As the defence of this country is in the hands of the Commonwealth Government, the Commonwealth should do more than it is doing in regard to civil defence. The United States Government is spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars on civil defence, because it appreciates the danger from the possibility of nuclear war. I should like the Minister to explain why last year only £112,200 was expended. I understand that there is a school at Mount Macedon, to which prominent and interested men from the States go for lectures, after which they return to their States; but very little has been done.

Recently, I saw in the publication “Newsweek” an illustration of an underground shelter built by a man named Davis. He was sitting in the shelter with his family, and there was a gun on the table. In the accompanying letterpress were printed the ideas of a number of men of religious persuasion. The question was whether a man who built a shelter which would house only so many people would have the right to use a gun on any others who sought to enter. One individual was asked whether he would use a gun on a child outside the shelter after he had closed the door. One religious authority said that any one would be perfectly in order in shooting people who wanted to enter. Another said that it might be necessary for a man to sacrifice his own family. There is considerable interest in the subject in America. Private enterprise there is making a lot of money from building shelters. Whether the shelters will be of real service, I do not know. However, that is all by the way.

I ask the Minister whether there is any possibility that the Government will accept its responsibility and do more in the future than it has done in the past in regard to this very important matter.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

.- I note that although an amount of £300,000 was allocated last year for this purpose, only £112,000 was expended, but it is again proposed that £300,000 be appropriated. I should like to know why this is so. I am interested in the constitutional position in relation to civil defence. I understand that one State Premier disclaims any responsibility whatever for it. What view does the Government take of the constitutional position? What authoritative opinions support the view that this is a State responsibility? This is a matter that should be cleared up. We should know definitely upon whom the responsibility rests. There is some doubt as to whether civil defence should come under the general defence policy of the Commonwealth or under State jurisdiction.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– Like Senator Lillico, I am surprised that so little of the allocation was expended last year. I have had letters from various bodies in Western Australia which are interested in civil defence, complaining that owing to lack of finance a full civil defence programme could not be executed. This was one of the reasons given for so little being done in this direction. Quite, a number of country roads boards and shire councils have written to me, expressing fears that our civil defence policy is lacking in many respects. They want a more vigorous policy to be pursued. The reason given to them for lack of such a policy is lack of finance. Yet before us to-night is the fact that last year £300,000 was allocated for the purpose, not half of it was spent, and a similar allocation is proposed for this year. Is this something automatic? Is this a token civil defence, to assuage the doubts or fears of a few people, or is civil defence really worth while? Are we to make a worth-while project of it? If so, we must spend a great deal more each year than £300,000.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Brown sought particulars of the amount spent last year. The expenditure was involved in running the civil defence school at Mount Macedon, Victoria, on salaries and wages, catering for students, travelling expenses, &c. The unexpended balance was £184,000. This was to allow assistance to the States for civil defence. So far as I am able to ascertain from the. director, no firm decision has yet been reached as to the form that this assistance will take. Senator Lillico and Senator Tangney asked whether the States have a responsibility in regard to this matter. They have both responsibilities and rights. I should not like to leave the committee with the thought that this matter, which is of some moment to the people of Australia, is passing backwards and forwards between State and Federal authorities with the idea of avoiding a difficult decision. The information I have is that progress is being made towards defining the fields of responsibility and it is hoped that some conclusions will be reached in the near future.

Senator RIDLEY:
South Australia

– The Minister’s answer does not explain why there was an appropriation of £300,000 in 1959-60 and an expenditure of just over £100,000 and a similar appropriation and expenditure in 1958-59. In each of the last three years there has been an appropriation of £300,000 and an expenditure, of just over £100,000; yet again this year an appropriation of £300,000 is proposed.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I should like to say a few words on this matter. One way and another there is a fair bit of loose talk about it. This is sponsored by the press and, unfortunately, highlighted by an irresponsible section of the press. We must have clear in our minds what we mean by civil defence. When we have a look at the problem, it boils down to this: Every instrumentality and every service that is necessary for the co-ordination of our civil defence force is a service or instrumentality of the States. Take the railways and the transport services. They are manned, controlled and directed by the States. Take the problem of dispersion of population in time of crisis. That can be done by the State transport services. The Commonwealth has no railways running through New South Wales. New South Wales owns the railways within its borders. The obligation is on the States to accept their responsibilities in relation to these elements of civil defence.

Assume that in a time of grave crisis certain areas of population had to be evacuated. The people evacuated must be accommodated somewhere. That is clearly a matter for the States. Only the States can deal with that matter.

Let us look at some of the services associated with civil defence. Take the fire services. The fire brigades are controlled directly by the States. The States own those services, lt is useless to try to pretend in this chamber or elsewhere thai those services are, in some mysterious way, the responsibility of the Commonwealth. They are State responsibilities. You cannot get away from that fact. In time of crisis problems will arise concerning the supply of water. This again is a matter for the States. Hospital treatment and the provision of first-aid services are clearly matters for the States. The Commonwealth does not maintain hospitals or first-aid services. Those are State services. Everybody knows that. It is silly to talk about Commonwealth responsibilities in relation to such services.

Take the matter of the education of the people in time of crisis. That is obviously something that can be handled only by the States. Apart from the constitutional factors, one can see why the States accept their responsibilities in relation to civil defence.

There is one level only at which the Commonwealth operates in civil defence. The Commonwealth is responsible for the higher control and direction of our civil defence services. At some stage during a crisis it will be obvious that the Commonwealth must direct and control all these services, each of which remains, however, the responsibility of the States. At the higher level the Commonwealth must of necessity accept responsibility. I have complete confidence in this Government. 1 am sure that it is planning for the coordination of our civil defence services. I am quite certain that those plans have in the main already been formulated. To come into this chamber and say that the Commonwealth is wholly responsible for civil defence is foolish. Such a statement must do immense harm, and indicates that the speakers concerned have a very inadequate knowledge of the subject.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– First let me ask the Minister whether I correctly understood him to say that at some time during the present session opportunity would be given for a full-scale debate on civil defence. Is that what the Minister said?

Senator Wade:

– No.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I understood somebody to say that there would be other opportunities for dealing with this matter, and I did not want to be guilty of repetition.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Policy is not properly a matter for discussion when we are considering these estimates. The honorable senator will have an opportunity to embark on a wide debate when we are dealing with the Appropriation Bill.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I may not be able to speak in the debate on the Appropriation Bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! There is no reason why the honorable senator should not be able to speak in the debate on the Appropriation Bill.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I think I should seize my opportunity while I may.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honorable senator’s remarks must be related to the appropriation of £300,000.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I relate my remarks to the appropriation of £300,000. Last year, £112,200 was spent under this division. 1 join issue with Senator Vincent for some of the remarks that he made on the responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States with regard to civil defence. Whilst I concede that in theory the States have all the responsibility, I reject the argument that in fact the responsibility lies anywhere other than with the Commonwealth government. For instance, if it were suggested that this country would be involved in a war, necessitating the use of whatever facilities we had for civil defence, the responsibility would immediately fall on the Commonwealth under national security regulations. I remind Senator Vincent that during the last war, whilst in theory the States carried out certain functions in regard to civil defence by using the police forces and certain other sections of the community, in fact the directing force was the Commonwealth government, as it would have to be whenever danger threatened this country.

Senator Vincent claimed that responsibility for civil defence rested mainly with the States. I submit that where the power lies so too the responsibility lies. The power of collecting money lies with the Commonwealth. If any major amount of money is to be spent on civil defence - I think a large amount should be spent - that expenditure must come in some way from the Commonwealth Treasury. Nothing will convince me that if the Commonwealth is prepared to spend, say, £1,000,000 on civil defence it will not want from the States assurances as to how that money will be spent.

Civil defence is a most important matter. Improper motives should not be imputed to honorable senators from this side of the chamber who raise this matter. Civil defence is in the forefront of the minds of many Australian citizens to-day. It is very much in the minds of Americans to-day. I read recently that many Americans are building shelters in which to escape the consequences of an atomic war. Some of them have even gone to the extent of stocking their shelters with provisions. It may be said that their actions amount to hysteria, but nevertheless it is obvious that in the minds of many Americans there is a great fear that in the not-too-far-distant future they will need a great deal of protection. Let us not ignore the possibility not only of large numbers of persons having to go underground to avoid destruction from the air but also of whole cities having to go underground to escape the effects of fall-out if somebody is silly enough to trigger off an atomic war.

This debate should not be limited. There should be no intimidation. It should not be suggested that when someone raises this matter he is striking at the defence of Australia or is saying something which should not be said. We should be afforded every opportunity to express our views on this subject. My view is that the sum of £300,000 which is to be appropriated for the current financial year is not nearly sufficient. Because of the division of responsibility between the Commonwealth and the States, proper steps are not being taken to deal with civil defence. I should like the Minister to say whether there have been any conferences between the Commonwealth and the States to co-ordinate civil defence activities. I should like to know what the Government proposes for the future, bearing in mind that the expenditure of £300,000 will be no more than a drop in the ocean. These are matters upon which honorable senators should be informed. Having been so informed, we can only regard that as being a stepping off point for further discussion and probing of the matter.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Ridley referred to the expenditure of balances from the previous two years. His analysis of the situation was correct. Only a portion of the vote was expended, the balance having been returned to Consolidated Revenue. Senator Toohey asked whether there have been conferences between the Commonwealth and the States in regard to civil defence. Many conferences have been held. I am informed that we seem to be approaching a solution of the outstanding points of difference between the Commonwealth and the States in regard to their spheres of influence. Let me say in conclusion that the Senate is very much concerned with this matter. I undertake to place before the Minister for the Interior the submissions that have been made on both sides of the chamber.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

.- Usually Senator Vincent is very logical in his arguments. He is a man of erudition, a man who knows the Constitution and the law generally. However, the speech he delivered to-night was a bundle of sophistry, casuistry and, as the Americans would say, bunkum. I would like the Minister for Air and also Senator Vincent to give an answer-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! Questions must be asked of the Minister.

Senator BROWN:

– That is so. 1 shall not direct my question to Senator Vincent but will address it to the Minister for Air, for whom I have a great regard. At least he tries to answer questions and not to avoid the issue. I ask him: Where does the responsibility of the Government commence and end? Does it end with the appropriation of £300,000? If it so desired, could not the Government increase its appropriation to £1,000,000 or £10,000,000? If the Government can provide teachers and lecturers at Mount Macedon, why would it not be possible to extend the activities of such people to the various capital cities? Would that be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution?

As Senator Toohey has pointed out, in time of war the Commonwealth Government takes the fullest responsibility for the defence of Australia. It does the same in peace-time. The Commonwealth has constitutional power to deal with defence. Does not the defence of Australia include the defence of its men, women and children? It is a matter of defending not only property but also the lives of our people. It is quite possible that in the near future there will be a minor war in which nuclear weapons will be used, la that event, a properly organized system of civil defence would save thousands of lives.

I direct the attention of the Minister for Air to the fact that a year or two after the bombing raids on Darwin during the last war a commissioner was appointed to inquire into circumstances surrounding the event. The commissioner pointed out in his report that if there had been proper organization in Darwin the effect of the bombing would have been quite different. Any one who reads the report of the commissioner will realize what a tragedy the whole business was. 1 shall not go into all the details, Mr. Temporary Chairman, because I know that you know your duty and that you will stop me. I repeat that if there had been a thorough civil defence organization at Darwin a good deal of the trouble that occurred would have been averted. If we look ahead now and provide a complete organization for the defence of our people in the event of war, thousands of lives will be saved. The Government has a responsibility to provide this organization. To-night I have listened to various speakers pass the buck. Evidently the Minister for Air is attempting to pass the buck, too. The Government has passed the buck. I repeat that civil defence is the Government’s responsibility, lt is time it woke up to that responsibility.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Mr. Temporary Chairman, of course the Government has great powers during time of war. It did not hesitate to use those powers during the last emergency. But I remind honorable senators that to-day the responsibilities and powers of the Commonwealth Government are limited. As Senator Vincent has rightly pointed out, the responsibilities of the Comonwealth and the States in regard to civil defence cannot be alienated. The Commonwealth and the States have a joint responsibility. Senator Brown asked whether this Government could increase the appropriation for civil defence to £ 1 ,000,000 if the necessity arose. Of course it could. But there is no point in increasing the appropriation unless there are well-laid plans for the expenditure of that sum.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Proposed expenditure - War and Repatriation Services - Miscellaneous - Department of the Interior, £297,400; Australian War Memorial, £150,400- noted.

Australian Capital Territory.

Proposed expenditure, £5,005,600.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– I refer to Division No. 766, sub-division 4, item 23, City Omnibus Service - subsidy (for payment to the credit of the Australian Capital Territory Transport Trust Account). I live in a city in which bus and tram fares were increased recently. Those bus and tram services receive no subsidy; there is no fund from which the city council can subsidize bus and tram fares. Of course, it could allow the old fares to continue to operate and later meet the deficit from its general revenue. I ask the Minister whether the £62,000 provided under this item by way of subsidy is to make good the losses which may be incurred by the Canberra bus service. If that is so, the Government will have to admit that the Estimates are prepared loosely. 1 understand that any losses incurred in running the buses are made good from the Australian Capital Territory Transport Trust Account. In that case, this amount is not a subsidy, but an amount included in the Estimates to make good losses. That is the way it appears to me.

I do not want to let my remarks end there; nor do I want to stray from the estimates under consideration. The other day, when the committee was dealing with other votes, I mentioned that similar items are included elsewhere in the Estimates. There is a similar item in respect of Darwin. Possibly, if we looked at the estimates for Port Moresby we would find a similar item. This is the position: The people who use the bus service in Canberra are in a more fortunate position than people in the capital cities and other cities in which buses run. The problem is to keep the buses running. I am sure that everybody knows that at present one of the greatest burdens imposed on local authorities is to keep their transport services going. All their transport services are showing losses. Certainly those services are not in the very favorable position in which the Canberra bus service is. It may be difficult for the Minister to give me a reply to this question: Are the fares charged in Canberra economic? If they are, why is this provision made? Last year, the appropriation was £62,000, and £60,000 was spent.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- I refer to Division No. 766, sub-division 3, item 01, Maintenance of parks and gardens and recreation reserves. This appropriation is now up to a little more than £500,000. I wonder whether the Minister is able to state the area of parks and gardens and recreation reserves in Canberra to which that appropriation applies. 1 also refer to sub-division 4, item 12, Swimming pools - maintenance. The appropriation this year is £13,000, which is slightly less than the expenditure last year. Can the Minister tell me whether the swimming pools in Canberra pay their way? They were built under a different system from that adopted in other municipalities where the ratepayers build their own pools. I ask this question particularly in view of the generous treatment that is meted out by the Government in this respect.

I refer now to item 14, Local Government registration. The expenditure last year was £5.281, and this year the appropriation is £7,500. Can the Minister tell me what “ Local Government registration “ means in this case? I refer also to item 34, “ Goodwin Homes for the Aged - Subsidy, £11,300”. Last year, the appropriation was £8,000, and £7,000 was spent. Of course, subsidies are paid by the Government for the building of aged people’s homes outside of the Australian Capital Territory. I ask the Minister whether this subsidy is similar to those subsidies, or is it a subsidy for the operation of those homes?

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I refer to Division No. 766, subdivision 4, item 16, “ Advisory Council - Allowances and expenses, £2,700”. I ask the Minister whether that is all the Advisory Council costs the Government. Is that the total cost of running the Advisory Council? If it is, I am sure that it must be the most economically run local government entity in Australia.

Senator Wright:

– What responsibility has it?

Senator TANGNEY:

– Exactly. Is this appropriation compatible with its responsibilities? The time has arrived when the citizens of Canberra should be given the opportunity to assume full civic responsibility. Some of the appropriations that have been queried already would not appear in the Estimates at all if this city had full civic status and the citizens themselves were responsible for the expenditure involved in civic administration and providing the amenities and services which are provided by the civic bodies in other capital cities.

I realize, however, that the position of Canberra is very different from that of the State capital cities. Canberra is an artificial city which has grown up because the seat of government is here. It is still in the process of growth. Over the last ten years its growth has been phenomenal. Notwithstanding those circumstances, the Government has to face the fact that the time is coming when the citizens of Canberra must be given a greater share in the government of their city. That, of course, will entail greater financial responsibility for them. I do not suggest for one moment that they will ever be able to undertake the whole of the financial responsibility for Canberra because there are certain things in this city which are here because it is the National Capital.

I believe that the Advisory Council is only a token body and has no real responsibility. That is not because its members are not able and willing to carry responsibility, but because they are not given the responsibility to carry. I should like the Advisory Council to have much more responsibility, and the same status as civic bodies in the other capital cities.

Then I turn to item 27, which relates to cultural and community activities. That, again, is an item of expenditure that would not appear here if Canberra had its own civic authorities. The appropriation fo: this purpose last year was £21,800, of which £20,718 was spent, and this year the proposed vote is only £6,800. Has the necessity for cultural and community activities ceased, has the standard of cultural activities dropped, or what has happened? The proposed vote this year is about one-third of the expenditure last year.

I refer next to the section of Division No. 766 dealing with education. I see there an item relating to secondary school bursaries. Are those bursaries given to enable children from primary schools in the Territory to attend secondary schools in the Territory? I hope that that is so, because the schools here are of a very high standard. As a matter of fact, the beautiful school buildings are the subject of envy by people who live in the States. I sometimes wonder whether we are spending too much on buildings and not enough on teacher training, teachers’ salaries and so on, but that is by the way.

In the same section of Division No. 766 there is an item dealing with payments to the Department of Education, New South Wales, for services rendered. The proposed vote for that purpose is £715,000. These payments are for the services of teachers, for teacher training and so on. 1 consider that the time has come when this Territory should have its own teacher training college. We know that the teacher training colleges established in all the other capital cities of Australia are overcrowded. The colleges in Western Australia are definitely overcrowded; there are too many students and they cannot be trained adequately. That lack of training, of course, is felt in the schools. In Canberra there is the Australian National University, with the School of Advanced Studies and the School of General Studies. We have in this city some of the best professional brains in Australia and elsewhere. I think the establishment of a teacher training college in Canberra would be well justified. It would provide teachers for the schools in the Territory, and the cost would be offset to some extent by a reduction of the payments being made to the Department of Education in New South Wales, which now provides the teachers in the schools here.

Referring still to Division No. 766, I notice in sub-division 4 the item, “ To recoup the State of N.S.W. for payments under the Child Welfare Act and in maintenance of juvenile offenders and mental patients in State institutions, £40,000”. The appropriation last year was £28,000 and the expenditure was £38,000. I should like to know whether there has been any subdivision of that amount, and whether the Minister could tell us what was spent on the maintenance of juvenile offenders and what was spent in respect of mental patients in State mental institutions. If we can believe all that we read in books on psychology, and if environment does play a part in the building of character and determines whether children will be delinquents or otherwise, I do not think there should be many delinquents in Canberra. If children anywhere get a good go from the authorities, those in Canberra do. The schools and other buildings used by children in this city are of a very high standard.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I refer to Division No. 776- Health Services, item 02, “ Health and dental services, £58,700 “. I remind the Minister that on 19th November, 1959, 1 suggested that the Government should consult immediately with the States with a view to having an Australia-wide dental health survey made by a competent person or persons. Two such surveys have been made on a State basis, one by Barnard in New South Wales, and one by Halikis in Western Australia. The results of those surveys, when made public, came as a terrific shock to the people who take an interest in dental health. They showed that the average fourteen-year-old child in New South Wales had thirteen cariesaffected teeth. In the six-year age group, only five children in every 100 had healthy teeth. The story is a frightening one. In the seven-year age group, only two children in every 100 had healthy teeth, and in the eight-year group only one child in every 200 had healthy teeth.

Senator Ormonde:

– Are these the figures for Western Australia?

Senator BRANSON:

– They are the figures for New South Wales. The Halikis survey was on a different basis. Halikis did a survey covering the first molar, which appears at the age of approximately six years. I think Senator Dittmer will confirm that.

Senator Dittmer:

– Government members are prepared to pay me a tribute on some occasions.

Senator BRANSON:

– I find myself in agreement with Senator Dittmer on dental health, but that is about the only subject on which 1 do agree with him. The Halikis survey covered the first permanent tooth that appears in a child’s mouth - that is the molar. Within from six to twelve months after the first appearance of those teeth, for every 100 children eleven teeth had to be extracted. Those children kept their first permanent teeth for only six months. In the seven-year age group, for every 100 children in Western Australia 38 of the first permanent teeth were extracted. In the twelve-year age group, 109 of those teeth had to be extracted for every 100 children. I make another appeal to the Minister to consult with the Minister for Health and request him to ask the Government to cause a survey of dental health to be made. 1 am convinced that the results of that survey would so shock the Government that it would consider doing something about the dental health of the nation.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Benn sought information concerning the subsidy of £62,000 to make good the losses incurred by the Canberra omnibus service. That is the sum estimated to be required, in addition to receipts, to meet the cost of operating the omnibus service. The money is paid into the Australian Capital Territory Transport Trust Account, in which al! receipts and expenditure in connexion with the operation of the omnibus service are recorded. I do not know the fares that are charged, but that information is readily available and I will ensure that the honorable senator gets a schedule.

Senator Wood:

asked about the area of the parks and gardens under the administration of the National Capital Development Commission. That information is not available. The honorable senator also asked whether the swimming pools in the Territory pay their way. The estimated expenditure in connexion with the Canberra Pool is £13,000 and the estimated revenue is £11,000. The revenue varies from year to year, depending on the length and severity of the summers. Senator Wood asked also about local government registrations and what was involved. The estimate includes expenditure associated with motor vehicle registrations, dog registrations, &c, including the printing of forms, the purchasing of number plates, salaries of inspectors and so on. Senator Wood asked also about the Goodwin Homes for the Aged. Perhaps he is looking ahead a little. This is the first full year in which a contribution is being made to the running of the homes.

Senator Tangney:

asked for some details about the costs of the Advisory Council. The figure of £2,700 represents the total cost of the council. The chairman receives £200 and the other members £100 each. There are seven elected members. There are also four nominated members who receive £75 each. And the sum of £1,500 is provided for incidentals, including election costs.

Senator Tangney:

– That is the best bargain in the book.

Senator WADE:

– I think we get very good value for our money in that expenditure. Senator Tangney asked also about accommodation for juvenile offenders. The commission expects to provide a juvenile remand shelter which will bring about a reduction in the expenditure now being incurred by payments to the New South Wales Government. In other words, the commission intends to take over some of the responsibility that has been accepted by the New South Wales Government.

Senator Tangney:

asked also about the reduction in the amount made available for cultural and community activities in Canberra. The reduction is due to the fact that an amount of £15,000 was provided for the Police Boys Club in 1960-61, and this is not included in the vote for 1961-62. Secondary school bursaries are provided at primary and intermediate standards, and a special bursary is provided for children living in remote areas inside and outside the Australian Capital Territory. The honorable senator referred also to expenditure under the Child Welfare Act. I am in a position to inform her that the estimate for 1960-61 was £28,000, the actual expenditure, £38,375, and that this years estimate is based on the latter figure. The provision includes the salary and expenses of a child welfare officer in Canberra. The break-up of the expenditure for mental and other institutions is not available at the moment. If the honorable senator would like the information I shall obtain it for her. As the population of Canberra is increasing, expenditure of this nature must also increase.

Senator Branson:

asked for information concerning national surveys, referring of course to dental surveys. The item to which he referred - Division No. 776 - has to do with expenditure on health and dental services in the Australian Capital Territory, and has no relation whatsoever to national surveys.

Senator Branson:

– I am aware of that, but this was the only opportunity I had to bring the matter up.

Senator WADE:

– A comprehensive dental survey of New South Wales school children was financed by the National Health and Medical Council in 1954-55. There are no plans at present for any Commonwealth-wide survey.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I refer to Division No. 766, subdivision 5, item 08, Payments to the Department of Education, New South Wales, for services rendered. I think that the present system has worked extremely well and that it would be premature to alter it at the moment. I believe that this Territory should have its own system but I do not want to see a generalized control of all the Territories by a centralized department here in Canberra. I think, therefore, that the setting up of an educational system in the Australian Capital Territory might be deferred until the government of the Territory has been decentralized. When this city has its own governing body, then I think it should have its own educational system.

Until that time the system of working in with the Department of Education in New South Wales should be continued.

Senator Tangney referred to the setting up of a teachers’ college. It would be admirable to have a teachers’ college of the ordinary type, but I am quite satisfied with the teachers’ colleges of New South Wales, which are very well conducted. For that matter, the teachers’ colleges of all the States are well conducted, but I know those in New South Wales much better. Earlier in this sessional period, or it may have been during the previous sessional period, in the debate on the Address-in-Reply, J made the suggestion that attached to the Australian National University should be a teachers’ college for secondary teachers. I pointed out as an example the Ecole Normale Supérieure in the French system, a school infinitely higher in standard than any that we have in Australia.

Senator Arnold:

– I rise to order. I am getting a bit tired of honorable senators making second-reading speeches during this debate. Is not the purpose of the debate to ask for information from Ministers about the various items? If that is so, then 1 submit that what the honorable senator is saying is entirely out of order.

Senator MCCALLUM:

– Half the debate has been out of order if that is correct.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKellar:

– Order! I am afraid that Senator Arnold has a lot in his favour in taking his point of order. Far too much of the debate has been conducted along the lines of a second-reading debate. I ask Senator McCallum to keep to the estimates before the chair.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I referred to this matter only because Senator Tangney had introduced it. I was making a suggestion somewhat similar to the suggestion that she had made when discussing this item.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- It would ill-become a responsible House of the Parliament to debate any proposed vote for the expenditure of money without reference to the policy of the Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! To which division is the honorable senator referring?

Senator WRIGHT:

– The Australian Capital Territory. Five million pounds is to be appropriated for the Australian Capital Territory including the garbage services, the transport services and the other miserable municipal services that most responsible communities defray from local rates. 1 rise because I claim that this House of the Parliament should insist that on an estimates debate Government policy should be scrutinized because the conception of erroneous policy leads to mistaken expenditure.

The Senate should also examine the items of the estimates to see that there is integrity between the expenditure and the vote. I wish to refer to the item mentioned by Senator Benn, namely, the subsidy amounting to £62,000 that is paid in respect of municipal transport in the Australian Capital Territory. This information has been retailed throughout the capital cities of Australia. Why should metropolises establish transport systems for public conveyance by means other than a local vote? If the fares do not meet the expenditure, let the difference be made up from local rates instead of from the taxes paid by the general taxpayer.

I rise to support the view expressed by Senator Tangney. We are asked to vote more than £5,000,000 for the purpose 1 have mentioned. In other words, the Australian taxpayers are to be taxed to sustain the Canberra community. I have referred to garbage services. The time has arrived for this community of between 50,000 and 60,000 people to embrace the opportunity, using the political language of Sena’.or Tangney, to adopt the responsibilities of self-governing citizenship and, I think, the corresponding responsibility of raising rates to pay for the services it needs. I admit that a distinction should be made between expenditure of a national character in the

Australian Capital Territory and that of a local character. If the aspirations of taxpayers in every quarter of the Commonwealth are represented worthily in this Parliament, it will be our privilege to vote sums for the provision in the Australian Capital Territory of amenities and structures which express the national tradition. The people of this community are privileged in many respects. During a recent debate in this chamber on the subject of rents for Canberra houses, we heard that the> enjoyed an advantage over the general taxpayers in the method of assessment of rent.

Senator Arnold:

– 1 rise to order. I do not know whether Senator Wright has been deliberately taunting me into doing so, but whether he has done that or not, I feel that I must direct your attention, Mr. Temporary Chairman, to the fact that the honorable senator is really making a secondreading speech instead of asking for information from the Minister about particular items covered by the Estimates. It is clear that honorable senators should be asking for information, and not trying to make secondreading speeches.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The remarks that I addressed to Senator McCallum apply equally to Senator Wright.

Senator WRIGHT:

– With great deference, Mr. Temporary Chairman, I accept that ruling. I am asking honorable senators, including my respected friend, Senator Arnold, to consider the proposition that we cannot responsibly assess the validity of expenditure except in relation to policy. 1 impress on the committee the view that the time has arrived for the Canberra community to accept the privileges of self-government, including responsibility to pay for services of a local nature. We should confine ourselves to voting expenditure for the provision of amenities and establishments that are of a national character. I remind the committee that this Parliament has never been niggardly in relation to the establishment in the Territory of features which worthily express the sentiments of the Australian taxpayer.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– I think that some misapprehension may be creeping into the debate. It has been suggested that the residents of Canberra do not pay rates and taxes. They do pay rates and taxes, and the amounts collected go into Consolidated Revenue. The question whether they should have a local system of government or whether they should continue to be governed as at present is a matter for debate, “but in fairness to the people of Canberra, I think it should be made known that last year they paid £1,660,000 in rent, £364,000 in rates, £180,000 in motor registration fees, and so on. While it can be argued with a good deal of justification that Canberra is a favoured city, inasmuch as its omnibus services are subsidized, even those least interested in the system that is adopted must readily agree that there are associated with the National Capital factors which are not associated with other cities of comparable size. Canberra covers a vast area. There are no main thoroughfares such as those that are generally regarded as the business centres of a community. The suburbs are scattered over a wide area, and a great deal of travelling is involved for people who are required to live here in order to serve the citizens of Australia. I do not think it is quite fair to suggest that they are enjoying privileges to which they are not in any way entitled.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Australian Capital Territory - Capital Works and Services.

Proposed expenditure, £13,929,000.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I know that the Minister will not callously and deliberately make an untrue statement, such as that which characterized the comments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner) when speaking yesterday.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The honorable senator is out of order in speaking in that fashion. To which division is he referring?

Senator DITTMER:

– I am referring to Division No. 981 - National Capital Development Commission. I am asking for a truthful answer on this occasion-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order!

Senator DITTMER:

– I respect the Minister. I merely ask: What is embraced by the proposed expenditure of £11,000,000 by the National Capital Development Commission? Last year, the amount expended was almost £11,000,000. Approximately £20,000,000 is to be expended on the Australian Capital Territory this year, and that rate of expenditure seems disproportionate in relation to other national responsibilities. Like Senator Wright, I agree that we must accept a measure of responsibility for expenditure of a national character in the Australian Capital Territory. I have posed a question, and I do hope that the Minister will not distort the position as did the Leader of the Government in the Senate yesterday.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– I point out to the honorable senator that a document relating to the civil works programme for 1961-62 has been circulated by the Minister for Works. It contains a very long schedule. I shall make a copy of it available to the honorable senator, and I think it will supply all the information he seeks.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- We are asked to note expenditure of £13,929,000 for capital works and services in the Australian Capital Territory. Included in that amount is the sum of £11,000,000 for the National Capital Development Commission. I think the Minister should inform us of the works proposed by the commission that will absorb this amount. I am concerned about the fact that the amount of expenditure proposed for this Territory is disproportionate, by all relevant standards, to the need for development in outlying Territories. It is most important to try to repel the idea, which I know has been a comforting thought for generations, that if you want good bread you should live near the bakehouse. I am speaking for the provinces.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– I can only give Senator Wright the same answer as I gave Senator Dittmer.

Senator Wright:

– I want particulars.

Senator WADE:

– The particulars cover many- sheets of this report.

Senator Wright:

– Just of those that exceed’ half-a-million pound’s..

Senator WADE:

– If I were to- supply even, those, I would be left in the chamber on my own. I. am quite sure that Senator Wright is. pressing the point merely for information. I undertake to place in his hand a copy of the. Civil Works Programme for 1.961-62, upon which ‘he will have information that is quite authentic - in much less time, than I would take to read it.

Proposed expenditure noted..

Postmaster-General’s Department.

Proposed expenditure, £113,510,000.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- I refer to Division 711, Other Services, item 04, “ Radio- Frequency Allocation Review Committee - Expenses - £1,418”. I want to ask the Minister in charge of the committee a few questions in respect of that report. In doing so, I point out that I believe, that the report which the committee has made- is an excellent one. The committee has pointed to the very many difficulties which exist in the modern world in the allocation of radio frequencies. At page 23 of its report, the committee, recom:mends the setting up of a permanent committee to do the job which this ad hoc committee has done so well. I believe and hope that the recommendation will impress itself upon the Minister. I put the point of view that this committee could well form the nucleus of an Australian federal communications commission established on similar lines to the American Federal Communications Commission which has given that nation such an outstanding lead in telecommunication. The point in respect of a permanent committee is the necessity to obtain the full-time services of the very best men. This would require that the members of the committee be paid an adequate salary for the most important functions which they would be called- upon to discharge.

I must say that I do not agree with all of the findings of the committee by any means, and the most obvious chink in the committee’s armour appears to be those aspects of the report dealing with the abolition of frequency modulation broadcasts, which were being carried; out. by the. PostmasterGeneral’s Department on an experimental basis, in co-operation with the Australian. Broadcasting Commission. I know that mis is. neither the time nor the the. place for a- technical discussion of. frequency modulation. I. simply pause to say that- it is- a system of sound broadcasting which permits superb quality of reproduction with a minimum of: interference such as that caused by static, heterodyne whistle, and all the multitude kinds of manmadeinterference that afflict ordinary amplitude modulation broadcasting, which, is the normal, system of broadcasting, in use in the Commonwealth at the moment. The frequencies used in this type of transmission internationally are in the 88 to 108 megacycle band. Transmission normally is for short range, about 30 to 40 miles, in line of sight, causing very little international or interstate interference.

If we turn to page 84 of the committee’s report, we find this sentence -

In- the normal course of events the Committee would have examined the whole spectrum in a methodical manner but in view of the urgency expressed in the Minister’s letter to the Chairman, the Committee proceeded to consider in some detail the V.H.F. band (30 to 300 megacycles) with particular reference to the provision of 13 television channels.

In other words, the committee was in a sense excusing itself for the difficult position in which it found itself, which ultimately led it to make what I believe to be the one capital blunder in the entire report in relation to the abolition of frequency modulation broadcasts. After finding in the very high frequency band three additional channels for television, as requested by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), the committee then had on its hands two megacycles which it was able, if it had seen fit, to allocate for the continuance of the frequency modulation services. In spite of this, the committee recommended that frequency modulation transmission be discontinued - in the words of the report - because of - the possible increase in demand by large or new taxi interests.

Senator Wright:

– What interests?

Senator HANNAN:

– Taxi interests, of all things.

Senator Wright:

– Of whom did the committee consist?

Senator HANNAN:

– Of distinguished representatives. Professor Huxley was chairman. There were representatives of the Austraiian Broadcasting Control Board, amateur operators, manufacturers, public utilities, Defence Services, and the PostmasterGeneral. I certainly have no quibble with the personnel of the committee nor with the general nature of its findings. This recommendation is like the 13th stroke of a crazy clock. It discredits some of what has gone before.

Our community willingly subsidizes culture. Under other departments we make grants to the Commonwealth Literary Fund. We subsidize the Elizabethan Theatre Trust, the Australian Humanities Research Council, historical societies, Australian paintings, overseas exhibitions of Australian art and a large number of other things. Instead of presenting music of superb quality, which gives so much pleasure to many thousands throughout the nation, we are going to scrap frequency modulation broadcasting because it is possible - not certain - that some taxi interests may be inconvenienced. One has merely to state the example given by the committee to provide its own refutation. Even allowing that taxis are very important, it is right and proper to point out that in order to have a national frequency modulation service it is only necessary to set aside in this particular band about 180 kilocycles.

Senator Arnold:

– About what are you seeking information?

Senator HANNAN:

– I am going to ask the Minister why, in view of the facts I am putting to him, this section of the report was adopted by the Government. I do not see why I should have my premises anticipated by Senator Arnold.

Senator Arnold:

– This is in breach of the Standing Orders.

Senator HANNAN:

– It is not in breach of Standing Orders at all. The committee had two megacycles with which to play, and it pushed frequency modulation off and let the taxis on. lt would be necessary to take only a small fraction - less than 10 per cent. - of the two megacycles that are left - say 180 kilocycles - in order to give a first-class transmission. In earlier speeches on this subject I have settled for a smaller frequency band. But on more mature inquiry I believe that about 180 kilocycles is desirable. That is all that is necessary to give the entire nation the benefit of frequency modulation. Frequency modulation transmitters have line-of-sight range only. Skip troubles do not worry them. Transmissions in one large centre of population would not interfere with those in other States or other large provincial centres. It may be that frequency modulation transmissions were pushed off the band for reasons other than taxis and taxi trucks. If so I am anxious to know why the report does not cite examples. I want to know why the report was adopted so smartly by the Government when no reasons were given for the committee’s decision.

As from July of this year the United States of America will make frequency modulation transmissions in stereo. Although the United States is no bigger physically than Australia, it has a very much larger population, very many more demands for frequencies, and very many more calls on existing frequency space. Nevertheless, the United States is able to embark on a programme of stereo frequency modulation. Admittedly, that transmission requires only one frequency because of the work that has been done by engineers in the United States. I ask the Minister to give this matter close consideration. At a time when other countries are going full speed ahead in order to implement a modern system of frequency modulation, Australia is killing it.

I know that it has been suggested that frequency modulation could move into the 500 to 600 megacycle band. I suppose that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. For the reasons that I have stated it is unfair to expect receivers of frequency modulation transmissions to move off this band in order to let the taxis on. The equipment held by listeners in this country for the past twelve or thirteen years and on the dealers’ shelves has become so much junk since 30th June last when the experimental transmissions were discontinued. It is possible to modify that equipment to enable it to be used in the 500 to 600 megacycle band, but, because of technical difficulties, such modification would not be an economic proposition. The people who hold this equipment would be better advised to start from scratch in the new frequency band.

If somebody must be inconvenienced, why not the taxis? If somebody has to lose the use of certain frequencies, why not let it be the taxi operators? A perusal of the report insofar as it deals with the necessity for more modern use of the bands and the provision of narrower channelling in bands reveals that the equipment now used by the taxis will require at least modification and possibly replacement by 1966. So the benefit to these commercial operators will be only of five years’ duration.

I know that the Minister is sympathetic to culture. 1 know that he is sympathetic to the form of entertainment that frequency modulation can provide. On many occasions in the Senate he has gone out of his way to give me assistance and encouragement in pursuing my campaign for the return to the nation of frequency modulation broadcasting. For all those reasons I ask the Minister to examine the views that I have expressed and to see what can be done to restore to Australia frequency modulation services in the veryhighfrequency band. If that is too much to hope for - if the plumbers and artisans have defeated the artists and musicians - 1 ask the Minister whether something can be done on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread at all. Can frequency modulation be restored to us somewhere between 400 and 600 megacycles? If that were done it would mean, of course, a complete re-hash of our listening equipment. I would not like anything that I have said to be taken as an attack on the integrity, ability or sincerity of members of the committee.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Do not apologize.

Senator HANNAN:

– I am not apologizing. I do not want to be interpreted-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Methinks the honorable senator damns the report with faint praise. I remind him that he has suggested the establishment of a permanent committee to regulate the allocation of frequencies. That has been recommended in this report, which the Government has adopted. Let me assure the honorable senator that his first request will be granted.

I should like to take a few moments to state the Government’s views on frequency modulation. I will then return to some of the comments made by Senator Hannan, and to the scorn that he hurled at taxis and similar services. Although frequency modulation stations were established in Sydney and Melbourne as long ago as 1947. and later in Brisbane and Adelaide, they were always regarded as experimental stations. I repeat: They were always regarded as experimental stations. I ask Senator Hannan to bear that in mind.

Senator Hannan:

– I think I referred to them as experimental stations.

Senator WADE:

– I now proceed to discuss the effect that the continued operation of these experimental stations might have on services valuable to the community. The desirability of introducing permanent frequency modulation broadcasting services has been considered from time to time. As late as 1958 the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, after a public inquiry, concluded that there were genuine practical difficulties associated with the introduction of frequency modulation services. Those difficulties arose principally from the rapid development of television services and the consequent demand on the use of very high frequency channels. In 1960, the problem of providing sufficient channels for television services was considered by a technical conference convened by the board. The general view taken was that television should be expanded in the very high frequency band, and that efforts should be made to secure more channels to enable this to be done. This conclusion was considered first by the board and later by the Radio Frequency Review Committee - the Huxley committee. It was concluded that only by using the band of frequencies that had been reserved for frequency modulation broadcasting could sufficient channels be made available for television, and at the same time reasonable provision made for the growth of essential fixed and mobile services. I take it that Senator Hannan has read the report. I take it that he realizes that frequency modulation channels can be made available only at the expense of other services.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator WADE:

– Following the adoption of this recommendation it was decided to discontinue the experimental frequency modulation transmissions. The circumstances were explained at length in a statement made by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) on 31st May, 1961, which was widely circulated. In that statement it was emphasized that frequency space is available in the ultra high frequency band for the development of frequency modulation services should a strong demand for such services be forthcoming. There are, however, problems involved in planning for this. The need for the service would have to be justified in the light of the costs involved. Again, the extent to which any such service should be developed, having regard to television expansion and the needs of country residents as well as those in capital cities, would require careful consideration.

In the light of all that knowledge which I would expect him to have in his possession, Senator Hannan ‘has suggested in this chamber with some enthusiasm that taxi services are coming between the lovers of frequency modulation-

Senator Hannan:

– The report said that; I did not.

Senator WADE:

– They are the subject of attack. I remind the honorable senator that ambulances, hospital services, rural fire brigades - which in Victoria alone have spent many thousands of pounds out of their own pockets to produce a system which is probably unique in the world - and the police all are operating on the same band as taxis. When the honorable senator directs his attack against taxi services, I invite him to include ambulances, rural fire brigades, the police and other such services. I suggest to the honorable senator that, after he has pondered over the report and the information I have given him to-night, he may realize erelong that he has a future in the higher band and will relax his opposition to that part of the report.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– I am deeply appreciative of the Minister’s spirited response and I congratulate him upon his handling of technical terms and matters. But he did not answer my question. I agree with about 99 per cent., or at least 95 per cent., of what he said.

Senator Wade:

– No answer is required.

Senator HANNAN:

– An answer is required. I would like the Minister to get an answer on this matter. It is an unanswerable fact that after finding three new television channels in the very high frequency band two megacycles - not kilocycles - are open between 92 and 94 megacycles. In order to comply with the national frequency modulation service, I have suggested that only 180 kilocycles of that band be set aside. That is less than 10 per cent. It is not as though I want the whole band kept open. I want only a tiny, almost infinitesimal part of it kept, because it has a short range of transmission and throughout most of the year there would not be interference difficulties. In the warmer months there may be a little trouble.

I invite the Minister to tell me of any modern nation, any developed nation, which is using the ultra high frequency band in preference to the very high frequency band for frequency modulation transmission. I know that some countries are using both, but I should like to know of any nation which has dropped the very high frequency band for frequency modulation and has switched over to the ultra high frequency channel.

If, as the Minister has pointed out, ambulances, hospitals, rural fire brigades, the police and other important users of frequencies provided a reason why frequency modulation was dropped from the very high frequency band, one would have thought that a report prepared by Professor Huxley and the experts to whom we have already referred would have made a passing reference to it. If we turn to page 85 of the report we find the only example that is quoted. Really it is not an example but only a possibility. The report reads -

A possible increase-

Not “ an increase “ - in demands by large or new taxi interests . . .

How the ordinary backbencher is to read into that statement the fact that ambulances, police, fire brigades, hospitals and other essential users are being inconvenienced I cannot for the life of me fathom.

I have the greatest appreciation of the fact that experimental transmissions by the Postmaster-General’s Department, in association with the Australian Broadcasting Commission, have done a great deal to stimulate interest in frequency modulation broadcasting in this country. In fact, if we had been left without the assistance of the government services in this matter, probably there would have been no experimental frequency modulation transmissions at all. People know that when something is experimental they buy at their own peril. It is very difficult to be specific on this point, but when the Government knows that from £500*000 to £1,000,000 - I am only guessing when 1 use that figure; I am not pretending to be accurate - is involved in frequency modulation receivers throughout the Commonwealth, including those on dealers’ shelves and in my home, it is reasonable that if somebody has to be pushed off-

Seantor Wade. - So it is a personal issue?

Senator HANNAN:

– I put that in to give you something to hang your hat on. I knew you would be completely stumped without it. In those circumstances, I know that the Minister’s: sense of justice and fair play will compel him to re-examine the position and to use his endeavours to see. that once more the nation is given the benefit, of frequency modulation transmission on the very high frequency band.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– I have nothing to add k> the principles which I have already enunciated. Some technical matters have been raised, by Senator Hannan in his second speech. I shall certainly take them up with the Postmaster-General: (Mr. Davidson) and. get the honorable senator all the: information I can.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- We are considering the proposed expenditure of £113,510,000 by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. Not all of it will be spent on frequency modulation. This debate is taking place after the installation of commercial accounts within the department. The .proposed vote provides a perfect illustration of the need to consider policy in relation to estimates. In this vote, the appropriation involved in interest alone is £15,347,000, and the appropriation involved in depreciation is £11,058,201. Those two items amount to more than £26,000,000. That poses a very practical problem that would engage the attention of a purposeful and sane businessman in any forum, even this committee.

The question is whether in voting the levies on the taxpayers for the purposes of the Postmaster-General’s services we should vote £113,000,000 or that amount, less £26,000,000. I put the question in as simple terms as those. Those two items illustrate the issue whether commercial accounts are proper for this department or whether merely cash accounts showing receipts and expenditure are the appropriate basis for a public department such as this. I put the matter in that way because I ask the Minister to afford as much information as he can to the committee to justify this revised system of Post Office accounts.

I do so with less temerity because my own inclination is to believe that if we are to rationalize the idea of government departments taking their places in the service of the community alongside ordinary enterprises of individual taxpayers or collective enterprises of taxpayers, the government enterprises have to be put on a competitive and comparable basis for the purpose of judging their efficiency and economy. I believe that we would be following a mistaken guide if we did not analyse so much of the past expenditure of the Post Office as remains in the form of capital assets, assess the depreciation, consider the interest value of the assets involved, present the accounts on a commercial basis, and then strike a levy for the- services of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department that would enable the department to meet all of those imposts and pay its way.

When I state that proposition I have in mind the commercial activities of government that have appeared in modern times, such as railway and other transport services, including Trans-Australia Airlines. They are to be distinguished, in only a very narrow degree, from ordinary commercial services; but the Post Office has a tradition. It has the privilege of having emerged as a government business undertaking half a century before the idea of running a business for government profit appealed to any political party. The Post Office was established as a service to the community. When I said “ half a century “, my history was sadly astray. Governments espoused the idea that they had a responsibility for postal services probably 250 years ago, or may be earlier than that.

I believe that an appropriation of £113,000,000, of which no less than £26,000,000 is for two items - depreciation and interest - ought to engage the thoughtful consideration of this committee. The appropriateness of that idea can be positively asserted in relation to banking, transport and shipping services, and all the commercial activities which one party in the political forum directly urges and in which another party in the political forum indirectly acquiesces and then espouses. Distinguishing the Postmaster-General’s Department from that ilk, are we justified in appropriating £113,000,000, which would exceed the appropriation on a noncommercial basis and a governmental accounting basis by about £26,000,000? I rose to put that point of view in the hope that the Minister will justify it.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– In referring to Division No. 711, I take the committee from the Olympian heights of the economic propositions so ably submitted by Senator Wright to the matter of postage stamps. The department spends quite an amount of money in printing stamps. I would be interested to learn from the Minister what the designing of stamps costs the department, and also what Australian artists, if any, are engaged in the designing of stamps. I cannot avoid the feeling that our postage stamps are amongst the most dull, unimaginative and inartistic of all the stamps in the world. Postage stamps are an important way of advertising a country. Many countries realize that. It might be a tradition of the Australian that he does not tend to display the desirable artistic qualities in the design of postage stamps, but the people of some other nations do so.

When one compares our stamps with the stamps of many other nations, one cannot avoid the conclusion that ours are designed by a good, honest public servant in a dingy office which does not lend itself to inspiration. Also, one cannot avoid the conclusion that we cannot get away from the kangaroo as a motif. I wonder how many times the kangaroo has been put on our stamps. It is time we got away from the kangaroo age.

Senator McManus:

– Would Western Australian wild flowers be all right?

Senator VINCENT:

– Now, Senator McManus is really displaying some imagination and artistry.

Senator Ormonde:

– Have you French stamps in mind?

Senator VINCENT:

– One has only to look at the stamps produced by any of the Western European countries, the variety of the stamps they produce, and take cognizance of the fact that so much of the world is interested in this matter - it has become a highly interesting subject artistically - to realize that this is not an unimportant question at all, but a highly important one. We are not dealing with this subject properly in Australia. I suggest that we get away from the kangaroo and I suggest also that we get away from the wombat. That has been on so many stamps that I am sick of it too. There are many things that we could use as motifs for our stamps. Many magnificent aspects of our history and of our culture could be represented on our stamps.

I ask the Minister to convey my remarks to the Postmaster-General, and I do so in the hope that the design of postage stamps will be tackled in this country as it has been tackled in many other countries. I believe that the rest of the world is sick of seeing the emu and the kangaroo on our stamps. It would be nice to see other motifs. A new issue of Australian stamps is a matter of considerable interest. I suppose that any small European country makes many more issues of new stamps than does Australia. A challenge is presented to us, as Australians, to consider this matter. I ask the Minister to tell us now who does the designing of our stamps, who decides the motifs that are to be used, and whether any of our recognized artists are co-opted in this very important cultural enterprise.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– Now that the scope of the debate has been widened, I ask: Who designs our public telephone boxes? I speak on behalf of the left-handed people in the community. I do not know whether the Minister has ever considered the difficulty that a lefthanded person encounters in trying to make a telephone call from a public telephone box in Australia. I believe that one person in about every ten persons in the community is left-handed. When a lefthanded person goes into a public telephone box, he takes the receiver in his left hand and then, holding the receiver ready to put to his ear, he tries to turn the dial on the telephone. He has almost to stand on his head to do it.

Senator McManus:

– Could he not stand back to front and reach over his shoulder?

Senator ORMONDE:

– He could not do that because there is not enough room in a telephone box. This is really a serious matter for left-handed people, and I suggest that an attempt be made by the Postal Department to design a telephone box that will make it easier for such people to make telephone calls.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– 1 want to know whether the officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department have ever tried to calculate the loss in postal revenue that arises from a practice that has been adopted by some organizations during the last few years - the practice of not sending out receipts for moneys received. This practice is fairly wide-spread now, and is being adopted even by some State government instrumentalities. I know that the Victorian State Electricity Commission does not send out a receipt for money received unless the consumer puts a cross in a square on the account that has been sent to him.

My main concern is that this practice, which is becoming more wide-spread each month, must result in a considerable loss of revenue to the Postal Department. I admit that 1 cannot suggest what the department itself could do to alter the position, except that it confer with the State governments. It is clear that the practice entails a loss of revenue to the States because, as receipts are not issued, stamp duty is not paid. I should like to know whether any estimate has been made - I admit that it would be only a rough estimate - of the amount of revenue that the Postal Department is losing through this practice. If the practice develops further, the result may well be that those who use the services of the department will have to pay more for them.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Wright has asked me to report on the activities of the Post Office since it was placed on a commercial basis.

Senator Wright:

– No, to justify the basis of the new accounting system.

Senator WADE:

– That is the point to which I am addressing myself. The annual turnover of the Post Office is about £130,000,000. Senator Wright flatters me if he believes that I could stand in my place now and give an adequate and intelligent report of the workings of the Post Office since it was placed on a commercial basis. I concede that Senator Wright was entitled to try to clear his mind on the wisdom of the policy which prompted the Government to charge interest on the capital invested in the Post Office.

I know that there are two schools of thought on that matter. Those who belong to one school of thought argue that the Post Office is an undertaking that should be run on a businesslike basis. They ask why people should be taxed to support services which do not pay. They say that the services are used by one section of the community and they ask why all of the taxpayers should be asked to bear the loss. Those who belong to the other school of thought ask why interest should be charged by the Government on money raised through taxation. There are two schools of thought. The Government came down on the side of placing the Post Office on a business basis. I am not in a position to give Senator Wright a report of the Government’s thinking on the result of the change, but I will ask the Postmaster-General if he is in a position to put down in writing a precis of his impression of the results of the ‘Changeover.

Senator Vincent had something to say about our postage stamps. The Post Office has a stamp advisory committee which comprises amongst its members philatelists and the director of the Melbourne Art Gallery. This committee closely examines designs, submitted frequently as a result of competition, and makes recommendations. The reference that Senator Vincent made to the quality of the stamps has caused to be placed in my hand a report of the Post Office’s policy on stamps. Having no time to read it all, I shall quote merely a few lines, as follows: -

In the annual selection of the world’s ten best stamp designs by the London stamp collectors, Australia has secured a place more often than any other country.

That leads me .to believe that our artists are really of some standard.

Senator Kennelly sought information about loss of revenue because of the nonissuing of receipts. I am informed that no appreciable decline has been observed in the trend of postal traffic following the growth of the practice of some business houses of not sending out receipts. Admittedly there is a loss to State governments in duty, but that is not a matter for the Commonwealth. One would be closing one’s eyes to the facts of life if one were to say that there was no loss of revenue to the Commonwealth Government. I am sorry that 1 cannot give any details, but I freely admit that in my thinking there must be some loss.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– J refer to the administrative expenses of the Postmaster-General’s Department. I am wondering first whether money could not be saved in regard to the postal investigation service, particularly in view of recent happenings. At the moment the Postmaster-General’s Department has its own investigation service which is largely a police force, or a criminal investigation branch at a police level within the department itself. I understand that the Roberts case-

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! I will not permit any discussion on the Roberts case on the estimates before the Chair. If the honorable senator wants to discuss that matter the proper place and time to do so will be during the debate -on the Appropriation Bill.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I might suggest

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I will not allow the Roberts case to be discussed in any ‘shape or form on these estimates.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I -cannot see, Mr. Chairman, how you can give a ruling before hearing what I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You mentioned the name straight away; and I will not allow a debate on that matter to develop.

Senator WILLESEE:

– You might know, Sir, that there has been a case in one of the northern States recently where an officer of the Postmaster-General’s Department was interviewed by a member of the investigation service. It seemed to most fair-minded people that the officer rather overstepped the mark.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I will noi allow the honorable senator to pursue that subject. You are referring to a particular case, and I shall not allow you to do so.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Could you give me some guidance as to how I can deal with the postal investigation service?

The CHAIRMAN:

– You must not refer to a case by simply omitting to mention the name. I will not allow that.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Some thirteen years ago I worked in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, and during the course of the time I spent in the personnel branch I had a lot to do with the postal investigation service as I was working alongside officers engaged in that service. During those years I watched those officers cross-examine people suspected of various offences. In those days I became very disturbed because those men were not trained in police methods; they used their own methods of cross-examining suspects. In some cases the offences were trivial, such as a short count in the till; other cases were more serious such as assault and battery or damaging of Commonwealth property.

In those days I felt that members of the postal investigation staff should have been trained in police methods. Members of the police forces in the various States, particularly members of the criminal investigation branches, are under the close surveillance of the press, and probably of private lawyers. Police officers have developed a tradition of fairness in handling suspects which I think they can be proud of. My worry is that this same tradition has not been evident in investigations in the Post Office. I remember in those days ‘that time and time again these officers went outside the provisions of the Post and Telegraph Act in warning suspects of the sentences which might be awaiting them. I always felt from my experience in those days that this was not a good thing for the department; and I raise the query to-night for the Minister’s consideration, particularly in view of the happenings of those days and possibly some things that have happened since.

It might be a good thing if the service were to be composed of trained detectives. A man who qualifies as a detective has had a normal police training and grows up in the police tradition. I feel that it would be to the advantage of the criminal investigation branches and to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department if detectives could be loaned to the Commonwealth for a period of time. It would certainly help criminal investigation officers to know more about the internal workings of the biggest Commonwealth department. In view of all sorts of happenings recently I believe that the public of Australia would feel better satisfied if one section of the community was not subject to treatment of a kind against which the community generally is protected.

Senator Wright:

– Can you tell us how many constitute the postal investigation service?

Senator WILLESEE:

– In Western Australia, the second smallest State as far as the Postmaster-General’s Department is concerned, there would be three officers, and one could take it that in Adelaide there would be approximately the same number. There would be one or two in Tasmania and more in the larger States. Most of those I have in mind had no particular police training. They came up through the ranks of the department. Any officer could apply for such appointment. Generally the senior position was filled by a senior man from the third division, but the assistant investigators would come from such people as linemen, postmen and the like. I raisethis matter so that the Minister might makesome comment upon it.

I wish to pass now to another matter. Over recent years there seems to be some doubt as to the division of responsibility between the Public Service Board and thePostmasterGeneral’s Department. I havenoted instances which have occurred - not during my days in the department, but muchmore recently - in which the PostmasterGeneral has declared that certain happenings in the department are the responsibility of the Public Service Board whereas the newly appointed head of the department,. Mr. O’Grady, seems to adopt a different attitude. I think we should have a clear understanding of the position in this Parliament. I hope that responsibilities are noi being clouded between the Public ServiceBoard and the department. I would think that it is the duty of the Public Service Board to exercise oversight of the department in matters associated with standard of’ examinations, recruitment and dismissals and that type of thing.

Senator Wright:

– Are not the employeesof the Postmaster-General’s Department the main body of public servants who comeunder the Public Service Act and the Public Service Board?

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, certainly,, but the Public Service Board merely dealswith the appointment of officers, their conduct in relation to certain sections of the act, their dismissal, superannuation rights, and so on. For all practical purposes trieconduct of officers is the immediate concern of the Postmaster-General’s Department, the Department of Civil Aviation, or whichever department is handling a dispute that may have arisen. For instance, it is thejob of the head of the department, and, in the final analysis, of the Minister, to make reports and recommendations regarding: conduct to the Public Service Board. I should have thought that the use of motor cars would be a matter for the administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department and not for the Public Service Board-

Proposed expenditure noted.

Postmaster-General’s Department - Capital Works and Services.

Proposed expenditure, £44,979,000.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I ask the Minister: How much of the proposed expenditure will go towards the provision of automatic telephone services?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– The sum provided for the installation of automatic telephones is £29,790,000.

Senator Lillico:

– Can the Minister say how that amount will be apportioned amongst the various States?

Senator WADE:

– 1 take it that the honorable senator is interested particularly in Tasmania?

Senator Lillico:

– Yes.

Senator WADE:

– 1 assume it is possible to obtain the information. If it is, 1 shall get it and let the honorable senator have it as soon as possible.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– 1 am prompted to speak of a matter that 1 have discussed in this chamber over the years, and about which I have never received satisfactory information. I refer to the attachment to telephones of automatic recording devices. In other countries there have been available for about fifteen years devices which may be connected to telephones, at the request of subscribers, to enable callers to record messages which can subsequently be played back. I understand that there is nothing very complicated about the apparatus. The question is whether the provision of the devices is a matter for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department or for a private organization. Can the Minister tell me whether the Postmaster-General’s Department is interested in this matter? Does it propose to install these devices when asked to do so? As I have said, in this respect we are about fifteen years behind most other nations and we should be trying to catch up.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– I am unable to supply the information for which the honorable senator has asked, but I shall ask the PostmasterGeneral to comment on the matter.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Broadcasting and Television Services.

Proposed expenditure, £12,921,000.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I ask the Minister: What is the approximate cost to the Australian Broadcasting Commission of the facilities which it has been decided to grant to the various political parties for the purposes of the forthcoming general election? The facilities to which I refer, and of which I want to know the cost to the commission and therefore to the taxpayers, relate to the broadcasting and televising of political matter over national stations. Broadcasting time has been allocated as follows: - Four hours to the Government parties, four hours to the Australian Labour Party, and three-quarters of an hour to the Australian Democratic Labour Party, or not sufficient time for the leader of that party to deliver his policy speech. On television, the Government parties have been allocated two hours, the Australian Labour Party two hours, and the Democratic Labour Party half an hour.

I question the propriety of the granting of such facilities to political parties at the expense of the taxpayer. I also question the discrimination that is shown.

Senator Henty:

– Are you not going to take the half-hour?

Senator McMANUS:

– My party will be only too pleased to give up its threequarters of an hour on the radio and half an hour on television if the Government parties and the Australian Labour Party will give up the time that has been allotted to them. I am sorry that Senator Henty should regard this matter as one for levity. If he were on our end of the stick he would not do so. I also question the granting of money for this purpose on the ground that 1 have always understood that in a democracy such as ours all candidates are regarded as being equal before the electors. It is obvious that if money provided by the taxpayers can be used by the Australian Broadcasting Commission to provide for certain political parties facilities worth considerable sums, there is no reason why the News and Information Bureau should not also be used to assist certain political parties. 1 object strongly to the facilities being made available at the expense of the taxpayers. I believe that, fundamentally, it would be a good thing if no facilities were provided at all.

Senator Wright:

– Under what authority does the commission provide free of charge facilities to any political party?

Senator McMANUS:

– I understand that it may do so under the act constituting the commission. It is thereby given power to determine the times that shall be made available to political parties. I understand that that is the position, but I would welcome correction if it is not. My party believes that the facilities should not be granted in that form. In fact, we think that no facilities ought to be given, but if they are, they should be confined to one hour for the expression of the policy speech of each party which is represented in the Parliament or which polled a significant vote at the previous election and is contesting a majority of the seats. As a result of my investigations, I believe that no other country in the British Commonwealth gives facilities to this extent. In support of my statement that the grant of money to enable these facilities to be made available is wrong, I point out that in Great Britain, a country of 44,000,000 people, an infinitely less amount of time is given to political parties. It is regrettable, therefore, that the Parliament has let slip out of its hands control over these facilities. In Great Britain, the leaders of the political parties confer and agree on times.

Senator Kennelly:

– No. They get it in proportion to the number of members in the House of Commons.

Senator McMANUS:

– I have read a survey of the recent election, which stated that the leaders of the parties conferred with regard to times. I stand by that statement, because it was an official survey of the last election in Great Britain. Whether or not that is the position, I say that there should be no grant of these times. If there is a grant, it should be on a basis that retains the equality of candidates before the law. I also take the strongest exception to the use of public funds to grant facilities, in periods when elections are not being held, to certain political parties, while refusing similar facilities to others. Only this year the Australian Broadcasting Commission has given facilities to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to comment upon the state of the economy. I suppose I have no objection to that, but the Australian Labour Party also applied to the commission for similar facilities, which were granted. The Leader of the Democratic Labour Party applied to the commission for facilities to comment upon the state of the economy, but these were refused.

Senator Vincent:

– Was any reason given?

Senator McMANUS:

– I do not know of any reason that could be given, other than that the commission determined that it should give facilities to some parties and not to another.

Senator Kendall:

– Did the Country Party get any?

Senator McMANUS:

– I do not know. I do not know whether it applied, but it forms part of the Government. At any rate, the leader of my party sought facilities from the commission, and he was refused. Some time ago I pointed out that the commission gave facilities to parliamentarians, supporters of the Government and of the Australian Labour Party, to comment in the commission’s ordinary services upon a wide variety of public questions. In response to a question, I received a list of Government supporters who had received such facilities and a list of members of the Australian Labour Party who had received them. 1 asked what members of the Democratic Labour Party had received such facilities and I was informed that none had received them.

I conclude my remarks by saying that I take the strongest exception to the use of public funds to grant in a discriminatory way to some political parties facilities which are not given to other political parties. To do that is to commit an offence against our democratic system. As I said before, if it is felt that some facilities should be given, let every political party that is represented in the Parliament, that has a significant vote and is contesting a majority of the seats, be given one hour to broadcast its policy speech, and then let all parties be put on the equal basis that if they want extra time they may purchase it from commercial stations.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– 1 refer to the provision under Division No. 733 for the maintenance and operation of television transmitting stations. The appropriation proposed is £309,000. I was very distressed, when phase 3 of the television establishment was announced, to learn that Western Australia and South Australia had been left out. We believe that phase 3 will not be completed until some time in 1964, so it will be some time before phase 4 comes into operation.

Can the Minister tell me why the Australian Broadcasting Commission has steadfastly refused to use translator transmitter stations. I refer to one type of translator, the Adler, with which 1 am familiar. Some 200 of these are operating throughout the world, 70 of them in America - in Nevada, California and Arizona. The cost of a 10-watt transmitter, imported from America and landed in Fremantle, is £2,100. That includes the cost of the aerial and all other necessary equipment, other than establishing it on the site.

Senator Henty:

– Any duties?

Senator BRANSON:

– I could not say. The landed cost of a 150-watt transmitter is £8,000. Many months ago I asked the Minister over what distance these translators could operate, and I was amazed to get the answer that the smaller type would cover some twelve miles. I refute that statement; I do not know from where the Minister got his information. I do not think that one can go past the American Federal Communications Commission, which is the equivalent of our Australian Broadcasting Commission. In a report which it was asked to produce on Adler translators, the commission stated -

Television signals were reported as being picked up and re-transmitted from stations varying from 43 to 220 miles distant, the average distance being 110 miles.

That is very different from the ten miles mentioned by the Postmaster-General. The report continued -

Tn general, service was reported to be good, with only minor difficulties in operation being experienced. Translators appear to be effective in providing television service in areas remote from regular broadcasting stations.

Let us remember that the cost of the big translator is only £8,000. That is an auth oritative statement. The commission said that on the average good reception from these translators could be had at a distance of 110 miles.

I think immediately of Western Australia. The terrain is flat and ideal for line of sight reception of television. I suggest that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as an experiment, install one of these translators, to cover some of the remote agricultural or goldfields areas in Western Australia, in order to see how it would operate. There are several translators in Italy where the terrain requires the transmission to be lifted over high mountain peaks. In the interests of the people who will not have television available before 1964, I ask the Minister to inquire from his advisers what they have against the use of the Adler-type translator as an experiment.

Thursday, 19th October 1961.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

, - I intend now to ask the committee to report progress. At the next day of sitting I will endeavour to reply to the queries that have been raised by honorable senators.

Progress reported.

page 1252

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Airlines - The Senate

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

, - I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Yesterday, Senator O’Flaherty asked me whether I, or any officer of my department, had in any way tried to get East-West Airlines Limited to sell out to, or amalgamate with, the Ansett interests. Honorable senators will recall that I emphatically denied this, and I do so again now. I understand that Mr. D. Shand, chairman of East-West Airlines Limited, made a statement to-day to a Sydney newspaper repeating the allegation that I had urged his company to sell out to Ansett, or, alternatively, to come to terms with him. In order to place this whole matter in its proper perspective I now wish to make the following explanation.

First, 1 should give the Senate some relevant facts about East-West Airlines.

This company has for some time operated a network of feeder-type rural services in New South Wales. When the Government announced in 1957 its policy of giving certain types of assistance to selected feeder airlines, East-West Airlines became eligible for such assistance. Consequently the company received subsidy payments in 1958-59 of £16,955; in 1959-60 of £25,000 and in 1960-61 of £25,700. Also, the Government facilitated its hiring of Fokker Friendship aircraft worth about £400,000 on generous financial terms from Trans-Australia Airlines in 1959, and assisted it in obtaining at nominal cost surplus DC3 aircraft from the services. Considerable assistance was also given by my department in providing at considerable cost the airport, navigation and lighting facilities necessary for the utilization of the East-West Airlines fleet.

All this assistance was primarily given to improve the standard of rural air services in New South Wales. I think it can be fairly said that it has done just that. However, it clearly had the additional effect of assisting in a material financial way the operations of East-West Airlines.

Notwithstanding the assistance given by the Commonwealth, it has been apparent for some time that the company has had difficulty in achieving satisfactory commercial results. Last year, Ansett Transport Industries Limited, which operates the other rural airline in New South Wales, made what was generally regarded in aviation circles as an attractive cash or share offer to East-West Airlines for the purchase of the company. This was rejected.

The company, on the recommendation of the directors, about June, 1960, took steps to amend its Articles of Association so that every share transfer required specific board approval. At the same time it also set in hand action to make a bonus one-for-two share issue. The commercial justification for this issue in a company with a paid-up capital of just over £100,000, with a marginal record of profitability and with a consequential substantial dependence on Government subsidy, was indeed hard to see. Neither of these actions by the company had any direct effect in resolving its basic financial problems. In fact, the bonus issue could only have accentuated these problems.

As chairman of the company and as the person primarily responsible to shareholders, Mr. Shand made various personal approaches to me for additional Government assistance. This could only have taken the form of either additional subsidy or help in acquiring further aircraft. East-West Airlines was already receiving a subsidy which last year reached £25,700 on a capital outlay, including the bonus issue, of £165,500 compared with the subsidy of £44,000 paid to Airlines of New South Wales at a figure of £1,500,000 capital employed in the business. Equipment used includes four Fokkers.

On the aircraft equipment side it was manifestly clear that East-West Airlines - and in fact the whole of the New South Wales network - already had sufficient aircraft to operate the required services.

During the course of his discussions with me Mr. Shand raised on a number of occasions the take-over bid made by Ansett last year. On every occasion Mr. Shand raised the take-over bid with me I went to great pains, both orally and in writing, to point out to him that consideration of this offer was entirely a matter for the commercial judgment of his board. For example, I wrote to him on 25th August in the following terms: -

The Director-General brought to my notice his correspondence with you dated 23rd August. I find your statement that I urged you to re-open the negotiations with Mr. Ansett incomprehensible. I said in the course of our meeting and I repeat now a decision to negotiate with Ansett is entirely a matter for the commercial judgment of your Board. If the question of negotiations with Ansett Transport Industries Ltd., or any other Airline arises in the future I would be glad if you would make this quite clear to your Board.

I cannot understand in these circumstances why Mr. Shand insists in saying that I advised him to sell out to Ansett. No amount of misrepresentation, no matter how persistent, can resolve the problems which face his company. These require the earnest and careful attention of the board and its management.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish to refer to statements made yesterday about members of the Opposition by Senator McKellar and the Leader of the Government, Senator Spooner, during the debate on the motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable new business to be commenced after half-past ten o’clock at night. Senator McKellar said -

Then, only one or two days before this all-night sitting took place-

He was referring to the all-night sitting of 17th and 18th May last, of which we all are very conscious - the Opposition, speaking to an electoral bill, I think, took up time to a degree that I thought was most regrettable. Then we considered a bill affecting the waterside workers, and again the Opposition took a great deal of time. Had honorable senators opposite made a reasonable approach to those measures the necessity for the subsequent all-night sitting would have been avoided.

Senator Spooner in speaking to the motion, made four points. He said -

May I remind the Senate that the Government was forced in some ways, to some extent, to take the action that it did at the close of the last sessional period because of filibustering on the part of the Opposition. Honorable senators opposite were repeating speeches that had been made previously, with the deliberate intention of taking up the time of the Senate.

He further said -

The second thing I want to point out is the small contribution that the Opposition made to the debates in all the circumstances. I repeat Senator McKellar’s statement that the Opposition in truth walked out on its job. It left the debate largely in the hands of its leader.

His third point was this -

I think an inspection of the record would show that the debate on very few bills was led on behalf of the Opposition by any one other than the Leader of the Opposition. If the Labour Party in the Senate is too incompetent, or too lazy, to take part in debates, then it forfeits a good deal of the respect to which it might otherwise be entitled.

The fourth point was as follows: -

The principal contribution to the debates made by honorable senators opposite, apart from the Leader of the Opposition, was continually to ccae into the chamber and call for a quorum to be formed.

Those remarks by Senator Spooner and Senator McKellar were given a good deal of publicity to-day in the Australian press. I take advantage of this, the first opportunity I have had, to present the facts. Those facts, coldly presented, will completely confound the statements that were made by both honorable senators.

Let me turn first to the Commonwealth Electoral Bill. That was a measure about which obviously there was no great urgency, because it was introduced first in 1960. It lapsed at the time the Parliament was prorogued and it was re-introduced in the House of Representatives on 21st March last. It was introduced in the Senate, following receipt of a message from the House of Representatives, on 4th May. It had lain about all that time. It was taken to the second-reading stage, and debate was adjourned. The second-reading debate was resumed on Tuesday, 9th May. It lasted from 8.18 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. - a period of 2 hours 12 minutes.

Senator Gorton:

– The debate commenced at 4.53 p.m.

Senator McKENNA:

– No. The Minister will find that on Tuesday, 9th May, the debate commenced at 8.18 p.m. and ended at 10.30 p.m. Then, on 10th May, the second-reading debate commenced at 8 p.m. and continued until 11 p.m. - three more hours. On Thursday, 11th May - I think this is the day to which the Minister is referring - the debate began at 4.53 p.m. and ended at 9.8 p.m. That meant that a further two and a quarter hours were spent on the second-reading debate, which lasted for seven and a half hours altogether.

There were sixteen speakers during that debate. How were they apportioned? There were seven Government speakers, and then the Minister for Air (Senator Wade) spoke in reply. So eight speeches were delivered by the Government senators. Seven speeches were delivered by members of the Australian Labour Party and one by a member of the Democratic Labour Party. There was equal participation in the debate between Government and Opposition senators, except that one more speech was delivered on the Government side. It cannot be claimed that there was any filibustering at that stage.

The Opposition moved that there be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole in a certain particular. I proposed that motion at 9.8 p.m. on 11th May and spoke for eighteen minutes. Two speeches were delivered by Government senators - one by the Minister for Air and the other by Senator Wright. The whole exercise took 31 minutes. I did not use my right of reply. So there was one Opposition and two Government speakers to that motion, the Opposition not exercising the right of reply. There was dearly no filibustering at that stage.

That same evening the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole at 9.44 p.m. and considered the measure until nearly midnight - a period of two and a quarter hours. During that time Government senators participated as freely as did members of the Opposition, man for man. I invite Senator McKellar in particular to note this interesting fact: From 11.9 p.m. until close on midnight there were seven speakers, six of them being Government senators. One Labour senator spoke for five minutes - myself. So if there was any element of filibustering, it certainly was not engaged in by the Opposition. I do not suggest there was any filibustering. Government senators are entitled to exercise their right of speech quite freely; I do not deny them that right. I repeat that the whole committee stage lasted for two and a quarter hours.

I have traversed the whole of the progress of that bill. I say through you, Mr. President, to Senator McKellar, that what he has said is utterly and completely without foundation. Of the six speeches that were delivered by Government senators in the last hour of the committee stage two were delivered by Senator Wright, one by Senator Wood, two by Senator Gorton, and one by Senator Vincent. I repeat that I was the only other senator who spoke at that stage. Those facts completely repudiate the suggestion that the Opposition’s attitude to that bill justified the Government’s action in having an all-night sitting in most unfair and undemocratic conditions.

We then proceeded to discuss the Stevedoring Industry Bill. We commenced consideration of that measure in committee at 4.29 p.m. on 17th May and, after a break for dinner and a break for supper we passed the measure at 2.16 a.m. on the following day. We considered the bill for six hours 38 minutes. That was a most important bill which excited nation-wide interest. It was highly controversial; the Opposition felt strongly about it. I doubt whether anybody in the chamber will say that in leading for the Opposition at the committee stage I wasted one minute. We dealt with many clauses. We divided on six. There were six divisions, and time was taken for those. Liberal Party, Australian Country Party and Labour Party senators participated equally and freely in that debate. Until to-day no one has ever suggested that the Opposition did not play a proper and speedy part in dealing with that measure.

Now let us see what happened at 2.16 a.m. on 18th May. Ten more bills were dealt with. I shall take them one by one and then summarize the result. At 2.18 a.m. we debated the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. I led on behalf of the Opposition and rose merely to say that we did not oppose the bill. The whole thing was disposed of in two minutes. Then at 2.20 a.m. we debated the Broadcasting and Television Bill. On this occasion Senator Dittmer led on behalf of the Opposition and delivered a speech which lasted for six minutes. The measure was discussed in committee and was disposed of at 3.5 a.m. Again there was no delay, no filibustering. The Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Bill followed at 3.5 a.m. Senator Willesee led on behalf of the Opposition, and the whole thing was through by 3.9 a.m. It passed through all stages in four minutes. Then followed the Defence Pay Bill at 3.9 a.m. Again Senator Willesee led on behalf of the Opposition. That measure had passed through all stages by 3.22 a.m. - just thirteen minutes later.

Then we debated the Life Insurance Bill at 3.22 a.m. I led on behalf of the Opposition and spoke from 3.22 a.m. until 3.46 a.m. - a period of 24 minutes. I was the only Opposition speaker. Three Government senators - Senators Wright^ Wood and Paltridge - spoke. Senator Spooner moved the gag, apparently to stop honorable senators on the Government side from speaking. They were debating that bill very extensively and adequately.

We came next to the Appropriation Bill (No. 2). Consideration of that began at 4.58 a.m. Senator Kennelly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, against! whom in common with all my other colleagues the attack of the Leader of the Government was directed, spoke for more than an hour. Senator Paltridge then applied the gag and the guillotine, limiting all stages to 6.38 a.m., when consideration of the bill ended. Consideration of the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill (No. 2) began at 6.38 a.m. Senator Paltridge immediately applied the guillotine, limiting all stages to the period from 6.38 to 7.2 a.m. I spoke for two minutes.

Senator Wright:

– On what bill was that?

Senator McKENNA:

– The Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill (No. 2).

Senator Wright:

– The capital works and services bill?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. Under the allotment of time, consideration of that bill was to last for about 22 minutes, but the bill was passed in two minutes. Was there any filibustering there? Was there anything to justify the guillotine?

The Supply Bill came on at 6.42 a.m. Senator Paltridge immediately applied the gag and the guillotine, limiting all stages to 7.7 a.m. I and other Opposition senators spoke. We objected to the guillotine. Senator Paltridge made a second-reading speech. Of course, the guillotine descended, and the bill was passed at 7.7 a.m. At eight minutes past seven I led for the Opposition on the Supply (Works and Services) Bill. I spoke for four minutes. I was the only Opposition speaker in the second-reading debate. The committee stage took until 7.40 a.m. During .that time Senator Kennelly and Senator Tangney spoke.

Then we came to the vastly important bill, the final one, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Bill. We objected to the suspension of the Standing Orders. There was debate on the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. Senator Wright and Senator Kennelly participated in that debate. Then Senator Henty declared the measure an urgent one. He applied the gag and the guillotine, limiting all stages to 12.15 p.m., at which time the session ended. On that vastly important bill, Senators Dittmer, O’Byrne, Cooke and Tangney spoke in the committee stage. There is a record of an opposition devoting itself to bills and being ruthlessly gagged. In the ten bills there were five gaggings and in others there were many formal motions that took only two or three minutes. I believe that in that mere statement of the facts I completely confound all that was said by the two honorable senators.

We have been told that the Opposition was lazy. Let us look at the performance of honorable senators on the Government side throughout the period. Apart from Senator Kennelly, who took a leading part in the proceedings, and myself, there were five rank and file senators who spoke constantly .throughout the night. What was the record of honorable senators on the Government side, apart from the Leader of the Government and the Ministers? Only four honorable senators opposite spoke during the night. Let me say who they were: Senator McKellar, himself, spoke for only two minutes in the whole evening; Senator Scott spoke for ten minutes; Senator Wood spoke for four minutes; and the one man on the Government back-benches who continuously and adequately devoted himself to a consideration of the measures was Senator Wright, who was heavily engaged throughout the night. Look at the record. Throughout the whole night, where were the lazy ones? They were quite clearly on the Government side. The Opposition back-benchers had a far better record than the Government back-benchers, who left everything to their leader. Look at their inglorious record! There was a whisper from three of them, and certainly a magnificent contribution from Senator Wright throughout the whole evening. When allegations of this sort are made, it behoves the Leader of the Government and Senator McKellar to look in their own backyards.

Eleven bills were considered throughout the whole of that long evening, including the important Stevedoring Industry Bill. Five gags were applied. The allegation is that I monopolized the debates. I led for the Opposition on three substantive bills only. As I have recounted, the other three bills on which I spoke were completely formal, and I devoted minutes to them. Three of my colleagues led on other important bills. They were Senator Kennelly, of course, Senator Dittmer, and Senator Willesee, who led on two bills. So, of the bills that mattered at all, I led on three of them, and my colleagues led on four of them.

It is true that we called quorums. I would have been ashamed of honorable senators on my side if they had not done so. That was the one opportunity that we had to retaliate against the Government for its unfair treatment of the Opposition. I make no apology for calling quorums on the Government. Since it was going to keep us here during that long session, we were determined that honorable senators on the Government side would listen to us. Seven quorums were called. Let us hear what Senator Spooner said, in most extravagant terms, of that performance. He said -

The principal contribution to the debates made by honorable senators opposite, apart from the Leader of the Opposition, was continually to come into the chamber and call for a quorum to be formed. 1 emphasize the words “ continually “ and “ the principal contribution “. The quorums themselves took exactly fourteen minutes. There were seven of them. So that anybody who wishes to do so may check that, I refer the Senate to the pages in the “Hansard” of 17th and 18th May, where the record of quorums can be found. There are two on page 1159, two on page 1162, one on page 1170, one on page 1174, and one on page 1183. Those seven quorums took 14 minutes out of an allnight sitting. That was the one gesture that the Opposition could make to show its disgust and to retaliate against the Government. I would have -been ashamed of the Opposition; it would have been spineless and without spirit of any kind if it had not taken advantage of every opportunity it had to record its protest. I take the opportunity to congratulate those of my colleagues who stayed with me and Senator Kennelly throughout those arduous and tiring debates, being gagged throughout in the process.

I am sorry to have kept the Senate, Mr. President, but I owed it to my colleagues and my party to put the facts before the Senate and to reject completely the points made by Senator Spooner. He began his speech by saying -

I wish to make a few remarks, I hope without heat and feeling, in order to put the record straight.

He failed as miserably in controlling the heat and feeling as he did in putting a case. I have dealt at length with his first point about filibustering. The statement that the debates were left largely in my hands is confounded by the facts that I have just recorded. He referred to the laziness of back-benchers on my side of the chamber in not taking part in the debates. All I say to the honorable senator, through you, Mr. President, is that they had a far more glorious record on that occasion than did the back-benchers on the Government side, with the notable exception of Senator Wright.

On the question of quorums again, the extravagant language used by Senator Spooner shows how ill his case was and how little notice it deserves. He claimed that the principal contribution made by the Opposition to the debates was the calling of quorums. Two minutes was spent in forming each of seven quorums. It is a disgrace to those on the Government side that those seven calls for quorums had to be made.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I think Senator McKenna did less than justice to the remarks that were made by Senator Spooner in the Senate earlier to-day, or perhaps I should say yesterday. Senator Spooner, speaking to the question under discussion at that time, made two points. He said that during the period to which he then referred and to which Senator McKenna had just referred the Labour Opposition went in for filibustering at some stage and at all significant stages left the conduct of affairs in the hands of its leader - at any rate, as far as we could see from this side of the House.

Senator Dittmer:

– You could not see very well.

Senator GORTON:

– We could hear Senator McKenna. I admit that when he or anybody else was speaking, Mr. President, we could also hear Senator Dittmer making speeches from his place without standing up. We could hear him interjecting on everybody who spoke.

Senator Dittmer:

– That is not true.

Senator GORTON:

– We could hear him interjecting as he is doing now.

Senator Dittmer:

– You know that is not true. You are just like your leader.

Senator GORTON:

– Both of the points made by Senator Spooner are substantiated by the record, despite what Senator McKenna has said. Filibustering took place before the mass of bills to be considered came into the House. Filibustering took place when a motion was proposed to permit the introduction of new business after 10.30 p.m. Above all, filibustering took place when we were debating the Stevedoring Industry Bill, at which time there were many other bills on the noticepaper. As Senator McKenna has admitted, a certain amount of time - probably more time than the bill itself deserved - was taken up-

Senator Dittmer:

– That is not true. The bill did deserve it.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! Senator Dittmer, if you persist in interjecting, I shall have to take action.

Senator GORTON:

– A considerable amount of time - probably more than the bill deserved - was taken up in debating the Commonwealth Electoral Bill, but far more time was taken up in debating the Stevedoring Industry Bill. That debate went on for two full days and for a part of another day. It began at 4.34 p.m. on 16th May and went on until midnight. It was resumed after question time on 17th May and went all through 17th May and up to 2.15 a.m. on 18th May. A study of “ Hansard “ will show that during that time, as Senator Spooner said, many speeches were made repeating what had been said before. During the two and a half days that were spent on that one bill a great deal of time was wasted by the Opposition, so that it was necessary for a number of less important bills to be put through quickly. That is the justification for Senator Spooner’s statement that filibustering was responsible for the fact that on 17th and 18th May a number of bills had to be put through as quickly as they were.

The other charge that Senator Spooner made was that the Opposition left matters m the hands of Senator McKenna. I think Senator McKenna himself underlined the truth of that charge to-night. He said that he led for the Opposition on all the significant bills. He said also that Senator Dittmer led for the Opposition on one bill and that Senator Willesee led on another. So they did, but, as “ Hansard “ will show, both of those bills were not opposed by the Opposition.

Senator Ridley:

– Then what was the good of talking about them?

Senator GORTON:

– I do not know. Indeed, they were not talked about for long. All that Senator Willesee or Senator Dittmer did was to rise and say, “We do not oppose this bill “. When bills were to be opposed, then, except for some bills on which Senator Kennelly led for the Opposition, it was Senator McKenna who either took or was handed the responsibility for dealing with them.

As Senator Spooner said and as Senator McKenna confirmed, quorums were called on seven occasions in those two and a half days. One some occasions they were called by a member of the Opposition when there were two, one or no members of the Opposition in the House.

Senator McKenna:

– Then who called for a quorum?

Senator GORTON:

– I will correct that statement because it was obviously wrong. Quorums were called when not more than one or two members of the Opposition were in the House. Quorums were not called, as they could have been called, when no member of the Opposition was in the House, as was the case during that debate for at least fifteen or twenty minutes.

Senator Sandford:

– That is a lie.

Senator GORTON:

– Senator Sandford has referred to that remark as a lie. Mr. President, I ask you to tell him to withdraw the remark. What I have said is completely true.

Senator Sandford:

– Prove it.

Senator GORTON:

– Never mind whether I can prove it. What I have said is true, and Senator Sandford has said that it is a lie. I ask that he be requested to withdraw that remark, which was unparliamentary.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Gorton has asked that the remark be withdrawn. You will withdraw it, Senator Sandford.

Senator Sandford:

– I withdraw it, but I. still think it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You will withdraw it unreservedly.

Senator Sandford:

– I withdraw it.

Senator GORTON:

– While this debate was taking place, there was a period when no member of the Opposition was in the House. There were many other periods when not more than one or two members of the Opposition were in the House. Bearing in mind that a great deal of time had been wasted on two bills, is not it reasonable to say that the Opposition was lazy if two, one or none of its members were in the House? ls not it reasonable also to say, when all major bills except those that were not opposed were taken by the Leader of the Opposition, that the Opposition was leaving all the work to its leader?

The Leader of the Opposition himself has underlined Senator Spooner’s statement about the events of 17th and 18th May. He has complained that after all the major bills had gone through - bills which he had taken himself either of his own will or because his party had handed them to him - there came into the House an important bill relating to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. He has complained that he had to spend the whole of the adjournment for breakfast in studying that bill so that he could lead on it for the Opposition, having led on all the others. That bill came from the House of Representatives, and surely he could have studied it before then. Is not it reasonable to infer that he had to devote the adjournment for breakfast to a study of that bill because nobody else on his side was prepared to study it for him and to take from his shoulders some of the burden that he had been carrying for two days? If that is a reasonable inference, it was entirely proper for Senator Spooner to say that, as it always does, the Opposition left everything to its leader. It was entirely proper for Senator Spooner to say that the jamming up of a number of unimportant bills - most of them were unimportant, and ten or twelve of them were sales tax bills - was due to the filibustering on the Stevedoring Industry Bill and the Commonwealth Electoral Bill. I believe that a study of the record will show that the comments on this matter made by Senator Spooner and Senator McKellar were completely factual.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I am amazed to think that a Minister of the Crown should stand up in this chamber and make a speech such as we have just heard, after Senator McKenna had documented the happenings of the particular night. What are the facts? It is known that the Opposition requested the Government to sit normal hours, saying that it was quite prepared to come back the next day, or even one or two days in the following week. 1 wish to repeat something I heard. At times it is a bit dangerous to do that; but as one who is used to danger, I will take the risk. I understand that a meeting of the Government parties was held to discuss the length of the sitting. I heard that it was stated by the leader of the House, “ We will finish by one o’clock and will get it through “.

After the persistent requests of the Opposition for the Government to conduct the affairs of this House as they ought to be conducted, can any one take any objection because certain members of the Opposition made quite sure - seeing that the Government was not conducting the affairs of the House in a manner befitting a house of review - that the Government kept a quorum in the chamber? I plead guilty to taking that action myself. To say that the Opposition was not taking the business of the House in a serious manner, or was not acting in the fashion it should have acted, is not borne out by the facts. It ill-became any person, particularly the leader of the Senate, to make the remarks he did. Admittedly, he must tire at the end of a sessional period. Not only has he his work in this chamber to attend to, but he also has to spend a great deal of time on other matters. However, just because every one will not agree with what he desires, he becomes offensive.

I am certain that no person who had any consideration for the well-being of this House as a house of review - whether he be a member of the Senate or a person who takes some interest in its proceedings - could not have been other than shocked at the proceedings that night. Even newspapers which usually support the present Government painted a very black picture of what the Government did, stating that it had done the Senate a great disservice. The speech that Senator Gorton has made did not give the facts as each senator who was present knows them. I am sorry to think that because a person gets a little bit nervy, as seems to be the case with the leader of the Government, he should be as offensive as he has been.

Senator MCKELLAR:
New South Wales

– I too, Mr. President, express my regret at delaying the House on this occasion. I also want to make it quite plain that I had no intention of referring to the happenings of the night of 17th May, had it not been that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), when speaking to the motion for the suspension of the standing order, again brought up the subject and referred to the fact that the Senate had been brought into bad repute. I do not think he used the words “ into bad repute “ but that is what he implied.

One other point I wish to make is that no word of mine was intended as a personal criticism of the Leader of the Opposition. I think I stated - and I wish to reiterate the statement - that 1 admire him for his efficiency and the hard work he performs. Even at this very moment I think he has our great sympathy because we realize that the speech he made to-night was the speech that any leader of an opposition would be called upon to make in defence of a team he is unfortunate enough to lead.

The facts should be placed before the public. They were not placed before the public on that occasion. When we went home from that sitting of the Senate the headlines that greeted us in the newspapers were about the shame of the Senate. The facts were not known by the public. The facts were substantially those which I stated very briefly yesterday, and which were then dealt with in more detail by Senator Spooner. I did not accuse the Opposition of filibustering on that particular night. I did say one or two days before that the Opposition was wasting time, and I repeat that charge. The Opposition did waste time. It knew that we were nearing the end of the sessional period and it deliberately wasted time. It should have known then that we would be called upon to have an all-night sitting. Some of the blame must definitely lie with the Opposition.

Some remarks were made last night, and again to-night, that I was acting in collusion with the Leader of the Senate in the remarks that I made. That statement is entirely incorrect. I had no intention, when I came into this chamber, of speaking to the motion at . all. I certainly would not have spoken to it had it not been for the provocative remarks which were made, intentionally or otherwise, by the Leader of the Opposition.

Referring to the night in question, I do not know at what hour of the morning it was, but at one stage the Leader of the Opposition made a request - in fact, I think he made several requests - of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to suspend the sitting. I remember distinctly that on one occasion he stated that he had some sick senators. This matter can be verified by reference to “ Hansard “. I looked it up myself this afternoon. “ Hansard “ does not mention the number of senators referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, but I have a very vivid recollection of his saying, “ I have ten sick senators who are under doctor’s orders. They have had to go home to bed.” Ten sick senators! I suggest that that statement of the Leader of the Opposition places my comment in proper perspective. I have said that the Opposition was either not capable or was too lazy to carry out its duties as an Opposition team.

Senator Ridley:

– How long did you stay on that occasion?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I stayed here all night. We know that many members of the Opposition, apart from the sick ones, went home to bed. The sick ones, of course, had our sympathy. It was no fault of theirs that they were sick.

I also want to refer to the calling of quorums on that occasion. Senator Gorton was quite right when he said that quorums were called for, and that no members of the Opposition were here. On several occasions a member of the Opposition came into the chamber, called for a quorum to be formed and then went out again. It is all very well to refer to speeches that were made by members of the Opposition at that time. The question I ask is: Where were the other members who did not speak? That is the kernel in the coco-nut. Those who were here were kept here deliberately to keep the ball rolling and the rest were home in bed. I want to support my remark that the Opposition was either not capable of carrying out its duties or was too lazy to do so. If we look back to the events of 17th May, my remark can be justified.

This afternoon, at 5.25 p.m., there were only two supporters of the Australian Labour Party in the chamber. At 5.30 p.m., there were three. I remind the Senate that on 7th September last, when Senator DrakeBrockman was speaking during the Budget debate, there was not one Opposition supporter in the chamber. Does not that bear out my contention about honorable senators opposite? Time and again we have seen only one member of the Opposition in the chamber. I recall that on a certain occasion a member of the Opposition was sitting with a visitor in the gallery. Suddenly he became aware that there was not a member of the Opposition in the chamber. He had to leave his visitor and rush into the chamber so that there would be at least one Labour supporter in the Senate. Time and again I have seen only one or two honorable senators on the other side of the chamber. It was that kind of thing which formed the basis of the statement I made yesterday. I repeat that, on the occasion I have mentioned, the Opposition was either not capable of carrying out the duties of an Opposition or was too lazy to do so.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Mr. President–

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

That the question be now put

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.55 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 October 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1961/19611018_senate_23_s20/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant