House of Representatives
8 June 1955

21^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PENSIONS
- Petition
QUESTION NOT PROCEEDED WITH
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
QUESTION
- OBSERVANCE OF THE QUEEN’S BIRTHDAY
FREE MILK SERVICE AT WENTWORTH SCHOOL
QUESTION
- AIR NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT
QUESTION
- FIRST TRANS-PACIFIC FLIGHT
EXPERIMENTS ON WATER CONSERVATION
QUESTION
- PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- HOSPITAL AND SICKNESS BENEFITS
QUESTION
- SUB-NORMAL CHILDREN’S NATIONAL COUNCIL
QUESTION
- AWARDS FOR SCIENTIFIC INVENTIONS
QUESTION
- ADELAIDE AIRPORT
QUESTION
- FREE MILK FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN
QUESTION
- CANBERRA LIQUOR TRADING HOURS
QUESTION
- ASSISTANCE FOR BLINDED PERSONS
QUESTION
- DOLLAR IMPORTS
QUESTION
- BROADCASTING
QUESTION
- IMMIGRANT NURSES
QUESTION
- POLIOMYELITIS
QUESTION
- HEXHAM AERODROME
QUESTION
- DRIED FRUITS
PRICE OF TEA,
HOUR OF MEETING
QUESTION
- LIQUOR AT RUSSIAN EMBASSY,
NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M
QUESTION
- FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- TARIFF PROPOSALS 1955
COVERED CABLE AND COVERED WIRE
- Tariff Board Report
JUDICIARY BILL 1955
- Second Reading
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1955
- Second Reading
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1955
COCOS (KEELING) .ISLANDS BILL 1955
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
QUESTION
- MEAT AGREEMENT (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS)
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
- Report of Committee of Privileges
MEAT EXPORT (ADDITIONAL CHARGE) BILL 1955
- Second Reading
JUDICIARY BILL 1955
- Second Reading
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1955
- Second Reading
COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS BILL 1955
- Second Reading
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE
SOUTH-EAST ASIA
- South-East Asia - Ministerial Statement, 10th August, 1954
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
- International Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 2nd November, 1954
QUESTION
- ATOMIC ENERGY
COPPER
- Copper - Tariff Board’s Report - Ministerial Statement
INDO-CHINA
- Indo-China - Ministerial Statement - 11th May, 1955
DEFENCE
ADJOURNMENT
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Increase of Retiring Age
STEVEDORINGINDUSTRYINQUIRY

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Archie Cameron) cook the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1499

PENSIONS

Petition

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present a petition from certain citizens of the Commonwealth praying that age and invalid pensions be increased immediately by £1 a week. The petition is respectfully worded, concludes with a prayer, and bears the certificate of the Clerk of the House that it is in conformity with the Standing Orders of the House. I also have a number of other petitions which are respectfully worded but which, because they do not conform strictly with the Standing Orders, have been disallowed by the Clerk of the House. L present these to the Government for their information and I presume-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman may not presume anything hat is out of order.

Petition received and read.

page 1499

QUESTION NOT PROCEEDED WITH

page 1500

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr. Jeff Bate having earlier asked a disallowed question,

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I rise to order! Standing Order 151 provides that -

Notice must be given of Questions regarding Hie character or conduct of individuals other than Ministers or Members of the House.

I wish to submit that my question which was disallowed had nothing to do with the character or conduct of any indi vidual. It had to do with the administration of an act of Parliament concerning the individual, but nothing whatever to do with his conduct or character. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you took that factor into consideration when you were giving your decision.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! It has been my invariable rule that such matters shall be placed on the notice-paper, and unless the House rules otherwise, I shall not alter the rule.

page 1500

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– I inform the House that during the absence overseas of the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale), the Minister for Defence (Sir Philip McBride) will represent him in thi.= House.

page 1500

QUESTION

OBSERVANCE OF THE QUEEN’S BIRTHDAY

Mr DOWNER:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Prime Minister bring about some return to reality in the public observance of the Queen’s birthday ? At present, this happy event is celebrated three times a year: on her actual birthday, the 21st April: on the 9th June, with the announcement of the customary honours list and, in London and elsewhere, by traditional pageantries; and again, on the following Monday, by a public holiday throughout Australia - though, not in Great Britain.. Could not these marks of respect and affection be reduced to a maximum of two occasions, with the 21st April emphasized by an Honours List and commemorative ceremonies, and when that date happens to fall on a Monday in Australia, all to be combined with the public holiday? Does not the Prime Minister believe’ that a more concentrated observance would invest this signal anniversary with more meaning for Her Majesty’s subjects than the existing practice of rejoicing is spasms ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I agree with the honorable member that there is something a little unreal about the present arrangements. I will be very glad to discuss the matter with the Premiers when we meet, and see whether we can, as the honorable member says, concentrate our celebrations more. The only comfort I have is that although Her Majesty appears to have three birthdays a year under the present arrangements, she is certainly not ageing at that rate.

page 1501

FREE MILK SERVICE AT WENTWORTH SCHOOL

ifr. CLARK. - Can the Minister for Health say why a free milk service has not yet been commenced at the Wentworth school? I am informed that although tenders were called over two years ago; no action has yet been taken by the department concerned.

SIR EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The honorable gentleman was good enough to mention this matter to me, so I have been able to get some facts from the New South Wales Education Department, which handles the matter for the Commonwealth. The two governments have agreed that it is reasonable that the price of milk for school children, which is delivered in bulk, in effect, should never exceed the price of milk delivered to individual householders in the areas concerned. I understand from the Minister for Education in New South Wales that the difficulty in Wentworth has arisen because, despite the fact that there have been some discussions on the matter, it has not been possible to get a contractor to quote a price for milk delivered to school children which is equivalent to the price of milk delivered to individual householders. I think every one will agree that it must be possible to handle bulk supplies of milk for 200 or 300 children much more cheaply than milk for delivery to 200 or 300 consumers individually.

page 1501

QUESTION

AIR NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT

Mr BOSTOCK:
INDI, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Recently, a new and valuable aircraft navigational instrument known as distance measuring equipment has been widely used in Australia. I understand the instrument was invented and developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organization. Will the Minister say whether the instrument is. available for use by aircraft operators in countries other than Australia?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

– The honorable gentleman is right. The distance measuring equipment was developed by the radiophysics division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. It was developed from radar equipment that was in use at the end of the last war. It has turned out to be a very successful piece of equipment. A3 the Minister for Air announced about a week ago, I understand, it has been installed on a number of the major airline routes in Australia. I think that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization was entirely responsible for the development of this piece of equipment. It is recognized throughout the world as a most useful piece of equipment for air navigation. Unfortunately, its use so far has been confined to Australia because of a lack of agreement among the member countries of the International Civil Aviation Organization as to the frequency on which it should be used. Therefore, unfortunately, the rest of the world has not been able to take advantage of this equipment, but I hope that, before very long, there will be international agreement about a suitable frequency, which will enable this Australian invention to be used all over the world.

page 1501

QUESTION

FIRST TRANS-PACIFIC FLIGHT

Mr COUTTS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Air, by saying that to-day is a famous anniversary in aviation circles. On this day 27 years ago a famous native of the city of Brisbane landed his aircraft, the Southern Cross, a few hundred yards from where he was born, at Eagle Farm, Brisbane. I might be out of order if I mentioned his name, but it is well known to every one. In Brisbane, an effort has been made to have a statue to his memory erected at Eagle Farm, but this has been interrupted by a dispute on minor aspects, and no finality has yet been reached. Is the Minister willing to lend his good offices in resolving the dispute, so that the statue may be cast and erected at the Brisbane airport to the memory of this great airman?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Air · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– Last week the honorable member for Maribyrnong raised this matter and asked that something be done to mark the anniversary of this most meritorious flight. Arrangements have been made for flags to be flown on all aerodromes and suitable references to the occasion will be made by airline operators in flight logs to-day. I have no knowledge of the dispute to which the honorable member has referred, but I shall be delighted to do anything that I can to solve any problems that have arisen.

page 1502

EXPERIMENTS ON WATER CONSERVATION

page 1505

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE FOR BLINDED PERSONS

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Social Services consider having extended, through the rehabilitation section of the Department of Social Services, assistance to blinded persons who have to travel from their home State to another State for special treatment for their disability? In explanation, I mention a recent specific case of a blinded person in receipt of a pension who had to travel from Hobart to Sydney to obtain special treatment which was available only in Sydney and which might, at least partially, restore his sight. At the present time, no provision is made for assistance, in necessitous cases, to a wife or other person who must accompany a patient and care for him during his treatment.

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Social Services · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– During the last few weeks, arrangements have been completed between the National Council of the Blind and the rehabilitation section of the Department of Social Services to co-ordinate and expand the activities of blind institutions. It may well be that the kind of activity mentioned by the honorable member could be considered by the Blind and Deaf Institute in

Sir EARLE PAGE:
CP

– The position in America in relation to the Salk vaccine is clarifying itself very considerably. In Canada, Connaught Laboratories, which is largely controlled by the Canadian Government and which was one of the six concerns that manufactured the vaccine for the great experiment last year, has been able to provide approximately 500,000 doses, I think, for the Canadian people. Consequently, the Canadian authorities have been able to maintain their programme of dealing with a couple of grades - I think grades 5 and 6 - of school children, and no unfortunate accidents have occurred. It has been stated that there is not the slightest chance of our receiving any vaccine from that country, because it is not able to supply its own needs, but is dependent to a large degree upon the United States of America. In the United States, however, on account of the vaccine prepared by certain manufacturers being under suspicion, with the consequent necessity of re-examining not merely those particular brands of vaccine, but also all the other poliomyelitis vaccines made in America, there has been great delay and great confusion in the carrying out of the programme. I understand that two of the great organizations, Parke Davis and Company Limited and Eli Lilley and Company, have been given a clear bill in regard to the effectiveness, safety and potency of the vaccines that they are manufacturing. It seems that at least two or three months will elapse before any supplies will be available for export, but this Government has been assured that it will be given the highest priority in the issuing of any export licences in America. The two great organizations in the United States to which I have referred, and with which I have been in communication, have received a firm order from Australia, and they hope to be able to meet our requirements by the date I have mentioned.

page 1507

QUESTION

HEXHAM AERODROME

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In view of the extraordinary delay that has occurred in establishing at Hexham, Newcastle, an aerodrome that would serve a population of 250,000 within 40 miles of Newcastle - a population greater than that of the whole of Tasmania - will the Minister, in order to encourage interstate travel on Trans-Australia Airlines aircraft to Williamtown aerodrome, give consideration to expediting the provision of car transport from that aerodrome to Newcastle ?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– Really, the transport of passengers is a matter for tha company to determine, but I shall be pleased to ascertain if there is any way in which the Government can help in getting a better service. I might add that a new airline, East- West Airlines, has received permission to operate at Williamtown, too, and that should help the district.

page 1507

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

Mr TURNBULL:

– I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether representatives of dried fruits growers have yet taken advantage of his offer to make available officers of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture to assist the industry in working out details of a proposed stabilization plan that it is hoped will prove economically and constitutionally acceptable to the Government and to the industry.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– I have informed the honorable member for Mallee and other honorable members that I should be glad to arrange to have appropriate officers of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture discuss with representatives of the dried fruits industry proposals designed to give an enduring stability to that industry. ‘ As the result of this offer, I have myself had discussions with representatives of the industry who have also consulted officers of my department. I am glad to be able to inform the honorable member that the Commonwealth Dried Fruits Control Board and the Australian Dried Fruits Association have now nominated representatives of the industry who will meet senior officers of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture in Melbourne, either next week or on whatever date is suitable to the representatives of the industry, in order to discuss means which may be designed to give stability to this important industry. At the same time, I have arranged that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics should make certain investigations into the economic structure of the industry. The results of that objective examination of the problems of the industry will be available to the Government and the in? dustry representatives to aid them in their deliberations.

LIQUOR AT RUSSIAN EMBASSY,

Mr SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Archie Cameron), - I have received from the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr* Ward) an intimation that he desires to submit a definite matter of urgent publicimportance to the House for discussion,, namely-

The urgent necessity of investigating thetransactions of Dr. Bialoguski and Mr. Petrov in relation to imported liquor purchased of released from bond on the fraudulent pretence of being required for the Russian Government in Australia,

Mr Menzies:

– The honorable member is permanently out of order. My submission is that this matter has been brought before this House with a view to influencing the proceedings of a royal commission, and that, following the practice in this Parliament, it ought to be ruled out of order.

Mr Calwell:

– The Opposition has not raised this matter with a view to influencing the . Royal Commission on Espionage. The contention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that that is the purpose of the Opposition is wrong. The Opposition has a perfect right to submit a matter for discussion which does not affect anything that happened before the royal commission, which does not affect the security of the country, but which does concern the alleged misdeeds of two people who happened to be witnesses before the royal commission. If the matter cannot be discussed here, it cannot be discussed outside the House because, at least, honorable members do have protection here which neither they nor any one else has outside the House. All this week and last week, articles have appeared in several newspapers in Australia on this matter. The newspapers have published stories which, in my view, have done a lot of damage, not only to the Royal Commission on Espionage by bringing it into disrepute, but also to the security service. No action has been taken by the Government to protect the royal commission from those published statements. The Government has not taken action to protect the security service from attack, not by any honorable members on either side of the House, but by this precious Dr. Bialoguski and his ex-wife. If such articles can be published outside this chamber without the Government taking action, I submit that Tt is competent for honorable members to discuss an alleged particular incident or alleged happening about which honorable members feel strongly and which, if the case were proved, would certainly reveal in their correct light, two people who have been prominent before the royal commission.

Mr WARD:

– That is exactly what I am coming to. These allegations have been made, in substance, in this House on previous occasions. I will not say that they have been made in such detail as I would like to mention to-day, but they have been made in substance. If they were in order then and no objection was taken by the Government, for the life of me I cannot understand the point now taken by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The matter raised by the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr. J. R. Eraser) puts the position in a nutshell. It was obvious under the Standing Orders that I must have ruled this matter in order before I read the letter to the House. It is a fact that I had given careful consideration to this question over a period of many weeks. As a matter of fact, I think the first references to it were made in the latter weeks of the session last year. They have come up from time to time during the present sittings of the House. In my view, the terms of reference of the royal commission do not include any matters dealing with liquor transactions by the Russian Embassy or any of its staff and, therefore. I feel that it is not one of the matters remitted by the House to the royal commission for investigation. It is also a fact that the evidence before the royal commission, so far as I can gather from the official script published to me every day or two while it was sitting, has been concluded. These matters may he opened again - I do not know. I should also say that whatever the commission’s view of the credibility of any witness may happen to be, that view would be formed on the evidence given in the court and on the demeanour of the witness in that court, and I should be very loth to believe that any articles in the press, or any debate in this House, would influence the royal commissioners in their view of a witness, after having had the advantage of hearing his evidence on oath and watching his demeanour before them in the witness box. It is perfectly true that absolute privilege attaches to any statement made in thi3 House by honorable gentlemen in reference to people outside, but on that matter they have to be their own judges. Three important matters, so far as I can see from previous discussions here and from the tenor of questions, are involved in this matter of urgency. The first is what appears to be a breach of diplomatic privilege on the part of somebody attached to the Russian Embassy. The second involves the import laws of the Commonwealth, and the third involves the Commonwealth right to collect certain revenues on imported liquor. For those reasons, in brief, I have ruled the matter in order. It is always open to the House, of course, to overrule me in these matters. That is a matter for the House. So far as I am concerned, the moment I read that letter to the House it was proof positive that I had ruled the debate in order.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I regard this matter as of great importance, and of some urgency. It is not as if I had taken any precipitate action in the matter; I have been rather patient. I have waited patiently for the Government to give an indication that it was taking some action in what I regard as a most serious situation. I shall not take the time to quote in full the correspondence which has passed between me and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), but honorable members will recollect that I first raised this matter m the House, by question on notice, in October, 1954. At that time I did not specifically mention the name of any individual. I asked for certain information from the Minister for Trade and Customs in regard to the quantities of spirituous liquors being brought into this country duty free, ostensibly for the personal use of members of foreign legations, or for the official purposes of such legations. On that occasion, the Minister, after quite a deal of delay, gave me a written reply which stated that it is not the practice to disclose information relating to any importer’s ordinary business with the Department of Trade and Customs. This, surely, was not ordinary business by an ordinary importer; it was an entirely different matter. At that time, no mention was made by the Minister of its being impracticable to furnish this information. He based his refusal to supply it merely on the fact that it was not the practice to make it available. I then raised the matter in this House, by way of a question without notice directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), seeking his assistance in obtaining the information, and on that occasion the Prime Minister gave a blank refusal to furnish any information whatsoever, basing his refusal on the ground that for diplomatic reasons it was unwise to furnish the information that I waB seeking.

On the 10th November, 1954, I raised the matter on the motion for the adjournment of the House, and on that occasion I specifically mentioned the names of Mr. Petrov and Dr. Bialoguski, though not in the sense of saying I personally knew that they were engaged in any particular illegal practice. I advised this House and the Government of the nature of information which had been brought to me, the authenticity of which I had no reason to doubt, and I then asked the Government to make an investigation. No reply was given by the Government. I think that the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Francis) was in charge of the House at the time, and he said merely that he would pass my remarks on to the responsible Minister, but it was admitted by the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne), who took part in the debate. that this was a most serious allegation and a most serious charge against these people. I recognized that, and that was the reason why I wanted it investigated. Hearing nothing further, I then wrote to the Minister for Trade and Customs on the 30th November, 1954, pointing out that in my opinion legations were not ordinary importers, and therefore they should not be covered by what he regarded as the normal practice, and I again pressed for .the information to be made available. I asked the Minister whether any records were kept by the Department of Trade and Customs of the importation of spirituous liquors for use by foreign legations, and I also asked for his personal assurance that, as a result of hie own investigations, he was satisfied tha* there had been no abuse of diplomaticprivilege in these instances. So far,, although I pressed that request to th, Minister on a number of occasions, I have not received that personal assurance.

On the 22nd December, during the absence overseas of the Minister for Trade and Customs, I received from the Minister who acted for him a reply, in which he informed me that under customs item 373 spirituous liquor could be purchased for the personal or official use of members of foreign legations without the payment of any duty. He stated that the department had no power to refuse permission to import such liquor, and that no separate records for statistical purposes were kept of imports under customs item 373. But the Acting Minister was only evading the real issue, because in later correspondence he varied his excuse and said that, because of the labour involved and the cost, it was impracticable to make this information available. Since obtaining these replies, I have gone to the trouble of ascertaining the practice in the department, and I am assured that, far from its being difficult to obtain the information, and far from a great deal of labour being involved in obtaining the information, a telephone call to the department would enable the information to be readily obtained within a comparatively short space of time. It may be true that the records are not kept for statistical purposes, but if the Prime.

Minister does not know and makes an inquiry he will discover that such is the case. Orders for this liquor are made in quadruplicate form, and one copy goes to the Department of Trade and Customs and is recorded. It is merely a matter of looking at those records, which are available in the department, to see whether there was any abuse of diplomatic privilege or not. The Minister said that if there had been any abuse he had no doubt it would be brought to the notice of the Collector of Customs. How could it be brought to his notice if no records are kept? Who is to know that this privilege is being abused if the department has no records to show the quantities being consumed by these legations? I again wrote to the Minister for Trade and Customs on the 29th December, and I received a reply on the 21st January, 1.955. The Minister wrote as follows: -

Having regard to the labour and cost involved . . .

Mr WARD:

– Well then, Mr. Speaker, I shall make reference to information that was furnished to me, and give the source of it. It is not, however, the information to which I have just been referring. One of the solicitors who appeared before the royal commission has personally told me that he has been interrogated by a member of the Commonwealth Crown Law Department in Sydney and asked to divulge the source of the information upon which he had based his crossexamination of Mr. Petrov-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr. Calwell) put -

That the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) be granted an extension of time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker -Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 38

NOES: 58

Majority . . . . 20

– Does the Prime Minister want to read to the House the letter I wrote to the Minister?

– A little careful investigation of those matters is always distasteful, I know. But there it is ! If the charge that is made is a charge of abusing diplomatic privilege, that is to say, a charge of behaving improperly in a diplomatic capacity, then all honorable members, and all the people of Australia, know perfectly well that the whole of Petrov’s conduct as a diplomat has occupied weeks, and indeed months, of the time of the royal commission. They also know that, the royal commission was set up to investigate that very problem, and to make its report. There is no more commonplace Communist technique in this country than that which has been used in this case - to set out, first of all, to discredit the royal commission, of which this House had unanimously approved, as the honorable member has rightly reminded us, and in the second place to discredit, if possible in advance, the report of the royal commission which must, in the nature of things, have a great relationship to the evidence given by Petrov and to the conduct of Petrov in his diplomatic capacity in the Russian Embassy. Therefore, the only other matter left in this charge is: Has there been a breach of the law, and has the Government failed to investigate it? I have told the House that it was properly and fully investigated. Did the maker of the charges contribute one shred of information to the investigation? Not at all ! If there had been an investigation by a royal commission into that particular matter he would have pleaded privilege and run away, as he did before. You get no evidence from a man of this kind. None whatever ! He publishes th”> rumours, he makes the charges. They are picturesque; they are worth headlines.

As it turns out, after the most careful! investigation, the Crown Law authoritiesof this country who investigate the reportssaid that there is no evidence to support any charge that there has been a breach of the law.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No, because there is not a breach of the law. Thelaw allows it to be done.

Mr MENZIES:

– That is all that needs to be said on this matter. Insofar as it concerns the diplomatic conduct of Petrov, it is plainly a matter outside the jurisdiction of this House at present. Insofar as it concerns the scrupulous, impartial enforcement of the law, theanswer is that, after a complete investigation, no evidence was obtainable that, in fact, there has been any breach of thelaw of this land. And, let me remind” honorable members, the law concerned is not a recent law. It is a law which has existed for 30, 40 or 50 years in Australia.

So, in those circumstances I think that enough has been said in this debate. TheHouse has been patient in permitting thehonorable member for East Sydney to raise this matter and in so doing to seize,, once more, the opportunity to follow theCommunist line and put forward Communist propaganda. Therefore, I move -

That the business of the day be called ob..

Question put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.^

AYES: 55

NOES: 41

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1521

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) agreed to -

That Standing Order 104 - 11 o’clock rule - he suspended for the remainder of this week.

page 1521

QUESTION

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Motion (by. Sir Eric Harrison) proposed -

That Mr. Andrews and Mr. Keon be members of the Joint Committee appointed to consider foreign affairs generally, and, in particular, to inquire into matters referred to it by the Minister for External Affairs.

That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the Senate by message.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- If the terms contained in the motion now before the House were the terms of appointment of the joint committee to consider foreign affairs, the Opposition would join the committee. As the motion stands, it states that the committee is appointed to consider foreign affairs generally and, in particular, to inquire into matters referred to it by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey). If honorable members turn to the resolution of the House on the 25th August, 1054, they will note that the motion now before the House is in complete conflict with that resolution. The same words are used in the resolution, but they represent only the first of its five paragraphs. Paragraph 4 of the resolution contains no fewer than eight sub-paragraphs.

Every paragraph after the first paragraph, including every sub-paragraph of paragraph 4, is designed to limit the powers of the committee. For instance, paragraph 4 (d) reads as follows : - the committee and its sub-committees will sit in camera and their proceedings shall be secret unless the Minister at the request of the committee otherwise directs.

There is nothing to that effect in the motion now before us. Paragraph 4 (f) of the resolution states - the committee shall, for considerations of national security, in all cases forward its reports to the Minister for External Affairs, but on every occasion when the committee forwards a report to the Minister it shall inform the Parliament that it has so reported;

As though that were not sufficient safeguard to prevent the committee from doing anything at all, another reservation is contained in the following words : - except that in the case of matters not referred to it by the Minister for External Affairs, the committee shall not submit a report to the Minister nor inform the Parliament accordingly without the Minister’s consent.

Now we come to the precious part of this sub-paragraph, which reads as follows: -

Provided the Opposition is represented on the committee, copies of the committee’s reports to the Minister for External Affairs shall be forwarded to the Leader of the Opposition for his confidential information.

If the House agrees to the motion, and if it appoints to the Foreign Affairs Committee two representatives of the Australian Labour party (Anti-Communist), there is no provision in the resolution of the 25th August, 1954, nor in this motion, whereby the leader of that party may be furnished with the reports that the Minister for External Affairs will receive so that he may have them for his confidential information. The leader of this new party is to be treated as though he were not a leader at all. He is to be ignored completely. That shows just how rapidly the Government arrived at a decision on this matter, and with what haste the negotiations must have proceeded when the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison) could not even draft the motion properly. Because, as I have already remarked, when members of the corner group join this committee, its reports will not be forwarded to the Leader of the Australian Labour party (Anti-Communist), to give it its full title. The hand of the Minister for

External Affairs is evident in the resolution of 1954 which stated that, subject to the consent of the Minister for External Affairs, the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers or records and that, subject to paragraph 4 (d) of the resolution, all evidence submitted to the committee shall be regarded as confidential to the committee. As a result of that provision, members of the new party will not receive any advice from their two representatives on the committee concerning its deliberations, just as members of the Liberal party and members of the Australian Country party are not allowed to receive advice from their representatives on the committee. If members of the committee do give information to their parties concerning the proceedings of the committee, they will obviously breach a decision of the House.

Mr Casey:

– No.

Mr CALWELL:

– The Minister shakes his head and says “ No “. I put it to him that if he wants a real foreign affairs committee and not just a study circle, he should have the resolution of August, 1954, amended to conform to the resolution that has been submitted to-day. An interesting question is whether the resolution that has been moved to-day will supersede the resolution of August, 1954. If it will, the Opposition might nominate a number of members for appointment to the committee. But we certainly shall not make such nominations if the terms of the resolution of August, 1954, still stand. For a number of years, the Opposition has benn trying to make the Minister for External Affairs realize that he cannot tie up a foreign affairs committee. We do not ask him to appoint a committee with roving powers and wide discretion such as the committee on foreign affairs in the United States of America. But we ask him not to call what is only a study circle a foreign affairs committee. If he wants to inform honorable members on foreign affairs, let him agree to the appointment of honorable members to a foreign affairs committee with the right to convey information that they derive from that committee to their party colleagues. Then the House generally, not merely the “ blue orchids “ - I understand that is the title that members of the foreign affairs committee proudly bear - would receive information from the committee instead of remaining uninformed or misinformed.

However, as the Minister for External Affairs has not been willing to give honorable members a clear statement on what is happening in Malaya, we cannot expect that the Minister will permit us to receive much information from this precious committee. The honorable members whom it is now proposed to appoint to the committee previously decided, when they were members of the Australian Labour party, to accept the decision of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) that Opposition members should not accept appointment to the committee. Having made this choice, the may learn something from their membership of the committee or they may noi learn anything. But if it is the objective of the Minister for External Affair* to drive members of the Opposition on to the committee by this means, he will fail. His approach to such matters as this is completely amateurish. I should like to believe that when he meets Mr. Duller and Mr. Macmillan, face to face, he shows a more practised hand than he does when he tries to convince honorablemembers of this Parliament to join the body that he has set up. If this resolution is carried, that body will be represented to the people as having much wider powers than it really has. The Minister should encourage further discussions on this matter and should make the concessions necessary for the foreign affairs policy to become, like the immigration policy, bi-partisan, so that the country may know that on the first as well as the second of these two subjects there is not such a deep cleavage of opinion as there would appear to be in this House about our foreign relations

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– The honorable member should say “ As there is “, not “ As there would appear to be “.

Mr CALWELL:

– Of course, there are differences of opinion on foreign affairs, but they get ironed out in this chamber as they are ironed out in the House of Commons. There will always be element? in all parties who will not agree completely with what has been done. That is the way in which democracy works and it is good that there are divisions of opinion and that everybody is not regimented into thinking in the same way. The essentials of democracy are goodwill, the desire to serve our country, and the desire to protect the interests of our community and the interests of our allies. The Opposition is conscious of its duty in that regard and i3 proud of its record. But the Minister for External Affairs stands in the way of co-operation. He wants to lay down terms like a schoolmaster. On occasions, he thinks that he is still in Bengal as the Governor, although he has been back in Australia for nine years. Let him take the Australian attitude and help to iron out our differences on this matter, and offer less objection to the proposals of Opposition members, although we do not agree as an Opposition with the present constitution of the committee. We do not wish to have a couple more members added to the committee because such action will only make the committee more futile than it Has been.

Some day, the Minister for External Affairs might present to the House some of the reports that this committee is supposed to have presented to him from time to time. I think that I can recollect only one such report having been presented to the Parliament. Perhaps there were two, but certainly there were no more than three. The committee has been in existence for about three years, and its members are still waiting for the longdelayed trips to Indonesia, the Philippines and other countries to which they were told that they would be able to io and question -diplomats and others about what is happening abroad. I remind the Minister for External Affairs of his failure to consult the Opposition on this matter. The terms to which he has referred are not the terms of reference of the committee. I have read those terms to the House. Perhaps, at this stage, the Minister for External Affairs might move an amendment to the motion of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to delete a number of clauses of the resolution of August, 1954. If he wants the Opposition to agree to leave being given for that purpose, such leave will be gladly given.

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · La Trobe · LP

– I always want to do justice to the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell). I think that I can best do him justice now by assuring the House that he is not nearly as foolish as he appears. I sometimes envy him his ability to say things that he does not mean. As a matter of fact, I am not sure that I do envy him, but I say that in order to be pleasant. The Foreign Affairs Committee has been in existence, I think, for two and a half years. It was reconstituted in October, 1954, by a resolution which covered almost a foolscap sheet of paper. On behalf of the Government, I invited the official Opposition to join the Foreign Affairs Committee. Debate after debate has occurred in this House in which the honorable member for Melbourne has made statements similar to those which he made just now - statements which fly in the face of the experience of honorable members who have served on this committee. With great respect, I say that everything that the honorable member said on this subject is nonsense. I hope that you will not misunderstand me. Mr. Speaker. The word “ nonsense “ has a parliamentary meaning and I think that it avoids your stricture. That is why I have chosen the word so carefully.

It was necessary, in framing the motion before the House, to refer in short terms to the resolution which covered a foolscap sheet of paper. Consequently, the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison), quite rightly, chose to identify the previous resolution of this House by citing the first clause which, in fact, is the executive clause and which reads as follows : -

That a joint committee be appointed to consider foreign affairs generally and, in particular to inquire into matters referred to it by the Minister for External Affairs.

The resolution then proceeded to set out the way in which the committee should work, its powers to call for papers and people, and other matters in terms which I am sure remain in the minds of some honorable gentleman.

The leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party (Mr. Joshua) approached me recently, and asked that his party be given appropriate representation - I think that was the term he used - on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I considered his request, and consulted the Government on the subject. It was obviously a matter to which we would agree. In fact, my colleagues and I did agree to accede to the request, and I told him that we would be glad to accept two members of his party, pending - as I explained to him - the agreement of the other section of the Opposition to be represented on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I was obliged to say that the numerical representation of his party would then have to be reconsidered, because the inclusion of two members of his party would be rather disproportionate, having regard to the numerical strength of the whole of the Opposition. The honorable gentleman was apparently prepared to accept that reply, and so this motion took its present form. Sufficient of the full resolution, which is on record, was repeated in this motion to make quite clear to the Parliament what the Government was doing. That simple expedient has drawn the fire of the honorable member for Melbourne, who has given himself the luxury of launching against me a speech similar to speeches that he has delivered on at least two other occasions in this Parliament, in which he affected to believe that the Foreign Affairs Committee is merely a creature of my own, that I gave information to it at my own whim and that, in fact, the committee is of no use whatever. Although he tried to put venom into his remarks, he had difficulty in doing so; I give him credit for that. He referred to the committee as a study circle.

Mr Calwell:

– The Minister has agreed with that description of it.

Mr CASEY:

– It is not a phrase that I myself would have chosen, but it is not a derogatory phrase. The Foreign Affairs Committee is not an executive body. Apparently, what the honorable member for Melbourne wants, and what the honorable gentlemen who sit behind him affect to want, is that it should be an executive body on the general lines, I presume, of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States Congress. It is the object of this Government not to create a body on those lines, but, if we are to choose terms, to create a body very much more approaching a study circle than a foreign affairs committee on the American model. The honorable member for Melbourne i3 welcome to any comfort that he might derive from that observation.

We come to the very simple proposition that these two honorable gentlemen who have been nominated by the leader of the Anti-Communist Labour partythe honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) and the honorable member for Darebin (Mr. Andrews) - should become members of this committee. The Government welcomes their decision &t further evidence of the light they saw when they left, shall we say, the rump of the Australian Labour party. The Government believes that they will get great advantage from membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. They will see - as the existing members of the committee have seen for some considerable time - that nothing will be held backfrom them. Obviously, there are things which should not be quoted in public, leal the Australian national interest should suffer, but the members of the committee are told of those things. So long as they are not disclosed in public, there will be no reason whatever why they should not tell the other members of their party about them in confidence. The honorable member for Melbourne sought to get this House to believe that anything thai the two members of the anti-Communist Labour party might learn as members of the committee would be secret, that they could not tell their party colleagues about them, and that, therefore, they would be no better off by reason of having received the information. With great respect - and I hate to say anything against my friend from Melbourne - that is nonsense, as I hope and believe the honorable member for Yarra and the honorable member for Darebin will discover, possibly before the next 24 hours are out. There is nothing more I need say on this matter.

Although, in general, I respect my friend the honorable member for Melbourne, I must say that he has forfeited a small portion of my respect, for the reasons that I have tried to state.

Mr JOSHUA:
Leader of the AntiCommunist Labour party

. ^1 very much appreciate that the Government has seen fit to include two members of my party in the Foreign Affairs Committee. We have always maintained that foreign affairs are enormously important to Aus’ tralia and that, generally speaking, there should be a non-party approach to that subject. My party will be happy to be represented on the committee which, I hope, will be representative of the whole House. My approach to the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) was sincere; I desired two members of my party to be included in the committee in order that my party as a whole might be better informed on foreign affairs. Both the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) and the honorable member for Darebin (Mr. Andrews) are keenly interested in foreign affairs- probably more than are the other members of my party, and it was for that reason that they were selected. I believe that great benefit will accrue to my party as a result of its representation on the Foreign Affairs Committee. The assertion of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) that any information that the two members of my party might gain as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee would be of no use to the party, wag rejected by the Minister for External Affairs. I am sure that any information so derived will be of great benefit to my party. Even if it is not divulged directly, at least it will provide an important background to the thinking of the members of the party, who, as a result, will be able to make much better-informed speeches on foreign affairs in the future.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

,- Mr. Speaker- r

Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 56

NOES: 43

Majority 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1526

QUESTION

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1955

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 4)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I move -

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 4)

That the Schedule to theCustoms Tariff 1933-1954, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-sixth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-five, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that on and after the ninth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-five, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of *the* Customs Tariff 1933-1964 as so amended. The tariff proposals I have just introduced propose to amend the Customs Tariff 1933-1954 by according protective rates of duty of 10 per cent. British preferential tariff, and 22½ per cent. intermediate tariff and general tariff, on a wide range of covered cable and wire designed for use at working pressures up to and including 11,000 volts, but not including heating cable and compensating or extension leads for thermocouples. All these covered cables and covered wire are at present admitted free of duty under the British preferential tariff, and at rates of duty of 12½ per cent. under the intermediate and general tariffs. The proposed amendments will operate as from 9 a.m. to-morrow. The principal lines of covered cable and covered wire now included in the protective field are those designed for working pressures not exceeding 11,000 volts which are ordinarily used for household wiring, service mains, service connexions between electricity supply mains and homes, trailing cables, switchboard wiring, aircraft and automobile wiring, telephone cables - other than such cables as are covered with cotton only or paperinsulated lead-covered - junction cables, telecommunication cables and lead-in cables. 'Covered cables and covered wire designed for working pressures exceeding 11,000 volts and heating cables and compensating or extension leads for thermocouples will continue to be admitted free of duty under the British preferential tariff, and at rates of duty of 12½ per cent. intermediate and general tariffs. The action now proposed by the Government is in accordance with recommendations made by the Tariff Board in a report dated the 11th March, 1955. I shall, at a later stage, avail myself of the opportunity to table the relevant report. There are, I might mention, several large concerns engaged in the manufacture in Australia of a wide range of covered cables and covered wire. Capital employed by the four major manufacturers exceeds £5,000,000 and direct employment is given to 2,000 persons. Considerable indirect employment is also given in the production of rawmaterials. Australian requirements would be valued at approximately £10,000,000 per annum, of which roughly one-half was supplied in 1952-53 by the local industry. Full opportunity will, at a later date, be available to honorable members to discuss fully these proposals. >Full opportunity will, at alater date, be available to honorable members to discuss fully these proposals. I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Sir Eric Harrison)** whether he can alter the system of presenting such proposals to the House, in order to give the House more information about them. Will these alterations of the tariff give increased protection to Australian industries ? I do not doubt that they will, but that is not clearly stated. The motion sets out the new list of duties. It would be much more helpful if the information could be supplied to us in another way. When will the "full opportunity" referred to be given? {: #subdebate-28-0-s1 .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- The honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell)** has asked a stereotyped question and I shall give a stereotyped reply. I shall give the reply that I have given on countless other occasions. Whenever [ introduce a new tariff schedule, the honorable member rises to his feet and asks when the House will be given an opportunity to discuss it. I am tired of reminding him that when the Government parties were in Opposition, we used to ask exactly the same question, but we were never given an opportunity to discuss a tariff schedule. This Government has already given the House opportunities to discuss tariff schedules. I gave the honorable member an assurance only a few days ago that a tariff schedule would be presented to the Ho use in due course, and that he would have an opportunity to discuss it. That is a stereotyped reply to a stereotyped question. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1527 {:#debate-29} ### COVERED CABLE AND COVERED WIRE {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Tariff Board Report {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject : - >Covered cable and covered wire classifiable under Tariff Item 181 (a) (1) (a). {: .page-start } page 1527 {:#debate-30} ### JUDICIARY BILL 1955 Motion (by **Mr. Menzies)** agreed to - That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Judiciary Act 1903-1950, as amended by the Judges' Remuneration Act. 1955. Bill presented, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP -- *by leave* - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This bill, which amends the Judiciary Act, will probably, by leave of the House, be debated in conjunction with the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill, because the amendments apply partly to that legislation also. The present state of affairs in the High Court of Australia is that there is an appeal, as of right, from certain judgments of the Supreme Court. I ought to point out to honorable members that there are three ways in which a case can reach the High Court of Australia in its appellate jurisdiction. One is an appeal, as of right, where no leave or special leave is required. The second is the case where there is an appeal to the High Court, by leave, and the third is the case in which there may be an appeal to the High Court by special leave - special leave being reserved for those cases in which some point of law of novelty, or of extraordinary importance, falls to be determined. The appeal by leave - not special leave - is frequently asked for in a case where a full court, for example, the. Supreme Court of a State, may have directed a new trial of the matter and that being what the lawyers choose to call an " interlocutory order " in its effect, no appeal may be taken to the High Court except by leave. But there is a great difference between leave and special leave because in special leave matters of genuine legal importance must emerge. Now for many years the position in relation to appeals as of right - the first of those three classes - under the Judiciary Act, has been that there may be an appeal as of right from every official judgment of a Supreme Court which is in respect of any sum or matter amounting to £300, or involves any claim to any property or civil right amounting to £300, or, thirdly, affects the status of any person under the laws relating to aliens, marriage, divorce, bankruptcy or insolvency. I need hardly tell the House that an appeal, as of right, in respect of an amount of £300 in 190.3 is now a little outdated. The trouble about it is that it rather tends in these days to lead to the cluttering up of the High Court lists with a number of cases that, iri reality, ought not to go there. It is the highest court of the realm and ought to direct its attention to matters of the greatest importance. Therefore, the effect of this bill is to propose that, having regard to modern circumstances, the amount shall be increased from £300 to £1,500. It nas been suggested in some quarters that it ought to be £2,000, but I think that £1,500 is a not unreasonable amount. I want honorable members to understand that this does not mean that if the amount involved is less than £1,500 there can be no right of appeal to the High Court; All that it means is that there will be no appeal^ as of right. It is still open to the High Court to grant leave, or special leave, in appropriate cases. I should not imagine that there would be much argument about that amendment, which also has a bearing Oh the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act. I come now t6 an appeal, as of right, from a judgment which affects the status of any person under the laws relating to aliens. Interestingly enough, in the whole 50 years there has been no appeal a« of right on a matter affecting aliens. What happens in the case of an alien who claims that his rights have been violated, or that he has a right to enter Austral *la,* or something of the kind, is that habeas corpus proceedings are taken in the High Court in the first instance, and the matter is dealt with there, or, some constitutional point having been raised in the Supreme Court, the matter is automatically referred to the High Court without reference to this section at all. Therefore the reference to aliens is a dead letter. So far as bankruptcy and insolvency are concerned, the present position is that when we passed our bankruptcy law we provided a means of appeal to the High Court that was rather more satisfactory than this is. That leaves only the case of marriage and divorce. The position as we find it is that a divorce suit is brought in the Supreme Court of a State. It is possible, under the celebrated, historical decision in *Parkin* v. *James,* to appeal direct to the High Court from the decision of a single justice of a Supreme Court. The result is that a fair number of divorce suits reach the High Court. They often present no legal novelty, but considerable time is taken up in reading evidence and hearing arguments on matters in which there is no real problem of law. If there were, the High Court could still grant special leave to appeal. In the result, many hours are occupied in the High Court in arguing matters of that kind. I think it would be generally felt in the House that, in the absence of a genuine point of law of some novelty, an appeal to the Full Court of a State is adequate in the case of divorce; That is what the bill does : It takes up section 35 ; it recognizes the facts of life about aliens, bankruptcy and insolvency; it eliminates an appeal, as of right, in divorce matters; and it increases the appealable amount as of right from the 50-year-old £300 to £1,500. That is the substance of this bill, and I commend it to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Calwell)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1528 {:#debate-31} ### AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1955 Motion (by **Mr. Menzies)** agreed to - >That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933- 1950, as amended by the Judges' Remuneration Act 19a5> Bill presented, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP L5.56 J . - *by leave* - *1* move - That the bill be now read a second time. If honorable members would care to remember what I said three minutes ago in moving the second reading of the Judiciary Bill, I would ask them to regard that as being applicable to this bill. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Calwell)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1529 {:#debate-32} ### PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1955 Motion (by **Mr. Menzies)** agreed to - >That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Public Service Act 1922-1954, as amended by the Salaries Adjustment Act 1955, and for other purposes. *Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m. [Quorum formed.]* {: .page-start } page 1529 {:#debate-33} ### COCOS (KEELING) .ISLANDS BILL 1955 Motion (by **Mr. Hasluck)** agreed to - >That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the acceptance of the Cocos or Keeling Islands as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth and to .provide for the government of that territory. Bill presented, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP £8.3]. - *by leave* - I move - That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the acceptance of the Cocos or Keeling Islands in the Indian Ocean as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth, and to provide for the government of that territory. The House will recall that the first legislative step in connexion with the transfer of these islands to Australia was taken in November, 1954, when Parliament passed the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Request and Consent) Act 1954. By that act, Parliament requested, and consented to, the enactment by the United Kingdom Parliament of an act enabling the Queen to place the Cocos or Keeling Islands under the authority of the Commonwealth making provision for matters incidental to the placing of those islands under that authority. When the bill for that earlier act was introduced on the 2nd November, 1954, the Minister for External Affairs informed Parliament of the discussions which had taken place with the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government with a view to the transfer of the islands to Australia. At the same time the Minister for External Affairs also gave to the House last November the reasons why the Australian Government thought that Australia, as the Government controlling the airstrip, should also administer the islands. The House was informed that when the bill had been approved by Parliament, the United Kingdom Government would introduce & bill into the United Kingdom Parliament for the purpose of transferring authority over Cocos Islands to the Commonwealth of Australia, and that when that action had been completed another bill would be brought before this Parliament to provide for the acceptance of the transfer and for the future administration of the islands. That bill having been passed by Parliament last November, and the reasons for it having been given at that time, there is no need to go over the same .ground again or to enter on any of the matters on which a decision has already been made by this House. I wish to inform honorable members that since November the United Kingdom Parliament has passed an act entitled the Cocos Island Act 1955, which provides that Her Majesty may, by order in council, direct that the Cocos or Keeling Islands shall, on such date as may be specified in the order, cease to form part of the Colony of Singapore and be placed under the authority of the Commonwealth. The next legislative step is therefore with this Parliament and is being taken in the bill now before the House. The passing of this bill which is now presented for .debate will leave the way clear for the United Kingdom Government to seek Her Majesty's approval to an order in council in terms of the Cocos Islands Act 1955 of the United Kingdom. After the making of the order in council, the Australian Government will take over the administration of the islands. Having given that preliminary outline of the various formal and legislative steps to be taken in order that the transfer of the islands to Australia may be completed, I propose now to outline briefly the main provisions of the bill which I have now presented to the House. Part I. provides that the act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. That date will be the date to be specified in the order in council to be made in terms of the United Kingdom, act as the date on which the Cocos Islands will cease to be a United Kingdom possession and will be placed under the authority of the Commonwealth. Part II. of the bill provides for the Cocos or Keeling Islands to be accepted by the Commonwealth as a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth and to be known as the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I might mention that the use of the term "Keeling" is partly to distinguish these Cocos Islands from another group of islands known as Cocos, and also to commemorate and do honour to the discoverer of the islands - Keeling. Provision is also made in this part for the transfer to the Commonwealth, subject to certain specified exceptions, of the property, rights and liabilities of the United Kingdom and the Colony of Singapore, in and in respect of the islands, and for the exercise by the Governor-General, on behalf of the Queen, of rights and powers vested in the Queen under the Indenture of 1886 granted by Queen Victoria, through the Governor of the Straits Settlement to George Clunies Ross. Subject, to conditions which allow Her Majesty to resume land in the public interest, provide for the establishment of a telegraph station, and prevent the alienation of land to other persons without the assent of the Crown, that indenture granted the land of the islands to George Clunies Ross and his heirs to hold in perpetuity. In this regard, the United Kingdom Government, in the course of the negotiations, has been assured that the legitimate interests of the Clunies Ross family will not be prejudiced in the transfer of sovereignty to Australia. In other words, the rights of the Clunies Ross family will remain unaltered. The solicitors to the family have been kept in touch with the position, and they will continue to be informed of developments. Part III. of this bill deals with legislation for the territory. It is proposed to continue in force, subject to this act. when enacted, and to any other Commonwealth acts which will extend to the territory of their own force or which may be extended, the existing body of Singaporelaws in force in the islands at the time of transfer. In this bill specific provision is made in clause 18 for the continuation of the Malay institutions, cutoms and usages which govern the daily life of the islanders. These provisions have been inserted so as to avoid any disruption which might have arisen if there had been an application, at one stroke, of a completely nen body of laws and customs. Under this? bill, the powers and functions conferred on the Governor of the Colony of Singapore by any of the laws which are being continued in force will in future be exercised by the Governor-General of Australia. Those powers and functions which are conferred on any other person or authority by the laws which are being continued in force will be exercised bv such person or authority as the responsible Australian Minister of State may direct, and the Minister may delegate his powers and functions to a specified person or authority. Provision is made in thi, bill also for the Governor-General to make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territory, and for any law continued in force to be amended or repealed by an ordinance so made. I think experience will show th<extent to which this may be necessary. Ordinances made by the Governor General in terms of this bill will be subject to disallowance, in whole or in part, by the Parliament. Provision is mad* in this part of the bill also for thi application of the Post and Telegraph Acts of Australia to the Territory, and for the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) to be responsible for necessary overseas telecommunication services. Part IV. of the bill provides for the application of Australian citizenship to residents of the islands, just as residents of the Australian possession of Papua are Australian citizens. Under this provision, a person, not being an Australian citizen, who, immediately before the date of commencement of this measure, was a British subject ordinarily resident in the islands may make a declaration, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, that he wishes to become an Australian citizen, and upon registration of that declaration, as prescribed, he shall be deemed to have become an Australian citizen upon the date of commencement of the. bill. For the purpose of this provision, the phrase " Ordinarily resident " means that the person, at the particular date, must have his home in the islands, or, if he should be temporarily absent, the islands must be the place of his permanent abode. Persons resident in the islands for a special or temporary purpose only are excluded. The provision regarding Australian citizenship has been included to meet a condition proposed by the United Kingdom that the residents of the islands should be given the opportunity to become Australian citizens. There are a little more than 300 residents of the islands to whom this provision might apply if they choose to exercise the option open to them. In Part V. of the bill, provision is made for the GovernorGeneral to have power to grant pardon, remission o:r respite of sentence to offenders convicted by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the Territory, and to remit fines, -penalties or forfeitures imposed or incurred under the laws in force in the Territory. In the same part of the bill, there is provision for the accounts of the islands to be subject to audit in the usual way. Those are the provisions of the bill. Honorable members will see that it seeks to make the transfer of the Territory from the United Kingdom to Australia with the least possible disturbance of any existing rights and with full respect for the existing customs and institutions of the islands. It might be emphasized also, if such emphasis were needed, that this transfer of territory has been brought about by a process of frank and friendly negotiation between all the interests concerned and as a result of agreement among them, and that the transfer pays careful regard to the future well-being of the small population resident on the islands. As I indicated earlier, this bill is a necessary preliminary to the order in council by which the actual transfer of the islands to Australia will be made. I am sure that all honorable members are aware of the strategic importance of the islands to Australia, in view of the action that they took last November when they expressed their approval of the proposed transfer. They will be aware, also, of the heavy commitment which Australia has assumed in the reconstruction and operation of the airfield on the islands, and of the great importance that thai airfield might have for us in certain contingencies. Therefore, in commending the bill to honorable members, I am confident that it both deserves and will receive their full support. {: #subdebate-33-0-s1 .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong -- I do not wish to criticize the bill in any way, but I should like an assurance from the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** on the question whether the Cocos Islands will become completely an Australian possession. 1 recall that when the proposal for the transfer of sovereignty was first made, the British Colonial Office objected to the transfer. We in Australia considered that the Cocos Islands were a necessary link in an all-red air route from Australia to the United Kingdom. We saw only too clearly, during World War II., that, in time of war, the air route through India can be broken. Therefore, it has become necessary to have a route through South Africa, and, consequently, a stop at the Cocos Islands, where an airstrip was built for use by the Royal Air Force during World War II. Later, that strip was used by the Royal Australian Air Force. As the Minister has already stated, the present runway was laid down by the Airfield Construction Squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force, which made a very good job of it. Earlier, we found a great reluctance on the part of the British Colonial Office to transfer the Cocos Islands to Australian sovereignty. I realize that it was not easy to overcome the objections of the Colonial Office. After the late **Mr. Chifley** visited England as Prime Minister of Australia and took the matter up with the Colonial Office, negotiations became a little easier. Any .one who has looked at the maps and studied air travel can see that it is essential to have a stopping place somewhere other than in South-East Asia on an air route from Australia to Great Britain in order to prevent an interruption of communications in time of war. From the Cocos Islands to South Africa is a very long flight. The nearest point to Africa at which a stop can be made after leaving the Cocos Islands ia Madagascar and the next stop on the route is Johannesburg. The air route then proceeds northwards to north Africa and across to the United Kingdom. As I stated at the outset, I do not wish to criticize the bill. I am not clear whether the Cocos Islands will become an Australian possession. Australia's responsibility in these matters is great. At various conferences I, when I was Minister for Civil Aviation, and other Ministers who have since held that portfolio, were told that the British Government complained that it had to meet the cost of the upkeep of far distant airfields such as those in the Cocos Islands and at Fiji, and that it was more inclined to allow Australia to have the responsibility of administering the territories in which those airfields were situated. Let me say now that I think a very good job has been done, not only in the preliminary negotiations that took place when **Mr. Chifley** was Prime Minister in the Labour Government, but also since. This matter clearly illustrates the time that it takes to achieve something which it seems obvious to the ordinary person should be done. My own feeling is that it could have been done earlier than this, but now it has been accomplished I think Australia has every reason to congratulate itself on having overcome what appeared to be very difficult problems. I commend the bill, and I am quite sure that there will be no opposition to it from this side of the House. I feel, having had an assurance from the Minis- ter for Territories - at least, he nodded his assent when I raised the matter - that it is the property of Australia, that something has been achieved, because there is a very big responsibility connected with the upkeep of civil airfields that are built on coral. I happened to know a man who was engaged in building a lot of airfields in the Coral Sea and other areas. When heavy planes land on such airfields, it is difficult to keep them in very good order. Apparently that difficulty has been overcome. I support the measure wholeheartedly. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Chambers)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1532 {:#debate-34} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-34-0} #### GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE Debate resumed from the 7th June *(vide* page 1495), on motion by **Mr. McEwen** - >That this House approves the Government's decision to accept the revised General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the proposed agreement on the Organization for Trade Cooperation, subject in either case to prior acceptance by the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America. {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP -- I should like to support the opinion expressed by the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** last night, that it is unfair of the Government to bring in a proposal of such importance as is this proposal to the future of Australia's trade and our balance of payments position generally, in the dying hours of the sessional period. It is more unfair when one considers that the review of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which we are considering consists of about 100 pages of printed matter which contain elaborate and intricate amendments to the agreement. By introducing, at this late stage, for our consideration, such a bulky document, the Government is showing scant courtesy to honorable members and giving very little justice to the public outside. {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr Adermann: -- Some of the provisions have not been dealt with here, but have been dealt with outside. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP -- That is so. We expect to be informed in this Parliament of the country's business, and not to hear about it as a result of statements that have been made to members of primary producers' organizations. I wish to join issue with the honorable member for Darling Downs **(Mr. Swartz)** with respect to his statement in the House last night that this was the earliest opportunity that the Government had had to present this matter to the House. As evidence of the lack of basis for that statement by the honorable member for Darling Downs I now produce Command Paper 9414, entitled *Review of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,* which contains exactly the same text as the document we are now considering, and which was presented in the House of Commons last March. If the United Kingdom Government found it possible to present this document in the House of Commons in March, I fail to see how any government apologist can justly claim that the 3rd June was the earliest date on which this review of the agreement could be presented to this House. Having read the second-reading speech of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen),** who, unfortunately, is not in the chamber at the moment, one would imagine that the amendments to the agreement that have been, secured constitute a great triumph for Australian diplomacy in general, and for the Minister himself in particular. That is -a matter of opinion. However, just to show that apparently any success in having these amendments made is not regarded as being exclusively an Australian success, I should like to quote a small extract from the London *Economist* of the 2nd April, 1955. In a section headed "American Survey", the American correspondent of that journal refers to the situation in America, and indicates the difficulty that is experienced in getting this kind of document through the United States Congress, which seems to be in inverse ratio to the ease with which the Minister apparently imagines this document will go through this Parliament. The article reads - >Democrats in the Senate may hold together enough to defeat this dangerous amendment but' not unless the Administration speedily clears up the anxieties over Gatt. Fortunately the State Department- seems confident that it can demonstrate that the recent conferences at Geneva so far from placing a time bomb under the Constitution amounted to a major victory for American diplomacy. Starting with a very bad hand dealt by the need to stand by every embarrassing section of the laws on agricultural subsidies, the Americans eventually trumped almost all opposition by the familiar tactic of appearing as arbitrators between other countries and Congress. In other words, this informed critic imagines that what took place in the negotiations over the agreement was a triumph for America. The Minister imagines it was a triumph for Australia. I suggest that there are one or two matters on which the Minister might have given this House a little more illumination. The bill, and the Minister's second-reading speech, were accompanied by this document of about 100 pages, which sets out in detail the amendments to the agreement. I should like to ask the Minister a question in respect of the statement which appears under the heading " Tariff Bindings " on page 6 of the document. That statement reads - >During the three months immediately before 1st July, 1955, Australia is free to modify or withdraw - in accordance with the procedures set out in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Article - individual concessions in the Australian tariff accorded to other countries. It is now the 8th June, 1955, so there is not much time left. I ask the Minister to indicate in more detail what some of the concessions that are to be withdrawn amount to. Perhaps he would enlighten the House as to what modifications are, in fact, proposed and of what advantage they will be to Australian trade generally. Last night the honorable member for Darling Downs gave us some of the history of this agreement. I do not intend to traverse that history in detail other than to indicate that when the agreement was drawn up there were fundamental differences of approach on the part of America and on the part of Australia as to how far this agreement might go. The Americans, I think, were more interested in lowering tariffs generally, whilst Australia, on the other hand, and I think rightly, saw this problem not merely as one of trade but: also as one touching the whole economic pattern itself, and particularly related to the maintenance, not only in Australia, but also in other parts of the world, of full employment. That particular aspect seems to have been lost sight of in this more narrow question of bargaining for concessions between countries. I think that the remarks made by **Mr. Plumphe,** a delegate from Canada, sum up the real weaknesses in this general approach to these important matters. He said, speaking of the 100 pages or so of details of this new agreement- >The rules say very little indeed about exports. We think they should say more. In other words, the whole emphasis on this question is. not on exports, but on imports. I submit initially that that is a rather back-handed way of approaching this problem. After all, the imports of any country - and I deal with Australia in particular - are determined by its earnings from its exports. One thing about which we have to make up our minds in this country, and I am glad to see that apparently even an Australian Country party Minister is at last converted to the idea, is that, whilst it is easy to talk glibly about Australia living off the sheep's back, in order for Australia to have a properly integrated economy, we must have secondary production as well as primary production. If we are to continue to develop our economy we must have more and more secondary industry, because we cannot absorb our increasing population - not only our own natural increase, but also the increase by immigration - if we do not develop secondary industry. There seems to have been evolved at this recent meeting on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade a new kind of economic unit that was not envisaged previously. In the past, we have talked about under-developed countries on the one hand, and developed countries on the other hand. The great contribution that has been made by the Minister in relation to this matter seems to have been that he has suddenly discovered that Australia is neither under-developed nor developed, but that it is a developing country. I suggest that that is the only brain-storm that has emerged from the recent conference, although it is a little belated. Honorable members on this side of the House have always urged that Australia is a developing country, and that the problems of properly using our natural resources in the national interest is probably the prime problem with which this Government is faced. However, it seems to have been lost sight of in these intricate negotiations about minor details. I suggest that there are many things in these amendments about which the Minister might have given a little more information. The report contains amendments of the general agreement itself, and at the end there are a number of resolutions that were agreed to separately. One matter in particular on which the Minister ought to throw more light is the decision of the 5th March, 1955, which appears on page 99 and the following pages of the report, and which deals with the important question of import restrictions or, as the Americans seem to call them, quantitative restrictions. It. too, is a problem that must be faced up to seriously in Australia. It seems inevitable that for a. long period ahead it will be necessary to have import restrictions for the purpose of regulating Australia's trade. Yet to some degree) - I do not know how far, because 1 have not had sufficient time to go into the details of the resolution - Australia has handed over to the new body called the O.T.C., the full designation of which is the Organization for Trade Co-operation, consultation on the imposing of import restrictions in this country in the future. I should say that that is a considerable limitation of Australia's economic freedom, particularly when it is realized, as it must be realized, that our economy is, as the Minister has stated, a dependent economy. We are dependent for what we can import on what we earn by exports. The thing that has not been faced up to in these negotiations is the fixation of reasonable prices for Australian exports. There are always minute limitations at the other end on what we shall import, but, to me, the primary question seems to be that of our export earnings. We in Australia have very little control over our export earnings, as they are dependent upon the two important commodities, wool and wheat. Australia does not determine in any degree the price of its wool and wheat. We have very little control over the volume of those exports. These things show the hazardous position of our export earnings, yet no attempt seems to have been made - and [ think the greatest obligation is on America - to arrive at some method of determining with justice what the prices of wool and wheat ought to be. I admit chat it is not an easy problem to solve, but, unless some attempt is made to grapple with that side of it, it seems to me that a document like this report on the review of the general agreement can rely, as it has relied, only upon those clauses that are described as escape clauses. What happens is that we enter into the agreement and then we put so many limitations upon it that virtually it contains more exceptions than observances. It is difficult to know whether, it is worth while to pursue that kind of agreement. The general agreement was entered into in the period of post-war reconstruction when everybody had high ideals about how people ought to live amongst themselves in the future. But, to some degree, trade, private enterprise and conflicting economic systems have overridden those humanitarian ideals in the ensuing period. Of course, we must be realists about these things. The Minister has been a realist in relation to some of these matters, at any rate, but there are one or two questions that I should like to ask him. I hope that when he is summing up he will be able to furnish some explanations. The first of those questions which, as I have already stated, is referred to in the report is this : What are the concessions that it is proposed shall be made before the 1st July, 1955? One further point about which we are entitled to further explanation is this : Just how far does the report go in relation to the regulating of prices of American products on the home market which, as we know, is of importance to the rest of the world. I propose to quote for the information of the House an article that was published by the Princeton University in *Essays In International* *Finance.* and which was entitled " America's Foreign Trade Policy and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The article was written by Raymond Vernon, who formany years was one of America's representatives at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade secretariat in Geneva. I wish to know from the Minister what is the position now with regard to what are called price support programmes in America, because they are very relevant to this matter. The article reads - >One of the principal exceptions, made largely at American urging- And the writer is referring to the situation that had existed before the ninth session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade- has to do with domestic agricultural incomesupport programs. The general rule here is that if nations decide to curtail their domestic production or marketing of an agricultural product to any degree in order to support farm income, they may curtail imports in equal degree. The GATT does not, however, give license to any nation to curtail such imports simply because that nation is pegging the price of an agricultural commodity above the world prices for the commodity; the right to restrict imports exists only where domestic production or marketing also is being restricted. Accordingly, many of our American price-support programs would not qualify as the type which justifies import restrictions under the Agreement, I ask the Minister what modifications have been made to bring within the scope of the general agreement those matters that were previously outside its scope and which, it seems to me, give very important concessions to America at the expense of other countries. **Mr. Vernon** also ' cites Australia's experience a year or two ago when Chile objected to a subsidy that apparently was being paid on superphosphates in this country and in relation to which, as a result of talks that were held by agreement countries, some modification was made. He refers to a further incident that occurred recently when the United States protested to the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom was putting in pure Virginia tobacco a certain percentage of tobaccoes which, I presume, came from other than dollar areas. A system already operates in Australia whereby a certain proportion of Australian grown leaf is added to imported tobacco. As a result of these negotiations, has Australia's right to continue to operate that kind of system been in any way limited? These are the kinds of matters on which the House is entitled to a more adequate explanation than has been given because this document will be of some significance to Australian trade during the next few years. In a bulletin of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia called *Canberra Letter* and dated the 6th April, 1955, **Mr. Latham** Withall, discussing the modifications to the agreement which had been announced in the newspapers but not divulged to this House, made the following statement: - >The official explanations will be, of course, couched in the language of diplomacy and may be somewhat difficult to follow, or be readily understood and evaluated by the business community. I think that the official explanation has been couched, not in the language of diplomacy, but in the language of extreme obscurity. {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur -- I think that it would be proper for the House to express its appreciation of the efforts of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** and the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Senator O'Sullivan)** who went overseas to negotiate with the Government of the United Kingdom concerning trade arrangements between the United Kingdom and Australia and who achieved their final triumph at Geneva in connexion with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. If there were any suggestion of unemployment in this country, the House would be packed and honorable members would be very anxious. I suggest that this agreement will prevent the recurrence of the serious events which took place in this country after the war of 1914-18. From 1929 to 1932, the world prices of our exports crashed and we received a very small amount of export income although we still had great commitments overseas in the form of repayments of loans and interest payments. The sufferings of those years left a mark on the community which will not be easily erased. A recurrence of those happenings has been avoided by the journey abroad of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and the Minister for Trade and Customs. In approving the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and in placing Australia in a very special position in relation to that agreement, they have rendered a great service to this country. Many honorable members know that the United States of America holds surpluses of certain primary products which are important to Australia. I refer, not to wool, but to butter, dried fruits, the production of which has been subsidized by the United States of America, and other commodities a surplus of which could seriously affect the marketing of the products of some of our smaller industries. Although small, those industries contribute to the great total of our export income which enables the continued development of this country by providing funds for the purchase of the raw materials which go into the manufactures of which the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** has spoken. The honorable member took credit to his party for the fact that it had always regarded Australia as a developing country. In effect, he said, " We backed this horse ". If the honorable member favours what has been called " import replacement ", let him remember that the people who have advanced this idea to the Tariff Board have forgotten that if costs of production in Australia are raised and if, in consequence, our export income is injured, the supply of the materials needed for our manufacturing industries will be restricted. In a developing country such as Australia, manufactures are important. Recently, the chief executive officer of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited, **Dr. Vernon,** made an application to the Tariff Board in which he said that Australia could not expand its export income any further. He said that the wheat and wool markets were delicately balanced, and that other commodities were selling for less than their cost of production. He then stated that, in order to protect our balance of payments, we must try to reduce our imports of manufactured goods instead of taking abortive action in relation to exports. He said that we should try to manufacture in Australia those goods which we now export. He used that contention, as an argument in favour of raising the tariff on those, manufactures in which he was interested. But he forgot that it is necessary to expand the exports of a developing country in order to secure raw materials. I think it was the cellulose acetate industry that he sought to have protected. But .that industry, too, needs to obtain its raw materials from overseas. Our overseas credits may be supported for a time by means of dollar loans, but in the final analysis rural exports are necessary in order to pay for the raw materials required for the manufacturing industries. I arn glad that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports agrees that, in the long run, our export industries must continue .to function. Half of our exports is wool, about one* sixth is wheat, about another sixth ia meat, and other industries such as the dried fruits industry provide the balance of our very necessary export income. Recently, some financial stringency has been observed in this country. That is directly traceable to the fact that our overseas credits are £200,000,000 less than they were last year. Immediately our overseas balances commenced to fall, we started to get into trouble. Some representatives of the Building Workers Industrial Union of New South Wales are now in the King's Hall in order to make representations for the provision of capital for building purposes. Those men are there because our export earnings have been falling, not due to any lack of effort by the people engaged in our export industries, but purely because there was a fall of £40,000,000 in the amount that was -paid for our wool this year, and because our food industries have met strong competition overseas. This very full document, together with the speech of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, has provided honorable members with a record of what happened at the conference on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at Geneva and what happened .between the representatives of the Australian Government and the United Kingdom .Government in London. I think that some honorable members have shown by their attitude to this matter that they -are not awa>re of *ba very .great 'importance of the paper that is being considered. It is now ten years since the end of World War II. and, due to the efforts of the Minister, we may avert what happened in 1929-30, which was about ten years after World War I. I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the Americans for the consideration they gave to the arguments that were advanced by Australia, particularly in view of the fact that some blunt references were made at the conferences to America's huge stocks of food. I point out that if they threw low-quality goods on the various markets, and thereby established a new low .threshold for those goods, they .could destroy the trade of the rest of the western world. At any rate, that action would go a long way towards destroying -our economy. It is only recently that the Americans have realized the value of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as a means of preventing a recurrence of happenings in the period between 1929 and 1932. The two Australian Ministers concerned in this matter exerted tremendous efforts to bring about the revision of the agreement that we are- .now considering. I want to congratulate the Minister for Commerce .and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** - - {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- What has he done? {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE: -- The honorable member -for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** wants to .know what the Minister has done. I was about to thank the Minister on behalf of the people of Australia. Apparently the honorable member for East Sydney has not been present in the chamber during the greater part of my speech, during which I have pointed out to the House that the Minister has probably saved us from a disaster - probably, because we do not know whether a disaster would have occurred. At least, the Minister has taken great precautions to insure against a disaster occurring, and we have high hopes now that a disaster will not occur. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- The honorable member for .Macarthur knows that this antiLabour Government has made a mess of things. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE: -- I do not know what -the honorable member .for Eas.t Sydney is referring to. Mir. Ward. - I referred to the Government. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE: -- I am sure that all thinking members of the community are very grateful to the Minister for his efforts on their behalf. He has made a very great contribution to our national welfare, and has done something very worth while for this country. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Obviously, the honorable member is not one of the Liberal rebel group. {: #subdebate-34-0-s2 .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Ballarat -- This is a most important measure, and I am sorry that an honorable member is allowed only twenty minutes in which to speak to it. As the measure has been introduced rather late in this sessional period, I do not propose to spend a great deal of time bewailing that fact, but shall endeavour to make the best use of the time allotted to me. The proposition before the Government was whether it should continue a very strong measure of control over Australian industries - both primary and secondary - or whether, colloquially speaking, it should go alone. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** was confronted with considerable difficulty when seeking a solution to this problem. There is no doubt that when the first General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was negotiated, the Labour Government that was then in office was confronted with even greater difficulties. It entered into the arrangement with hesitancy, a feeling of misgiving, and some wonderment as to the outcome of the agreement. The Minister has had considerable experience of the difficulties that confront our primary and secondary industries. He has endeavoured to overcome the complaints of the manufacturers, and we know that he has been mindful of the necessity to protect our rural interests. I shall review briefly the manner in which the first General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade worked. As far as secondare manufacture is concerned, the agreement resulted in irksome procedures, which caused additional expense to manufacturers and necessitated thoi'1 laying o^t extra, capital, a course which they did not consider to be justified. Let us take, for example, the importation from Germany of plant for the Lurgi- gasification works at Yallourn, in Victoria. Considerable expense is involved in the payment of duty. Consequently, the capital cost of the plant, when installed, will be very much greater than it should be. This is an example of the effect on large businesses of the exercise of control in relation to our primary and secondary industries. I have also observed instances of additional expense being caused to the textile industry. I understand that textile manufacturers favour intricate machinery of Swiss manufacture. When they wish to expand their plant, they naturally favour installing additional machinery of similar manufacture. They then find that such machinery attracts a very high rate of duty. Their only alternative is to buy English machinery, but the parts of such machinery are notinterchangeable with the parts of the existing machinery. In a number of instances textile manufacturers decided that it was best for them to incur the extra expense of installing foreign-made machinery, but they have complained to me that, that additional expense had increased their capital outlay, and consequently their working costs. Of course, this state of affairs has been brought about by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I have no doubt that the Minister took that fact into account when he was considering whether we should subscribe to the agreement for a further term. The Minister must also have been aware of the very slow procedure of tariff adjustment. It is a very slow business for any manufacturer to obtain relief from the Tariff Board. In the first place, three months' notice must be given of the application. Considerable time is then occupied in discussing the matter, considering the application, preparing the report, and passing the necessary regulation to grant him relief. It will be appreciated that a manufacturer cannot apply for relief until such a course is justified, because it is necessary for him to prove his case before the Tariff Board. There is no doubt that many manufacturers have been involved in considerable, loss through the lengthy procedures of the Tariff Board. During such hearings, in many instances both their plant and their man-power remain idle. This results in a loss of efficiency. I am sure that many persons who are engaged in secondary industry have experienced considerable difficulty through the system of Tariff Board control and preferential duties. There is generally present at hearings of the Tariff Board an anonymous person representing the Joint Committee on Tariff Revision, who is really the watchdog of overseas interests. I fear that the Australian manufacturers are very largely in the hands of overseas interests. Of course, the manufacturers do not resent the Tariff Board; on the contrary, they appreciate the board's efforts. To the degree that the Tariff Board is the watchdog of Australian interests, it should be commended. However, in view of the fact that manufacturers' costs are continuing to increase, the lengthy procedures of the Tariff Board do not give the manufacturers much comfort. If the board does not ensure the provision of adequate protection, some Australian industries might have to close down, with resultant losses of money and trade. The alternative, of course, is a good market, in which the demand of industry for labour and materials has a continuously inflationary effect, which results in increased costs of labour and materials. Their only source of relief is the Tariff Board; but, as I have pointed out, that is a slow method of getting relief. Turning to primary industries, we find a somewhat similar position. Increasing costs in this country have made it necessary for one measure of protection after another to be afforded to primary producers. We find evidence of that in the ever-increasing array of new boards. We have butter stabilization bodies, we have people regulating the sale of sugar and wheat by sugar agreements and wheat agreements, we have fla.x bounties and assistance to dried-fruit producers. There is a board or authority controlling almost every primary product. These bodies have to be kept alive and kept on the job the whole time in order that the farmers mav get a fair return for their output. We know that butter is sold overseas for less than the Australian consumer has to pay for it. We all pay an extra ls. or so for our pound of butter in order to offset the low returns from sales of butter overseas, so that the dairyfarmers will get a fair return for their labour. Increasing costs have made that necessary. I am only looking at things as we find them at the present time. That is what the Minister has to do. He has all these boards to look at. We have only to study the publications issued by a department such as the Department of Commerce and Agriculture to find out what a tremendous job has to be done. It all goes on under the surface. No one seems to take any notice of it in these days, but it entails the expenditure of a tremendous amount of money and shows that the primary producers are very highly controlled and very highly organized. I feel that, as costs increase - and they seem to be increasing all the time - there will be further agreements, boards and controlling bodies. The farmers are becoming as tied up with controls as are the manufacturers. If we want to be objective, we have to consider whether the Minister could avoid this rigid framework of controls. This Government at times gave the impression that it was endeavouring to avoid controls, but it appears that the Minister, at any rate for a time, has foresaken that policy, and feels that he must accept controls and also that he must accept this agreement for a further period. I observe, however, that he has endeavoured to secure some flexibility by certain measures that he has adopted. I refer, for instance, to the machinery for studying market conditions in certain countries and for consultation with Australian producers. That will afford some protection, but not a great deal. However, for what it is worth, the Minister should be given credit for it. We all were very interested to see whether he could secure some alteration of the arrangements for imposing import controls. These controls are most important. If a large volume of manufactured goods flows into this country, the expenditure on those goods may eventually exhaust our overseas funds. It may be necessary to do something to reduce the inflow of goods before our overseas funds run out. The fact that p,ur overseas currency reserves w.er,e runrung down bad the beneficial effect of protecting .Australian secondary indus.tries from $e inroads which large quantities of imported manufactured goods were making into their markets. Everybody wanted to know whether, when the Minister went .overseas, he would 'be able to get a clause inserted in the agreement under which we could clap on import controls at any time when our secondary industries were experiencing difficulties. Other countries pretty soon woke up to that one. They would not allow the Minister ,to do that, but he was able to retain the right to impose import controls if our overseas currency reserves were imperilled. I must agree that the Minister had no alternative, and for that reason I do not oppose the resolution. In the last few minutes pf my .speech, I want Jo try to show the way things are going. The Minister has got a threeyear agreement. We pan look forward to another review of the position in about three years' tine. What shall we find th.en? Shall we still find this irksome superstructure of controls on top of our secondary industries and primary industries? I think it is very likely that we shall find it. It is likely that we shall find that there is. an increased number of boards. There are at present about 3,000 tariff items which regulate the inflow of secondary manufactures to this country and have a tremendous bearing on our secondary industries. I think we shall find in three years' time that there are many more' tariff items regulating every sphere of pur secondary industry. I feel also that the number of farmers' boards will have increased. Must we regard f.hat state pi affairs as, something that will always be with us,? If we give attention tq the proper method of overcoming the difficulties and if we know what will have to be done, it will not be such a shock to us when it is done. I think that the whole of the problem is bound up with the fact that our currency is over-valued. No amount of pretending that it is not over-valued will make any difference, because the signs will appear. They are, the difficulties of our secondary industries in meeting competition and the difficulty of selling o.ur primary products overseas. When our currency is over-valued, those difficulties always ' .appear,. We .have at .present a fixed .exchange r.ate, .which lias many advantages for Australia. But there was a .time when the variation of the exchange rate from day ,to ,day ,had ,a regulating influence and -prevented pur currency from becoming over-valued. That Was s,et aside in favour ,of a fixed .exchange rate, although ,the idea was npt .to abandon, alterations .of .tie exchange rate for all ,time, When the fixed exchange rate was introduced, it was recognized that there might he times when it -would be necessary to alter it. The idea was to avoid small .and frequent fluctuations and to make alterations only when it appeared that a definite change could be expected in the economy of the country oyer a considerable period. That is what faces us at present. We can expect a definite change in the economy of the country over a considerable period. At present, our currency is over-valued. That is shown by the difficulty of selling our primary products overseas and the difficulty that our manufacturers are experiencing in competing with imports from other countries. When we recognize the real value of pur currency, we shall probably be able to do a great deal to reduce the great superstructure pf controls which we are building on top of our primary and secondary industries. There is a lot to be said in favour of an alteration of the exchange rate. I bring the matter up now because I think that newspapers have a duty to prepare the people' for such an alteration. Any suggestion "that the currency should be depreciated by, say, 5 per cent., 30 per cent., or 15 per cent brings howls of rage from all the importing interests. They misrepresent the position, because it is' to their advantage to do so. A lot of work is required tq be done by people in responsible positions to ensure that the people of this country will be properly informed of the possible outcome of a revaluation of pur currency, which I believe may become necessary before very long The. newspapers have a job to do there. I mention *i* also for" the benefit of businessmen. If; there is to be. a change. in the exchange rate, businessmen might be caught with a large quantity of goods for which they must pay in sterling. They can avoid paying for those goods many more Australian pounds than they had expected to pay, if they have sufficient warning. Of course, they may, for a few pounds, insure their contracts with the Commonwealth Bank against the consequences of an alteration in the exchange rate. Better still, they can arrange for their contracts to be settled in Australian currency. If they do this they will not suffer as a result of a change in the exchange rate. An altered exchange rate would confer great benefits upon Australia. It would have to be accompanied by substantial alterations in protective tariffs. These would have to be down-graded because a further depreciation of the £1 would give added protection to both primary and secondary industry. Many of the Tariff Board's decisions could be completely set aside because no protection would be needed. On the other hand, many agreements for the sale of primary products would also have to be reviewed. Exports would yield a greater return in Australian currency, and this might lead to a reduction in Australian prices. {: #subdebate-34-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-34-0-s4 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
.Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP -- *in* *reply--I* do not propose to occupy the time of the House unduly by replying at great length to the speeches of honorable members. Generally speaking, they have been temperate and constructive. The honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** who led honorable members opposite in this debate, said that the members of this Government, who had criticized the agreement when a Labour Government had brought it down, now proposed to renew it. That is true, but the honorable member studiously avoided reminding the House that our criticism was on specific grounds. That is on record. We criticized the manner in which the agreement closed the door to renegotiation, and stressed the value of the Ottawa preferences. That was the prime, purpose of our criticism. Our experience in the last few years has shown it to be completely justified. As we predicted, having become a party to the agreement, Australia has been unable to persuade other interested parties to give it the licence that Labour failed to reserve for it - to re-negotiate with the United Kingdom and re-establish the value of the Ottawa preferences. That is a completely candid explanation of the serious position which was created by the ineptitude of a previous Labour government and which we have been unable to correct. Moreover, Labour helped to establish a position which could not be overcome by Australia's withdrawing from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So far as the re-negotiation of Ottawa preferences is concerned, withdrawal from the general agreement would not enhance our position at all as long as the United Kingdom remained bound by its inhibitions concerning new preferences. The United Kingdom has made it quite clear that it intends to remain a party to the agreement. Insofar as this Government is recommending the ratification of an agreement which, in this particular, is highly unsatisfactory to Australia, it feels bound to point out that the responsibility is clearly that of the Labour party, which was in office when the agreement was entered into. Experience has also shown that our criticism of the agreement on other grounds was justified. We pointed out the inflexibility of the agreement, which bound the Australian tariff schedule over a wide area- for long periods. *Hansard* of 1947 and 1948 will confirm that. We prophesied that this would have serious consequences for Australia's growing manufacturing industries. It is a matter of history that in recent years the Associated Chamber of Manufactures, and individual manufacturers, have bitterly criticized the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for that very reason. It remained for this Government to marshal the arguments and make the other parties to the agreement realize what Labour had itself failed to realize - that the character of our economy,, especially in the field of secondary industry, demands a certain flexibility in our tariff rate. I explained the need for chat in my first speech on this proposal. This Government has, in the terms which [ outlined earlier, and with the aid of representatives of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures who acted as consultants on the spot negotiated that degree of flexibility which every one knew to be essential. I am able to say that the Associated Chambers of Manufactures regards the new and modified General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as an acceptable and valuable document. The third point upon which we criticized the agreement when Labour presented it seven or eight years ago, provides me with an opportunity to reply to a statement by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean).** We pointed out that the agreement was really unbalanced in that it dealt comprehensively, though somewhat unsatisfactorily, with tariffs as they affected secondary industry. *Quorum formed.] lt* was obviously designed to give a certain degree of stability to countries largely interested in exporting the products of secondary industry. Of course, Australia was not then, and is really not now, in that category. It provided no comparable protection for the exports of Australia's primary industries. So part of the mission of **Senator O'sullivan** and myself in these negotiations was to try to achieve a balance lacking in the original document. Without traversing some of the matters which [ explained in some detail when I spoke earlier, I remind the honorable member for Melbourne Ports that we have achieved, partly in the articles as redesigned in the agreement, and partly by resolutions carried during the negotiations, a protection hitherto non-existent for our exports against unjustifiably subsidized exports of competitor countries. We have achieved results of a character which, to a very important extent, are binding on nations which entered into this agreement in good faith - and none would question that the United States qualifies on those terms. Those resolutions place quite explicit restrictions upon the disposal of accumulated surpluses of primary products along lines which would distort the trade of traditional exporters of those primary products. We have pointed out to the United States that to the extent that there was some protection of our opportunities for export under the old agreement, and previously achieved modifications of it, the United States had not, in certain respects, observed either the exact letter or the spirit of those provisions. It was made clear that, because of circumstances which are, in the political sense, completely dominant in the domestic scene in the United States, that country had imposed some restrictions upon the imports of certain agricultural products. The United States, under domestic legislation existing long before the General Agreement was established, had, at the cost to its treasury of billions of pounds, set internal price levels for primary products which it felt ought not to be exploited by other countries sending their products there for sale. Out of that situation, which we do not enjoy, but which we understand, the United States had maintained some restrictions against our exports - for example, of butter and cheese. This is a real world in which we live; it is not a dream world. We could not get a decision which would prevent the United States from protecting itself against our sending butter and cheese there to be sold under the benefit of its domestic price support system. What we have secured is the next best thing, that is, a resolution to the general effect - I do not pretend to recall it in detail - that the United States must give an annual account of its activities under this legislation. Ithas been given a dispensation by the parties to the General Agreement to continue these activities, but it must give an annual account of them of its own volition, or when called upon by the contracting parties. The licence which has been given to the United States to breach what was hitherto the literal word of the agreement may, in accordance with the written words as they now exist, be withdrawn if undue advantage is taken of that licence, if I may so describe the matter in lay language. I think that is a reply, in substance, to a question addressed to me by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. Those are substantially the points which, I think, call for a reply. I should like, probably in some slight breach of Standing Orders, to correct an impression which I think exists in the mind of the honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua).** He referred to our having in this country two price arrangements and stabilization schemes which are acknowledged and conceded in the general agreement. He described them as schemes under which we charged ourselves higher prices - I add the words " than we might reasonably be expected to " - in order to make up to primary producers the losses they suffer when they sell some of their products overseas. I do not think that that is an undue distortion of what the honorable member said. The truth of the matter is that the Australian consumer of any primary product is not charged more than a fair price in order to make up for losses overseas. The arrangements which we describe as orderly or organized marketing, effected by the numerous primary industry boards, is no more than the only mechanism which could be devised of applying, in the field of primary industry, exactly the same principles which our tariff system and the Tariff Board provide in the field of secondary industry. In the latter field the mechanism of the Tariff Board, in accordance with what is now national policy, is designed to ensure that a product which we regarded as suitable to be manufactured here in a factory may be sold to the Australian people on a basis which will return to those who engage, by labour or capital, in its production, a return which is fair, having regard to Australia's standards. In the field of primary industry, in the production of butter, dried fruits, wheat, or any of the other commodities we produce in great surplus to our own requirements, the situation is that when the overseas price is lower than we would wish - and that is the customary position in our whole history - the exporter seeks to avoid selling on the overseas market by selling on the home market, and so does his competitive exporter. His competitive exporter shades the price on the home market. Another competitor shades it again, until the price on the home market is the merest fraction over the export price. That produced a state of affairs, in the days before orderly marketing, in which primary producers were complaining, bitterly and justifiably, that they were selling to their fellow-Australians, who were protected by arbitration awards and Tariff Board provisions, the essentials of life at prices that were a mere fraction higher than the low prices on the outside world markets. They contended that they were entitled to sell to their fellow Australians, who were protected by those means, at prices that would give them an Australian standard of living and an Australian basis of return. That could not be achieved by protecting an industry against competitive imports through the imposition of tariff duties. Without going into all the ramifications of the matter, these primary industry boards provide, in fact, the only means by which we can apply that identical provision of protection on the home market to the Australian primary producer which is traditional to the Australian worker or the Australian manufacturer. When eggs or butter are sold here at a price higher than the overseas market price, we are not exploiting the Australian consumer to make good losses sustained overseas, but merely ensuring that a fair price by Australian standards is obtained here. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr Jeff Bate: -- The manufacturer does not even attempt to sell his goods overseas. We have to sell overseas. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- I am glad to say that the manufacturer is increasingly attempting to sell his goods overseas. To-day, I have been with a group of manufacturers who have formed themselves into a manufacturers export council for the purpose of stimulating exports overseas. This is a fairly new departure, but it is a very encouraging one. I am glad to be able to say that to-day about 10 per cent, of our total exports are the products of Australian factories. It is a tribute to the efficiency of Australian manufacturers of motor vehicles, refrigerators, electrical goods and agricultural machinery that they are able to compete in markets overseas. On the whole, a wide variety of manufactures are being exported {: .speaker-KHY} ##### Mr Howse: -- Are they shading their prices in order to meet competition on the world markets? {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- There is a variety of reasons. Let me refer in passing to some manufactured goods, which are very well known. I shall not name them, but they have a world-known name and are made here by Australian companies affiliated with some United Kingdom or American companies. I am glad to be able to report that to an increasing degree those parent companies are granting to their Austraiian associates export franchise in certain areas for goods with worldknown names. Whether it is cigarettes or motor vehicles, there is a ready market available to the Australian manufacturers. This is a very good and encouraging development, and it is growing here. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The right honorable gentleman's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1544 {:#debate-35} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-35-0} #### MEAT AGREEMENT (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) Second Reading Debate resumed from the 2nd June *(ville* page 1378), on motion by **Mr. McEwen** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Is there any objection to the proposal? There being no objection, that procedure will be followed. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON:
St. George .- The Labour party supports the principle to which, according to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen),** the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Bill 1955 seeks to give effect. The purpose of the bill is to make provision for the payment to the producers of export meat of a sum of £700,000 which, it is anticipated, the British Government will make available to the Australian Government. In other words, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the interim distribution of a deficiency payment received from the United Kingdom Government under the fifteen-year meat agreement. The Minister made a long and interesting secondreading speech on this bill. He claimed that the agreement had been entered into by the present Government. I wish to remind him of the history of the agreement. Admittedly, the agreement was signed by the present Government. Some of the details had not been cleaned up prior to the general election in 1949. However, the facts are that the basic principles of the fifteen-year meat agreement were laid down by the Chifley Labour Government, although it is true, as the Minister has stated, that the agreement was not signed until the 15th October, 1951. The agreement provided for a government-to-government trading basis; and that was the basis which existed in the last year of the Chifley Government. Indeed, the basis was retained for the first two years the Menzies Government was in office. However, the basis was liable, under the conditions of the *agreement,* to be changed to a tradertotrader basis. That change was made last year. Government-to-government trading in mutton and lamb ceased as from the 30th June, 1954, and in beef as from the 30th September, 1954. The agreement further provided that, when the trader-to-trader base was established, the United Kingdom Government would pay to the Australian Government, for the benefit of producers of meat, the difference between agreed minimum prices and the average over a year of prices realized. It is now clear that there will be a deficiency payment in respect of beef for the period from the 1st October, 1954, to the 30th September, 1955. The bill proposes to deal with two problems. The first is the making of interim payments, and the second is assuring that the producers will get the benefit of the deficiency payments. The first problem, I submit, is tackled satisfactorily by the bill. The Australian Meat Board is to be authorized to raise money on overdraft from the Commonwealth Bank, the overdraft to be guaranteed by the Australian Government. The bill also proposes to distribute the moneys so raised in anticipation of the receipt of deficiency payments from the United Kingdom. The amount involved is approximately £700,000. If, however, the deficiency payments actually received from the United Kingdom Government are less than the amount disbursed, the Australian Meat Board will impose a meat export levy to adjust its finances in the next year. The necessary provision in that respect will be made by the Meat Export (Additional Charge) Bill 1955. I submit that the bill does not solve the problem of ensuring that the people who produced the beef and who rightly and morally are the owners of that money, will receive the payments. For that reason, I submit the following amendment : - >That all words after "That" be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - "the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide a better method of distribution of deficiency payments so as to ensure that such moneys in fact are received by the producers of export meat.". We support the principles which, according to the Minister, this bill seeks to put into effect. However, we on this side of the House consider that the bill will not solve the problem, and that the producers who are rightly entitled to these moneys are not sure of receiving them. {: .speaker-JS7} ##### Mr Brand: -- Why will not the bill solve the problem? {: .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON: -- If the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Brand)** will wait, he will learn the reason. It is quite impossible to trace the actual beast from the time it leaves the farm, and whether it is killed for export or goes into the local trade, or the canning trade. The Government's proposal is that payment shall be made to the exporters, who will be asked, but not bound, to increase the payments that they would normally make for cattle by an amount equivalent to the deficiency payment.. The total amount of the deficiency payments will be about £700,000, which, it is stated, will be the equivalent of lid. per lb. on export beef. This will represent approximately £3 10s. on every beast slaughtered for export. There is no assurance from exporters - and one cannot be obtained - that they will in fact pay higher prices for beef. We claim that it is unsound to make the deficiency payments to the exporters and to trust that they will pay more for export beef, with the expectation that the problem will by that means solve itself. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen: -- What does the honorable member suggest should be done? {: .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON: -- It is not- my responsibility to solve the problem. The solution is the responsibility of the Government. Members of the Australian Labour party consider that the deficiency payments should be made to the producers. Government supporters admit that the money belongs to the producers, and we also consider that it belongs to them. The Minister well knows that the problem will not be satisfactorily solved by giving the exporters lid. per lb. and asking them to pay more, whether they buy in the Queensland Channel country, at Wyndham or at Rockhampton, and whether they buy on the drove, at the stations or anywhere else. Do Government supporters really believe that if a lot of cattle is knocked down at a price that does not allow for the deficiency payment of lid. per lb. the purchaser, after the sale, will say to the auctioneer or the seller, in effect, "Here is another lid. per lb. because I have received the deficiency payment from the Australian Government"? The Minister knows, as does any one who has bought and sold or exported cattle or beef, that it is absolute nonsense to think such a thing will happen. Such a proposal will not achieve the results for which the Minister and the Government hope. The Government has taken the lazy way out. It has said, in effect, "There are thousands of producers. We cannot trace the beef back to the producer. There are not many exporters;, so we shall pay the money to the exporters and hope that the problem will be solved by their generosity ". The difficulties could be overcome if the beef were sold on a weight-grade basis - a basis which I have advocated and which is eminently sound. The Australian Labour party believes in the orderly marketing of primary products. It does not believe in a system of part orderly marketing such as this, which will allow the speculator still to stand between the producer and the consumer, and to take a percentage of profit far in excess of that to which he is entitled, for he does not make any material contribution to the production of the commodity. That is bad enough, but we find now that the speculators are to receive a total of £700,000 more than they would normally receive. Approximately 90 per cent, of Australia's exports of beef are made from above the 26th parallel of latitude from areas in which production is mostly for export and in which there is virtually no competition from local markets. Hardly a carcass is exported from. Perth. The entire exports of beef from "Western Australia are made from Derby and Wyndham. On the other side of the continent, cattle which are bred in the Northern Territory and moved to the Queensland channel country for fattening are ultimately slaughtered on the Queensland coast of Rockhampton and Townsville, where there is no competition from local markets. The position in the southern parts of Australia is very much different. Victoria exports very little beef, because it has a large local market. The position in New South Wales is similar. Therefore, it can be said that the producers north of the 26th parallel of latitude are entitled to receive 90 per cent, of the total deficiency payments of £700,000 which the Government intends to pay to some one. It would be difficult to find the individual producers entitled to receive payments, but it would not be completely impossible. The position in respect of pig meats is rather different, because most of the exports of pig meats are made from the southern parts of Australia, and especially from Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. The position in respect of fat lamb carcasses is similar. The problem of making deficiency payments in relation to pig meats and fat lamb carcasses exported to the United Kingdom would be much more difficult to solve than is the problem with respect to export beef. We on this side of the House fear that if the deficiency payments are made to the exporters, the money will not find its way to the persons who should rightfully receive it. Therefore, we ask the Government to investigate the position again and to reconsider the bill in order to ensure that the producers and not the exporters shall receive the deficiency payments. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr MACKINNON:
Corangamite -- Before I proceed to- discuss this measure, which is designed to permit the Government to make up to the producers of export beef in Australia losses on sales of Australian beef in Great Britain, I wish to congratulate the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** on a genuine attempt to solve an extremely ticklish problem. The amendment foreshadowed by the honorable, member for St. George **(Mr. Lemmon)** is one of the most futile proposals that I have ever heard. All he said on behalf of his colleagues, in effect, was that the Labour party supports the idea generally, because they think it is just. At the same time, members of the Labour party are completely barren of ideas about how to hand this money back. This is a problem which has concerned the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and the best brains of the beef industry particularly, for a number of years, because beef is the main commodity with which the measure is concerned. The honorable member for St. George claimed some credit for the Chifley Government for arranging the fifteen -year meat agreement with Great Britain. I should like to point out, as a person with some slight knowledge of the meat industry, particularly as regards beef, that all that the Chifley Government did for the beef producers of Australia, and other meat-producing industries, was to saddle them with an export price well under world parity. That could hardly be called an advantage. This Government has had the honesty and the ability to tackle this problem with the British Government and, instead of presenting our meat producers with a situation in which they are exporting meat at prices under world parity, has shown a sense of responsibility for the continued development of that groat industry as one of our great national assets, and, with that idea in mind, has arrived at a price which will be remunerative to producers and which, I believe, is above the present price of frozen beef in Great Britain. Comparison of those two situations show how baseless is the claim made by the honorable member for St. George. The honorable member also mentioned the question of getting the money back to the individual producers. I admit that this is a problem that has given most of the people investigating this matter a great deal of concern. The difficulties of identifying the meat on which the export subsidy has been paid are so complex that the problem of paying back the deficiency payment - in this case 1-Jd. per lb. on beef - to the people who have actually sold those cattle for export, and to identify the beasts concerned, is almost impossible of solution. I suggest that the honorable member examine clause S of the bill, which reads - (1.) Where the Minister is not ^satisfied that the prices paid by a licensed exporter to producers in respect of participating meat exported to the United Kingdom are such as to pass on to those producers, in an equitable manner, the full benefit of deficiency payments made to that licensed exporter, the Minister may, by instrument in writing, direct that deficiency payments shall not be made to that licensed exporter. The crux of the matter is contained in sub-section (2.) which reads - >The Minister shall, before exercising a power under this section, consider any report made to him by the Board in connexion with the exercise of that power. I suggest to the honorable member for St. George who, I believe, has some slight association with boards of this type, and also with growers and farmers' organizations, that there will be a very effective guard on the doorstep if anything in the nature of an attempt to defeat the provisions of this bill is made by the exporters, particularly the freezers. This is a problem which, I realize, is extremely difficult. I appreciate to the full the difficulties involved in the typical case cited by the honorable member, of cattle sold at auction in some up-country yard, but I suggest to him that, after all, there is usually not one buyer only in the market. If there is one buyer there who has his price fixed by export standard, and somebody else wants to buy those cattle, there is immediately a firm minimum limit on the cattle being offered. If the honorable member has a better idea than is contained in the bill of how to solve the problem of getting the money back to the producers, I am sure that the Minister, who has great ability in dealing with such problems, would be only too glad to hear it. I think that there might be some confusion in the minds of the people about this particular industry. This bill affects the getting back to the people who are producing the meat - and in this case we are mainly concerned with beef - a deficiency payment on meat that has actually been sold in Great Britain, and it will be applied to current purchases. There might be an idea in the minds of the public that this is an attempt to boos the local price of meat. From my, shall I say, knowledge of the beef industry, I cannot see how this can possibly affect the price of beef to any extent in the main markets throughout Australia. It will have the effect - and it is a vital effect, I believe - that in the areas mentioned by the honorable member for St. George, particularly in Townsville, Rockhampton, Gladstone and Brisbane, it will prevent what one could describe as the bottom falling out of the export market in the northern part of Queensland. In that respect I think it will serve a very good national purpose, because those producers who supply mainly beef processors in Queensland, and have no other outlet owing to distance from good consumer markets, must naturally rely mainly on export to establish their price. I shall not attempt to describe this measure as a means of stabilizing the beef industry, because that industry, with the exception of the area that I have named, is mainly stabilized on local consumption prices. As our population grows, the local demand for meat will also grow, and we should take steps to increase our production to a large degree. The difficulty that has arisen, mainly in regard to beef, stems, first, from Britain's own home production of beef. An effort has been made in Britain to divert from cereal crops to pasture production for fattening purposes, particularly for beef. Secondly, there has been a large increase in the amount of chilled beef imported by Great Britain. Thirdly, and importantly, because it is tied up with what has brought the present measure about, a large quantity of imported beef has been dumped on the British market, which has had a serious effect on prices in our natural, traditional market for beef. Some might say, " Why should we be so concerned with the beef industry ? " [ believe that a large area of the north of Australia will always depend on beef as its main economic support. There are various practical reasons for that, one of which is high rainfall. Sheep cannot be run on high rainfall areas, or on land that is almost completely speargrass country. A third reason, which might concern certain members of this House is that there are large numbers of dingoes in that area. So I suggest that the natural economy of a vast portion of Queensland will always be tied to the cattle industry. I think that these three problems may be overcome. In my personal knowledge, since the war, when the price of cattle has been remunerative to the producers, the impact of this price has been translated into extraordinary development in property improvement. This has built up not only the production of beef in Queensland but also the national asset, and it has added a great deal to the possibilities of future production. As a matter of interest, let me give to the House some figures that I have had taken out in relation to the minimum price. I relate it to the last quoted price from central Queensland for export beef delivered into works. The minimum price, below which the deficiency payment is made, for first-quality ox beef - and I cite the figure for Brisbane; it is slightly lower for Rockhampton and Townsville - is 120s. per 100 lb. dressed weight. Taking an average bullock of approximately 750 lb., the deficiency payment would bc equal to between 10s. and 12s. per 100 lb. My figures, which are about three or four weeks old, but which ars accurate, indicate that the actual price being offered at Rockhampton was 102s. per 100 lb. for first-grade beef. If we take the price of 102s. per 100 lb. for first-grade beef and add the deficiency payment «-f between 10s. and 12s. per 100 lb., we get a figure of 112s. The price quoted in Rockhampton at the moment, based on the minimum price, should be 114s. per 100 lb. In other words, the present price built up by the deficiency payment is 112s., and that the actual1 price,' or near enough to it, should be 114s. You will note, sir, that there is a very close relationship. I am quite satisfied from what I have heard from Queensland on this subject that the people engaged in the beef industry have been greatly encouraged. I believe that the benefit will be passed on to those people who should get it. Let me refer to another point that might be confusing the minds of some people. It will be noted that the bill differentiates between beef, mutton and lamb. I was recently asked this question: "If I am selling lambs and this levy is placed on export lamb, do yon mean to tell me that my lambs are to be used to pay for the shortage or deficiency in beef sales in London ? " I said, " No, that is completely wrong. If you look at the act you will see the relevant section, which provides that the three types shall be separated and that each shall be treated in its own category ". That point needs to be made clear. I think it is appropriate, while discussing the measure, to refer to the technique of chilling meat. You may remember, **Mr. Speaker,** that prior to World War II. a considerable amount of beef went from northern ports to Great Britain in chilled form. Under the minimum price arrangement, if we were able todeliver good-quality chilled beef in London, we would receive a price higher to the extent of 28s. per 100 lb. Difficulties exist in the chilling of beef. So far, it has not been possible to evolve a method of chilling beef and keeping it in good order for more than five or six weeks. In other words, it has to be chilled, delivered into the ship, and delivered to the London market within five or six weeks. Otherwise, it loses its bloom and is subject to serious deterioration. I say without fear of contradiction that, unfortunately, some of the companies that are interested in the beef industry in Australia have greater in- .terests in other parts of the world. They are interested far more in delivering the same kind of meat from other parts of the world. As I have stated, there are serious difficulties and obstacles associated with the production of really good-quality chilled beef for export from Australia. The main difficulty is the time required to deliver it to the London market. I believe that it is necessary that some action should be taken through technical organizations such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization to explore the possibility of making available new methods of handling chilled beef. If that problem could *he* overcome, possibly we could overcome the difficulty associated with the greater interest that is displayed by various companies in exporting beef into Britain from other countries rather than from Australia. The passing of this bill will not result in taking one penny out of the pockets of the Australian public, but it will have the effect, during the current year, of injecting into the beef-producing areas of Queensland and the north of Western Australia over £1,000,000. That is probably one of the greatest encouragements and guarantees that could be given to those people who are pioneering in those areas, who are prepared to gamble on the beef industry, and who are prepared to pay money to improve, not only their own assets, but also the national asset to the future advantage of Australia. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! I was in error in failing to ask whether the amendment was seconded. Is it seconded? {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr Riordan: -- I second the amend- in ent. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I shall now put the question in the normal form. The original question was " That the bill *be* now read a second time ", upon which the honorable member for St. George has moved, by way of amendment, that all words after " That " be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof certain other words. The question now is " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question ". {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy .- As I have already indicated, I second the amendment that was proposed by the honorable member for St. George **(Mr. Lemmon).** The honorable member pointed out that the late **Mr. J.** B. Chifley, during a visit to England, negotiated what has come to be known as the fifteen-year meat agreement. That agreement was negotiated on the basis of endeavouring to stabilize beef production in Australia. As the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** indicated during his second-reading speech, there were two years of negotiations before the agreement was signed. The bill has for its object the bridging of a gap between the current market price and the guaranteed price level. In March last, I was in the port of Bowen, in Queensland. There was a very old ship in port loading beef for Great Britain. One of the officers informed me that the ship was on its last voyage to Australia, as it was 35 years old. He further stated that, because of the meat glut in Great Britain, most likely the ship, after its arrival in Great Britain, would become a floating freezer or chilling works. {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr Mackinnon: -- That has been going on for two or three years. {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- The honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Mackinnon)** says that that has been going on for two or three years. That is true. All the chilling accommodation in Great Britain is occupied, and the same remark applies to Hamburg. {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr Mackinnon: **Mr. Mackinnon** *interjecting,* {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- Let me make my speech in my own way. Let me indicate to the honorable member that although, perhaps, I do not know as much about this industry as would a director of a company, I know a little bit about it as a result of my association with those persons who live in the area that I have the honour to represent in the Parliament. As I have already stated, the measure before the House was designed to bridge the gap between the current market price and the guaranteed price level under the agreement. This bill also envisages the payment of that difference by the United Kingdom Government. The honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Mackinnon)** congratulated thu Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** on the introduction of this bill and said that he could not understand why there is so much confusion in the mind of the public in regard to it. [f the honorable member secures a copy of *Muster,* the journal of the Graziers' Association of New South Wales, dated the 31st May, he will read on the front page an article headed "Doubts, Fears on Meat Export Bounty. Growers may be penalized ". The article contains a statement by the president of the Graziers' Association of New South Wales, **Mr. T.** W. Bucknell, who was afraid that the growers would be penalized by this measure. As this bill has for its object the payment of a bounty to graziers, the Opposition wants the Government to withdraw the bill and devise some other means of ensuring that the graziers will receive these deficiency payments. . The Minister has indicated that a possible controversial question might be how the deficiency payment could be paid to the producers. The precise entitlement will not be known with certainty until some months after much of the meat has been shipped. That is natural. But is there any certainty that, after those months, the grower will secure his share of the deficiency payment ? The Minister said - >Theoretically, it would be possible to keep records of the producers whose livestock was exported--- "' Theoretically ", mark you - . . and after a deficiency payment had Deen received, pay to each his entitled share, [n actual practice, as the industry is conducted, however, this would be completely impossible. That is what the Opposition is worrying about. It was thought that the payment of this money through the exporters would stimulate competition for cattle that the exporters buy. The Minister suggested that this competition would result in higher prices. A few weeks ago, I received a letter from a fairly big pastoralist, a part of which states that meat prices in North Queensland are now st unpayable levels, and that a certain company, which I shall not name, will inspect his bullocks that week. He use? the following words: - . . at £4 10s. for first grade and at they appear to be working on a fixed percentage of first and second grade of 75 pet cent, and 25 per cent, it would seem that the real price to the grower will be £3 19s. pel 100 lbs. Honorable members will notice that thai price is per 100 lb., not per 120 lb. or per 110 lb., the figure mentioned by the honorable member for Corangamite. The letter then refers to a **Mr. Gunn,** whom *1* understand is president of the United Graziers Association of Queensland. It reads - > **Mr. Gunn** at Longreach said last night thai growers would receive about £7 per head les* for bullocks this year than they did last On the basis of £3 19s. per 100 lb. this will represent a fall to me of £11 per head on last year's prices. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture suggested that a bounty of l$d. pei lb. would make up the deficiency but the deficiency will be, not f'7 a head, but £ 13 a head. These are not statistician'sfigures. They are actual prices. The letter continues - >Even if the lid. bounty is approved by the Government the drop in prices is sufficiently serious to force growers to reduce costs chiefly by dispensing with part, at least, of OU employees. Unless a much larger proportion of exportable meat is allowed to be sold else where than in Britain and permits to export granted then it won't be long before th industry is in just as parlous a position as it was in" 1921. That will happen for the very reasons that were mentioned by the honorable member for Corangamite. A total of 90,000 cattle are on their way from the Northern Territory into Queensland where they will be treated at meat works on the east coast next year. From 1923 to 1939 the cattle industry was in a parlous position. There was not an inquiry from any one wishing to purchase a cattle property. The writer of the letter has spent a lifetime in the industry and his sons are in the industry. They can see that the writing is on the wall. They consider that they will not receive the bounty of l$d. per lb. This man was offered £3 19s. per 100 lb. It is too silly for words to suggest that a bounty of *lid.* per lb. will stimulate the industry. The honorable member for Corangamite talked about buying in the yard. He knows that export companies buy their cattle, not in the sale-yard, but on the properties where the cattle are raised. They have offered the graziers £3 19s. per 100 lb. The prices that are now being offered suggest that graziers will lose £11 a head of cattle. The Opposition wants the Government to take appropriate action because it remembers what happened to the industry in the days prior to the war. The Opposition wants to ensure that at least the bounty of 1-Jd. per lb. will be paid to the growers. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has said that it will be difficult to pay the money to them because of some book-keeping arrangement. Big buyers 50 to the paddocks to buy cattle for export. When they go to the Cannon Hill saleyards in Brisbane, or to the other saleyards that were mentioned by the honorable member for Corangamite the local butchers find, in consequence of the overseas prices, that it is necessary for them to compete with the exporters in the purchase of cattle. The deficiency payments of l£d. per lb. to the exporter results in the local butchers having to pay higher prices for cattle. The honorable member for Corangamite said that he could not understand how the bounty would result in an attempt to boost the local prices of beef. As the Minister has pointed out, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide are not affected because there he cattle are sold on local markets. But he position in Queensland is quite different. Because of the bounty, or guaranteed prices, the exporters who purchase cattle at the Cannon Hill saleyard in Brisbane can prevent a reduction of the price of meat to the Queensland consumers. To state the position bluntlyor brutally - the people of Queensland a re caught both ways. On the one hand, the growers know that the exporters receive the bounty, and on the other hand the consumers have to pay more for their meat because the exporters have forced up *hp* price for the local butchers. The honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Brand)** knows that that is so. The local consumers of meat in Queensland will be definitely affected as a result of the guaranteed price in favour of the exporters. On the 31st May, I directed a question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, which arose from the fact that the quota of meat which may bc sold to countries other than the United Kingdom was increased by 6,000 tons - the quota which may be exported under permit or licence to other parts of the British Commonwealth. I asked the Minister whether it was a fact that a meat export permit was refused to the firm of Swift Australia Limited, of Townsville, after a sale of 180 tons of the company's share of the quota had been sold. I have been informed that that company made a sale to Ceylon, but that an export permit to ship the meat was refused and tinsale had to be cancelled. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen: -- That statement is completely without foundation, as there is no restriction on the export of beef to Ceylon. {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- If an opportunity i> to be provided to "sell our meat on market? other than in the United Kingdom, every assistance should be given to the growersof north Queensland to dispose of their cattle. As I said at the outset, I support th<amendment, because the Minister indicated that he was eager to see the growers get the benefit of the proposal. The Minister referred to the difficulty of maintaining records to show cattle that are killed for export and for local consumption respectively. We know that, in the main, agents buy cattle for the export market, and that some local butchers are tied up. as it were. In fact, they are exporters of meat. A means should be devised to record the cattle that are killed for export, so that both this House and the growers can be -assured that any deficiency of price which will be made up will benefit, not the exporters, but the grower? of cattle. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr SWARTZ:
Darling Downs -- The honorable member for St. George **(Mr. Lemmon)** has said that this bill does not achieve the purpose of returning to the growers the proposed deficiency payments, and he moved an amendment which was couched in rather vague terms. The honorable member did not suggest a means of getting such moneys back to the producers. 1 point out that this bill has been introduced as a result of discussions between the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** and the Australian Meat Board. This particular problem was studied very carefully. The recommendations of the Australian Meat Board were published in press statements that were issued by the Minister on several occasions. The proposals contained in the bill are the direct result of negotiations that were undertaken by the Australian Meat Board and the Minister. As a matter of fact, they are very much in line with suggestions that were made by the Minister in about November, 1951, on his return to Australia after negotiations had been completed and the long term meat agreement had been signed. Lt is apparent that the honorable member for St. George has not read the bill, because he omitted to refer to clause 8, which gives the Minister a reserve power. [ am not suggesting that that reserve power would have to be used except in special circumstances. Nevertheless, the provision has been made for the purpose to which the honorable member for St. George referred. As I do not think that the honorable member for St. George and the honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan)** have read the bill - or if they have, they omitted to read clause 8 - [ shall read that clause to the House. It is as follows : - (1.) Where the Minister is not satisfied that the prices paid by a licensed exporter to producers in respect of participating meal exported to the United Kingdom are such as to pass on to those producers, in an equitable manner, the full benefit of deficiency payments made to that licensed exporter, the Minister may, by instrument in » writing, direct that deficiency payments shall not be made to that licensed exporter. (2.) The Minister shall, before exercising a power under this section, consider any report made to him by the Board in connexion with the exercise of that power. I commend the bill in general - but particularly clause 8 - to those honorable members. Both those honorable members stated that negotiations in connexion with the meat agreement were commenced by the previous Labour Government. No one has suggested otherwise; indeed, the Minister acknowledged during his secondreading speech that negotiations were commenced prior to this Government coming to office in 1949. However, it is well known that after this Government entered office, it invited the industries concerned to say whether they wanted a long term meat agreement with the United Kingdom. It is a fact, as the honorable member for Kennedy mentioned, that a considerable period of time elapsed after this Government came tooffice before the agreement was signed. The Government conducted lengthy negotiations with the industries concerned, in order to make sure that they really wanted a long-term meat agreement with the United Kingdom, before it signed the* agreement known as the Australia-United Kingdom Meat Agreement, which is in two parts, namely, the general agreement, and the detailed agreement. I stress that point, because it is important and relevant for honorable members to appreciate the fact that this Government gave to the industries concerned an opportunity te decide whether or not they wished to enter into such an agreement. It will be recalled that the agreement covers three industries. The pig meat producers, after being consulted decided that they did not wish to be parties to the agreement. "We have heard various comments about whether that decision was a wise one, but the fact is that they were given an opportunity to join in the agreement but decided not to do so. The beef, mutton and Iamb producers decided to do so, and1 it was as a result of their decision, their requests and the consultations that took place between the Government and the representatives of those industries, that the agreement was eventually signed. I want to deal with certain aspects of the bill, but before doing so I think it necessary to repeat, for the benefit of the House, because a rather confused picturewas painted by the last three speakers, that the main purpose of the bill is to authorize the Australian Meat Board to» make payments to exporters against meat delivered into cold store and subsequently exported to the United Kingdom. The board will be authorized to anticipate the receipt of moneys which are expected to become due to Australia from the United Kingdom Government in respect of the minimum price guarantees in the fifteen-year meat agreement. I wish to quote some of the provisions of that agreement in order to emphasize a point which, I think, has not been considered so far in this debate. I refer to the development of the Australian meat industry. 1 want to emphasize the spirit of the agreement. The preamble to the agreement states - >The Agreement is between the Governments of the Commonweal th of Australia and the United Kingdom. The intention of the two Governments is to develop further the production of meat in Australia, to increase the export of meat to the United Kingdom and to provide a satisfactory market in the United Kingdom for the whole of the exportable surplus of meat from Australia during the term of the Agreement. Article 4 states - >The Australian Government will use ite best endeavours, not only to maintain the present volume of exports, but to bring about steadily increasing exports of meat to the United Kingdom, and to this end will promote developmental programmes ... It will be open to either Government at any time to suggest measures not elsewhere provided for, designed to induce a greater production from existing properties or from the development of new areas. I emphasize those provisions, because they express the spirit of the agreement, which is designed to achieve, not only the production of additional supplies of meat for the United Kingdom market, but also the development of a very important industry in Australia. To show that the spirit of the agreement, as far . as the development of the Australian meat industry is concerned, has been carried out, I want to quote a brief extract from a publication called *The Beef Situation in Australia,* published in December, 1954, by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The quotation is as follows: - >The past year was one in which several records were broken in the Australian beef industry. The beef cattle population was probably the highest ever. Production of beef and veal was considerably above the previous record level, and exports of carcase beef and veal exceeded those of all previous years. Beet cattle numbers continued the upward trend which has been evident in post-war years, to reach a peak of H), 7") 1,1)00 head in March, 1954, which was 250,000 head above the previous year's total. In Queensland, the beef cattle poppulation was at its highest level for 28 years. I shall now cite some figures for the production of beef and veal in Australia. The average production for the years 1934-35 to 1938-39 was 531,000 tons. In 1953-54, the last year for which we have an official record, production had increased to 706,300 tons. The estimate for this year, given by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, is 730,000 tons. I want also to cite figures showing the export of beef and veal, because they have some significance in relation to a point to which I shall refer later. In the years 1934-35 to 1938-39, the average yearly exports of beef and veal were 107,000 tons, of which 98,000 tons went to the United Kingdom. In 1953-54 - I am afraid 1 have no estimate for this year - our total exports of beef and veal were 141,000 tons, of which. 121,000 tons want to the United Kingdom. In the years between 1934-35 and 1938-39, almost all of our exportable surplus of beef and veal went to the United Kingdom. A similar position existed in 1953-54. Those figures should provide an answer to those people who ask why we cannot export our meat to the other markets that are available to us. The figures show quite conclusively that, when those markets were available, the United Kingdom was still our principal market. The spirit of the deficiency payments provision is set out in the agreement. Article 6 states, in part - >This schedule will be operated by comparing it with the average prices obtained on the market over agreed periods and, if necessary, the arrangements will make special provision designed to ensure that a satisfactory part of the prices reaches the producers of the stock. I have read the extract to show that, inherent in the agreement signed in 1951, is the idea that, to the greatest extent possible, all payments shall go back to the stock producers. I want to get the record quite clear, so I shall refer to one or two points in detail in dealing with deficiency payments. It is stated that the most difficult, and possibly controversial, aspects flowing from the deficiency payment position is the question how the payments can be got back to the producers, in the circumstances that the precise entitlement will not be known with certainty until months after much of the meat has been shipped. The bill is designed primarily to establish the basis for disbursement. It represents a proposal which the Australian Meat Board decided should be recommended to the Government as the best possible means, [t is, in fact, precisely the means which the Minister suggested in November, 1951, on his return to Australia. The arrangement embodied in the legislation provides both an equitable method of getting back to primary producers the actual money received from the United Kingdom as deficiency payments, and also multiplies the advantages to the producers by the sympathetic stabilizing effect on fat stock for local consumption and the whole store stock market. The finance provided to cover the payments authorized by the bill will not be a charge against the taxpayers. That was stated quite clearly by the Minister in his second-reading speech. In the first instance, it will be provided by the Commonwealth Bank by means of a Governmentguaranteed overdraft to the meat board. This guaranteed overdraft will later be discharged by deficiency payments made to Australia by the United Kingdom Government. That is the method by which these payments will be financed. [n the event of the board recommending a rate of deficiency payment which in total amount at the end of the year exceeds the amount of money received from the United Kingdom Government, a levy on exports will be imposed to balance the ledger. This levy may be spread over a period of about one year, unless special circumstances indicate that a longer period is required. I wanted to ensure that those aspects of the matter were made quite clear. I have referred to them in detail because I felt there was some misunderstanding in the minds of the honorable member for St. George **(Mr. Lemmon)** and the honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan).** That is indicated by the fact that the honorable member for St. George intro- duced a vague and pointless amendment, which was seconded by the honorable member for Kennedy. Another matter that was raised by the honorable member for Kennedy was the restriction of beef shipments to markets other than the United Kingdom. If th,United Kingdom is to give us a guaranteed price, the value of which we can assess now because the bill has some significance in that regard, that country must be compensated by receiving thebulk of our exportable surplus. Under the agreement the quantity that we can export to other markets will be limited. Despite claims to the contrary, it is obvious, as I said earlier, that tinUnited Kingdom provides us with our major market. The available facts indicate that that will continue to be the case for an unlimited period. Reference has been made to the Canadian, American and European markets in connexion with the sale of lamb especially. We know, of course, that those markets are variable and that import? to them can be stopped, by decree, on very short notice. As reference has been made to the volume of exports to other markets this year, I should like to refer briefly to a press statement made by the Minister on this subject. He said - >The decision means that Australia is now in a position to export about 15.000 tone of beef to countries other than the United King dom and the colonies during 1U54-1955. It isthe second recent additional increase under the free quota system . . . The United Kingdom Ministry of Food has also decided, with the concurrence of the Australian Meat Board to dispose of (i,000 tons of old season's stocks of Australian beef on the continent. This beef has been in its hands for some time . . and has had a depressing effect on the market It is interesting to know that the points raised by the honorable member for Kennedy tonight in relation to exports within the British Commonwealth are answered by the tremendous increase in the free quota that has been negotiated for thi? particular meat year. Of course, in addition to the 3 per cent, allowed for export to free markets, a negotiable quantity can be arranged each year between the Australian Meat Board's representatives and the representatives of the United Kingdom Government. It is also interesting to know that since 1934 Nev; Zealand has had the right to sell 073 markets other than the United Kingdom, but for the period from October, 1954, to January, 1955, which is fairly recent, that country shipped only 1.8 per cent, of its exports to those markets. During the same period Australia shipped 9.6 per cent, of its exportable surplus to markets other than the United Kingdom. I want to refer very briefly to chilled beef, which the honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Mackinnon)** mentioned earlier. Of course, there is no limit in the agreement on the shipment of chilled beef to the United Kingdom. We know that the chilled beef problem is being examined at present. As recently as March representatives of all sections of the meat industry held a conference in Brisbane to deal with the technical aspects of the problem. It is my opinion that we must re-enter the chilled beef market in the United Kingdom to a greater extent if we are to compete on an equitable basis with New Zealand and other countries. We must examine every aspect of the problem so that we can maintain our present proportion of that market. The Government's attitude to the long-term meat agreement with the United Kingdom is not inflexible. It was negotiated after discussion with the industries concerned. One section of the agreement is subject to review this year and the Government is quite willing to consider representations from industries that may or not wish to withdraw from it when the section concerned is under review. The Government has always adopted that policy. We must not overlook the importance of canned meat exports, which arc not included in the agreement. It is significant that the approximate annual exports of canned meat during 1953-54, the List recorded year, were 100,000 tons, and the total beef carcass exports to all markets during the same year were approximately L20,000 tons. That fact should bc borne in mind. This year, the deficiency payment to Australian producers could amount to more than £1,000,000. Everyone will agree, therefore, that this measure will be of great assistance to the important and expanding cattle industry of Australia. {: #subdebate-35-0-s5 .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Ballarat . - I rise to support strongly the amendment moved by the honorable member for St. George **(Mr. Lemmon).** I think that it is excellent and nothing that the honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Mackinnon)** or the honorable member for Darling Downs **(Mr. Swartz)** ha»'e said, has convinced me that this amendment should not be taken into account by the Government. The Minister foi Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** has glossed over this - something that he does not usually do - and therefore I regard it as even more important. He said, in his secondreading speech - >The entitlement to this payment will enable the exporter to increase his offer for cattle, or his bid at auction, by an equivalent amount. This, therefore, sets a new value for the cattle on the hoof. . . When the bill was introduced I wroteto a friend of mine in northern New South Wales. My friend produces a great many cattle for export and for local consumption. He has been soundly established in the beef industry for many years. I shall quote from a letter thai he sent to me - >I have found from experience in selling both at auction sales and direct to meat companies that buyers are very adept at organising their buying, and competition is only token At auction sales, pens of stock are often allotted by buyers among themselves and the meat companies have their districts arranged and worked out where their buyers will operate. If a buyer moves over his allotted district boundary, he is very quickly disci plined or removed on a complaint from the company on whose territory he trespasses. That statement was made by one who sells a lot of cattle. He continues, referring to the bill - >Most producers are rather disappointed with it ... in that it does not actually *sei* down a floor price for the meat here. The agreement provides for the meat to be graded in the United Kingdom when it arrives there by the standards of the locally produced meat in England, so the producer he-re does not know what his meat is going to bring until he gets his return. Commonwealth meat grading standards are apparently not recognized by the United Kingdom, so producers feel rather dubious about it. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen: -- That is not right. Australian grading standards are accepted. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- He goes on to say that, when the details of the meat agreement were made known to the chairman of the Graziers' Association, he was very critical of them, but, since his appointment to the Commonwealth Bank Board, he has changed his views considerably and now regards it as rose-tinted. I think that this l½d. per lb. ought to go back to the grower.I am surprised that the Minister does not make definite arrangements to see that it will do so. I am convinced that the grower will not receive the Hd. per lb. at all. In my opinion, based on the way the bill is worded, the £1,000,000 will be whacked up between the shipping companies and the meat canning, processing, and exporting concerns. The graziers will see very little indeed of it, unless proper arrangements are made to see that they receive it. The Minister has power, under clause 8, to examine companies' accounts, to ascertain whether they have been distributing the payment of l½d. per lb. Does that mean that the Minister will consider what ought to be a fair profit for a year's trading? Otherwise meat exporting, canning and processing companies will increase their profits greatly and say, " We had a good year ". I think that if the Minister examines the books and finds that the companies have not dealt with the deficiency payment of l½d. per lb. in a proper manner, the people who ought to have received that amount should be found and they should be paid back. It should not be necessary for the Minister to go delving into companies' accounts to find that out. I think it is quite possible that the people who are entitled to that payment can be located and the money paid back to them. The Minister's power under clause 8 is confined to withholding payments to licensed exporters. That does not ensure that the payment is made to the meat grower. That clause does not provide any protection for the community. The Minister at page 4 of the roneoed copy of his speech said - >Theoretically it would be possible to keep records of the producers whose live-stock was exported, and after a deficiency payment had been received, pay to each his entitled share. In actual practice, as the industry is conducted, however, this would be completely impossible. I am rather surprised at that because, as a banker, for many years I have seen **Mr. Joshua.** final annual payments for dairy produce generally made about September. Throughout whole districts the few pounds of butter sent in by various people have been carefully recorded by the dairy company, and their entitlement by way of final payment for the year assessed and the money paid either directly to them or to their banks. Every year this is done without any difficulty. I think that something similar can be done in the case of beef producers. Every bank produces a wheat schedule, and everyone who puts wheat into a pool is recorded on it. These things are quite mechanical. Schedules are prepared, the amount representing the payments in respect pf wheat produced by various people are credited, and there is no bother at all. All that is required is a letter from the board which conducts the pool. Beef purchases involve large amounts of money. The actual clerical work involved in recording the extra l½d. per lb. to be paid later to someone on account of the portion exported does not seem to be an insurmountable difficulty at all. The honorable member for St. George has raised an important point. The difficulty can be overcome, and I fail to see why the Minister has not devoted sufficient attention to its solution. I really am surprised at this, because it is not in line with the efficiency we expect from the {: #subdebate-35-0-s6 .speaker-JS7} ##### Mr BRAND:
Wide Bay .- One of the tragedies of our time in Australian politics is the complete incompetence of Labour members to understand the growing problems of the primary producer, yet primary production is the basis of our whole economy. Upon it practically the whole of our prosperity depends, or at least the stability which is necessary for all Australians in every way of life. One would expect a large party, like the Labour party, to understand the problems of the primary producer instead of submitting, as has been done to-night through the honorable member for St George **(Mr. Lemmon),** an amendment which is really designed to prevent the primary producer in the beef cattle industry from now enjoying some stability in the price of his product. I can quite understand the attitude of the honorable member for St. George, and possibly also that of the honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua),** who has just blown into the picture a story about a letter from a producer in New South Wales, who had a lot of cattle that he sent away for export. We should like to know from what place in New South Wales they were exported, lt is apparent that honorable members opposite do not understand the problems of this industry, or the facts upon which this bill has been founded. Just imagine the honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan),** who comes from Queensland, supporting in this Parliament the attitude of New South Wales producers, whereas his own producers in the electorate of Kennedy are anxious that the Minister should put through this legislation ! The honorable member for St. George may have gained some ground to-night had it not been for the fact that the primary producers concerned, the beef cattle growers throughout Queensland and Western Australia, unanimously agreed to support this bill and asked the Minister to put it through the Parliament. Opposition members do not understand the problem. The Minister stated that he would consider sympathetically legislation to sanction the payment of the 1 1/2d. per lb., which amounts to 12s. 6d. per 100 lb. Meat exporting companies are not so bad as honorable members opposite Would make us believe. They should know that the companies are paying to the producers today a price of 10Si per 100 lb. for export first quality beef, which is equivalent to 12s. 6d. per 100 lb;* because their price for beef includes briskets and shins, which, of course, are not included in the export price. So the meat exporting companies are paying to-day to primary producers of beef that amount of subsidy which may be included in the deficiency payment by the" British Government to the Australian industry. The honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr.** Mackinnon), who does know this industry, complimented the Minister and the Government on bringing down this legislation. It is not too late to stabilize the' price of the beef cattle industry. We must recognise that we are dealing with an industry which is very important to Australian food supplies. In Australia, we are producing about 1,152,000 tons of *beef* veal, lamb, mutton, pork, and bacon, Which are all included in the category of meat. Of that quantity^ only " about 200,000 tons is exported in a frozen or tinned condition. That is to say, less than 25 per cent, of our total production of this important commodity is exported. With our growing population, unless we expand that industry, in some years we shall find ourselves short of beef, aud therefore the Government, which is ever.mindful of the future of our industrial life, is looking ahead to try to stabilize the industry and keep it on its feet in a crisis brought about by the fall of prices on overseas markets. This will enable this great industry, of which we all are proud, to continue to supply the requirements of Australia in the years to come. I remember that, when I was in another parliament, the Queensland Government was very concerned about the development of the beef cattle industry. It recognized that the State of Queensland, being so close to the Northern Territory, must continue to be not only a great producer of beef Cattle. but also a processor of beef for the markets of the world. The beef production of Queensland and Western Australia means everything to this country, and those two States are looking to this legislation to assist them in the stabilization of their prices.- The honorable member for Kennedy to-night referred to the position of this industry. He read a letter that was supposed to have been received by him from a prominent producer in Queensland. The price of £4 10s. peT 100 lb. which he quoted is the price that meat exporters were paying for beef before the Minister made any announcement about the _l£d. subsidy which would be paid to them. Since that time, the meat processors have paid the price plus, as I said, the 10s. on the £4 10s. they had offered to that man in north Queensland. In central Queensland the price is slightly higher, and in southern Queensland, it is higher again; but in all cases, processors are obtaining the price that they feel they can pay on the world's markets to-day, plus the 10s. per 100 lb., which is 1 1/2d. per lb. less brisket and shins, that the Minister is proposing tinder this legislation. I congratulate the Government on bringing down a bill which will help the Queensland producer to-day, and enable the cattle industry to make progress in a State in which the meat can be produced. {: #subdebate-35-0-s7 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP -- *in reply* - The amendment moved by the honorable member for St. George **(Mr. Lemmon)** only goes to show that the Labour party, whether in government or in opposition, knows nothing much about the primary industries, and during the years, and through its mistakes, learns nothing about them. The Labour party, when it was in government, brought many of our primary industries to a chaotic condition by thinking that it knew more about the industries than the producers themselves knew. It has been the fate of this Government to try to straighten out the mess left by the Labour Government of which the honorable member for St. George was a leading member - the mess of the wheat industry, the dairying industry, the tobacco industry and, indeed, every industry with which Labour had anything to do. This Government believes that when it deals with the property of the producers in these great primary industries, the proper thing for it is to pay regard to the experienced people in the primary industries who, necessarily, in the natural order of events, know more about their own business than any government, whether constituted by the parties on this side or on that side of the House, can ever possibly hope to know. The matter that is before the House at the present time is a proposal that there should be done in respect of this industry what the chosen representatives of the primary industry concerned have asked to be done. Yet Labour members have the effrontery to come into the House and say, " Tear all that up. It is bad. Do what we, the Labour party, know is better ". When one attempts to elicit from the representatives of the Labour party the details of what they propose to do in substitution for what they criticize, they cannot explain anything. Theirs is merely a political gesture of attempting to show that whatever the Government proposes is wrong. The truth of the matter is that every speaker from the Labour side' has demonstrated how little he knows about this subject. The honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan),** who is a representative of one of the greatest cattle areas in this country, has had the temerity to allege that a great exporting company, the Swift Australian Company (Pty.) Ltd.. has been denied an opportunity to export a mere 180 tons of meat to Ceylon. {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr Riordan: -- I asked the Minister a question about it. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- The honorable member alleged it in a question and repeated it to-night. I said in the House at question time - but that makes no difference to him - that there is no restriction on the export of beef from Australia to Ceylon. The representative of the Swift company has been asked whether this allegation would apply to any experience that the company has had. He, and the representatives of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, cannot think of any experience of the company that could be related to the allegation of the honorable member for Kennedy. What the honorable member wants to do if " chime into " the inexperience of Labour in the House, and defy the express desires of his own constituents. That if hardly a very creditable or helpful course for him to take. I repeat that the Australian Meat Board, the majority of members of which are primary producers, and a minority of members of which are experienced exporters, has been pondering for a long time on this proposal, and any other alternatives that could be conjured up, and has asked the Government to do exactly what it has done. I should think that the Labour party, which claims to have the interests of primary producers at heart, at least would have accepted the request of the people who own these cattle. These people believe, as I described in my second reading speech, that to pay back to the primary producers the deficiency payments gives rise to a difficult and controversial problem. I admitted that it was difficult and controversial but the producers themselves have chosen this as the best method by which to do it. The representatives have chosen it, and under some pressure of time, they have asked the Government to put the scheme into operation. They then called special meetings of the cattle producers throughout the exporting area? of Queensland, and explained to the graziers, including those in the electorate of the honorable member for Kennedy, what the Government had been asked to do, and what it proposed to do. [ am advised that those meetings of graziers have, without exception, given their approval to this proposal as being the best means of dealing with the distribution of these deficiency moneys. They acclaimed it as a precedure which would gain benefits for the cattle industry vastly greater even than the actual distribution of these funds, because, as I explained in my second-reading speech, it will have the effect of stabilizing the whole of the cattle industry in the export areas. The market for cattle slaughtered for export and for local consumption, and also the store market for cattle, will be stabilized. The Australian Labour party has shown that it has no understanding of the extraordinary complexities of meat as a market commodity. It is one of the most complex of all market commodities. Labour, while in office in wartime, attempted to impose price controls on meat, and ought to have learned the lesson learned everywhere in the world that probably no commodity is more difficult to trace through to the final product than is meat. During World War II., Labour attempted to fix on the hoof prices for cattle of canner quality, and of fat quality, and for baconer and back-fatter pigs. Its inexperience and the complexity of the problems resulted in large-scale profiteering by the meat processors, of which everyone in this country ought to know. This occurred solely because Labour did not understand the complexities of the problem. One can say that a cow standing in a yard is of canner quality, but one cannot follow the slaughtering and marketing processes through to the butcher's shop and ascertain whether the meat is sold as ordinary cow meat or as ox meat. During the war, large-scale profiteering occurred because it was completely impossible to make the theory of price control of meat work in practice. That experience ought to remind honorable members opposite who were members of the Labour cabinets in war-time that the proposals that they apparently envisage in relation to the marketing of meat are impracticable and cannot be put into effect. When I tried to draw out the honorable member for St. George on Labour's suggestions in this matter, he talked of a weight-and-grade basis of marketing as an alternative. That alternative is available at present. Under the present arrangements, a cattleman can elect not to sell his cattle outright and to have them treated at any of the works on a weight-and-grade basis. We who have practical experience in the live-stock business, know that an apparently workable theory does not always work out in practice. Cattle become bruised, and an otherwise exportable carcass mighthave one quarter wholly unfit for export. How can that problem be dealt with on a weight-and-grade basis? How can one follow through the identity of the quarter that is rejected on account of bruising or for some other reason? The House will do the right thing if it rejects the amendment, accepts the bill and gives effect to the proposals submitted to the Government by the representatives of the cattle producers. Question put - >That the words proposed to be left out **(Mr.** LEMMON'S amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker-t-Hon. ARCHIE Cameron.) AYES: 51 NOES: 0 AYES NOES Woes .. .. ' ..37 Majority . . . . 14 Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Bill read *-.a.* second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 to .5 agreed to. Clause 6 (Persons to whom payable). {: #subdebate-35-0-s8 .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON:
St. George .- Paragraph (6) of this clause reads - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. if the meat is exported by a licensed exporter -on account of the owner in pursuance of the condition specified in sub-section (1a.) of section seventeen of the Meat Export Control Act 1035-1053 - to the owner. It is assumed that the money to be paid is for the purpose of endeavouring to assist the exporters to pay higher prices in the future, if stock has been purchased under conditions of deficiency. If a man exports on his own account and sells direct, will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** explain whether he will obtain a double 'benefit? {: #subdebate-35-0-s9 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP -- No, the payment under the general terms of the bill is to be made to a licensed exporter. The alternative provision is to enable a producer to receive the exact entitlement if he elects to follow the pre.cedure of exporting on his own account. As the producer will not usually have a licensed meat works, he must use the agency of a licensed meat works. If he sells on consignment, this provision is to arrange a cover for him. Clause 6 agreed to. Clause 7 agreed to. Clause 8 (Exporters to pass on benefit of deficiency payment). {: #subdebate-35-0-s10 .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON:
St. .George .- In .the event .of :& glut .of fat stock occurring .on the market, it is inevitable that prices will fall. Then the person who (desires .to export pays a .lower price for his .stock. How will the measure ensure that the producer will get (the pi:lee that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** claims he will get ? We have been given to (understand that producers' organizations :ha:ro supported this measure, but I desire ito read from a report of the .opinion of **Mr. Bucknell,** the president of the Graziers' Association of New .South Wales, which recently appeared in the journal of that organization named *Muster.* The report reads - > **Mr. Bucknell** said . . . "The argument 'is that the grower will eventually benefit in form .of increased competition (and, one assumes, higher prices) from the exporters. It is not an argument that will re-assure too many interested graziers'". > > **Mr. Bucknell** said that it was impossible to overlook two grounds on which the reasoning of those seeking to justify the scheme was open to criticism. > >The first -was that extra money - bounty money. - in the hands of the exporters was only one of many factors which would influence competition for the grower's stock. Unless those factors were favourable to the grower, competition could be as dead as the frozen meat we exported. Prices would remain low, but the .exporters would still enjoy the advance on deficiency payments. It is because of the opinion expressed by the president of the Graziers' Association of New South Wales, in that article, that I ask the Minister to assure honorable members that there is no substance in his fear. I should like to know how it is proposed that clause 8 will ensure that the position outlined by **Mr. Bucknell** shall not arise. {: #subdebate-35-0-s11 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP -- I make no attempt to claim that this matter is not arguable,- but the Government, the graziers and I believe that this bill sets out the best means of ensuring that primary producers shall get the benefit of the measure. Primary producers get the parity of the London value of meat by the forces of competition, but those forces do not always act with mathematical precision. Any one who is familiar with the lire-stock market knows that, but broadly those forces act well. The intention of this clause is to provide a cover which, incidentally, the graziers themselves did not ask for, but which the Government thought was a proper cover to insert in the bill in the general public interest. It is a -general cover designed to ensure that there shall he a pressure upon meat exporting processors to pass on to producers the benefit of the deficiency payments. The clause has a tremendous import. The bulk of beef exported from Australia is exported by three or four great companies. If £1,000,000 is to be disbursed, then the bulk of that money is to be disbursed by three or four great processors. In that case we should have the spectacle of a processor who has become entitled to perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds, running the risk of losing it all under this clause if he does not pay what is calculated to be a fair price to the primary producer. I can think of no greater sanction that could be exercised to ensure that the exporting processor shall pass on to the primary producer the full benefit, than the penalty that this clause holds over his head of the possibility of losing a large sum of money. THE **CHAIRMAN (Mr. Adermann).** - Order! The honorable member for Hindmarsh will behave himself in the chamber. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I was not doing anything. THE CHAIRMAN.- Climbing over seats is not behaviour fitting to an honorable member. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I direct attention to the behaviour of the honorable member for Macarthur **(Mr. Jeff Bate).** THE CHAIRMAN.- Order! The honorable member will obey the Chair. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Why do you not treat honorable members on both sides of the committee in the same way? THE CHAIRMAN.- Order! The honorable gentleman will apologize for having reflected on the Chair. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I apologize. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- I think I have explained this matter sufficiently, but a3 the quite valid point that was put to me by the honorable member for St. George, who was chosen to lead for the Labour Opposition on this issue, is receiving no attention from the back-benchers of the Opposition, who to that extent have demonstrated their complete lack of interest in the issue, I do not propose to speak to the point any further. Clause agreed to. Remainder of bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1561 {:#debate-36} ### NEWSPAPER ARTICLES {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Report of Committee of Privileges {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- As Chairman, I present the report of the Committee of Privileges relating to articles published in the Bankstown *Observer* of the 2Sth April, the 5th May, the 12th May and the 19th May, 1955, together with the minutes of proceedings of the committee. {: .page-start } page 1561 {:#debate-37} ### MEAT EXPORT (ADDITIONAL CHARGE) BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 2nd June, *(vide* page 1379), on motion by **Mr. McEwen** - That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1561 {:#debate-38} ### JUDICIARY BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 1528). {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- The Opposition offers no objection to this bill. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** explained briefly this afternoon that it is a bill to increase the amount in relation to which a person may appeal, as a right, from the Supreme Court of a State to the High Court. He said that the figure of £300 set in 1903 is now too small, and that the sum should be raised to £1,500, the amount stated in the measure. I do not know whether the difference between those two amounts is a measurement of the value that has oozed out of the £1 in the intervening years, but the Opposition has no objection to the amount being £1,500 instead of £300. The Prime Minister also mentioned that in relation to questions of bankruptcy, alienage, and divorce, alterations have been made in procedure, and the Opposition also offers no objection there. I wish, however, to take advantage of this opportunity to put forward a revolutionary idea - it would be revolutionary, I am sure, in the minds of most lawyers, and certainly in the minds of the members of the Government. I think we have reached the time when the High Court should be located in Canberra, the time when breaches of federal law, or matters affecting federal legislation, should be dealt with in federal courts and should not be dealt with at all by the Supreme Courts of the States. That would, of course, involve the appointment of judges in federal jurisdiction, not only in the various States but also in various parts of each State. In other words, I should like to see adopted, almost in its entirety, the American procedure. I think that it would be good for the people as a whole to get more uniformity of decision, and would save a lot of litigation and a great deal of irritation that occurs at present. I can remember that during the war period a certain National Security regulation came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which unanimously decided that it should be disallowed. Three judges sat on the bench of the Full Court on that occasion, the Chairman being the then Chief Justice of New South Wales, **Sir Frederick** Jordan. I think that it was on the very next day that the Full High Court, also unanimously, decided to upset the decision of the Full Court of the New South Wales Supreme Court. I had the feeling then, and I have it now, that at that particular time the judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, like the State politicians of New South Wales, and like State judges and State politicians everywhere had an anti-federal complex. Nothing else could explain why there could be such an extraordinary difference of opinion between two groups of .learned judges. I do not think that any State government in Australia would mind its Supreme Court being relieved of the obligation to consider federal legislation. As a matter of fact, I am told that Supreme Court lists in every State are hanked up, and there is a cry all the time for the appointment of more judges and more acting judges to clear the lists. It seems to me that, at some time or other, some Commonwealth Parliament will have to deal with this question of federal jurisdiction and so, without consulting anybody, and giving my own opinion only in the matter - and speaking also entirely as a layman - I suggest that the Prime Minister might give some thought to this question of enlarging the authority of our federal courts and establishing more federal courts, thus helping, I believe, to streamline the legal processes of this country. That is all I have to say about the legislation, which I commend to the House. The amendments proposed to be made in the principal act are proper, in our view, and should be adopted by the Parliament. {: #subdebate-38-0-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES:
Prim* Minister · Kooyong · LP , - *in reply* - One portion of the bill deals with the appeal, as of right, in matters of divorce, and on that, certain questions have been raised by honorable members who are members of the legal profession, which I should like to consider. I want merely to indicate that we shall consider them before the bill goes to the Senate, and if anything arises as a result of that consideration I shall, of course, put the House in possession of it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1562 {:#debate-39} ### AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 1528). {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- The Opposition supports this bill, which is complementary to the one that the House has just debated. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1563 {:#debate-40} ### COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-40-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 1532). {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne . -The honorable member for Maribymong **(Mr. Drakeford)** has placed before the House the views of the Opposition on this bill. He has discussed the civil aviation aspect of the matter, which is important to the future safety of Australia. We do not offer any opposition to the bill. We are pleased that action has been taken to incorporate this territory within the Commonwealth, although we understand that some objection to the decision of the British and Australian Governments to transfer the area to Australia has been raised by some of the people on the Malayan Peninsula. I understand that the territory was previously under the control of the colony of Singapore, and no doubt some feeling has been whipped tip in Singapore about the transfer. The Cocos Islands have a very good airfield, which was provided with Australian capital. It will be of great value to persons travelling between Australia and South Africa, and it may even be useful to those travelling by air between Australia and England. The incorporation of these islands in Australian territory will be of some value to the future defence of Australia. {: #subdebate-40-0-s1 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON:
Riverina .- This bill is of great historical importance to the people of the Cocos Islands and to. the people of Australia. I want to make an impassioned plea to the Minister that the significance of the bill should not be lost because of the lateness of the hour of its introduction in this House, [t is a measure which must inevitably affect the lives of all those resident in the Cocos Islands group, and it must affect the lives of the Australian people, because it is an additional responsibility of the Australian Government, and every intelligent man and woman in this country should appreciate these increasing responsibilities. I ask the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** not to let this great occasion pass without some kind of historical pageant, no matter how simple, which will give it significance in the memory of those who are present on that important occasion, and in the minds of those who come after them. I remember vividly the occasion when the Minister for External Affairs introduced the bill to take the first step in this direction. That was some time last year. On that occasion, too, the bill was introduced at a very late hour towards the end of the session, and I was persuaded then to limit what I had to say to the bare facts of the case. Since then a great deal has happened, and it is necessary to remind ourselves of the significance of this important and historic occasion. The Cocos group consists of no fewer than 25 islands in the Indian Ocean. Admittedly, they are a long way from the coastline of Australia. Indeed, they are 1,800 miles from the City of Perth. They are 1,778 miles from the City of Colombo in Ceylon, and 1,050 miles from the City of Singapore. These distances at one time constituted great barriers separating the mainland of Australia from this group of coral atolls in the Indian Ocean. Because of the great advances that have been made in transport generally, these distances have diminished until it can be said now that the Cocos Islands group is only a few hours away from the Australian mainland. But 1 remind the House that the islands are only 803 miles from Djakarta, the capital of the Indonesian Republic. It is, therefore, necessary to view this question in its proper geographical perspective. If the transfer of the administration of these islands is not handled competently by the Government, they could become another problem for Australia, such as West New Guinea is at present. The islands were discovered by William Keeling in the year 1690, which is nearly 300 years ago. I remind those who always speak in defamatory terms of what is now called colonialism that the islands at that time were uninhabitated. There are certain critics of colonialism who always say, when speaking of places like these islands, that the thing to do is to hand the territory back to the natives to whom it originally belonged. But the Cocos Islands, in common with a great many other parts of the British Dominions, were uninhabitated when they were discovered 300 years ago. For 150 years very little happened. Subsequently, that intrepid Scot, John Clunies Ross, arrived at the place. My mathematics may be slightly astray here, but he arrived 150 years ago and brought these coral atolls, this barren, inhospitable group of islands to fertility for the first time. When he had accomplished that great task, he found it necessary to get people from the United Kingdom, Malaya and Java to do the normal jobs of production. So they built up this island community in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Strangely enough, that settlement, if one might so describe it, has been singularly successful inasmuch as during those 150 years of settlement there has been no crime of any importance, no vice of any importance, and none of the hates and enmities that divide communities such as our own, throughout the modern world. We have cause to be proud of what John Clunies Ross did for the Cocos Islands group, and for the. people who ultimately populated them. The islands became part of the British dominions in 1857, nearly 100 years ago. In that way, all the allegiances to the British throne that we share with so many other people throughout the world were shared by the people of the Cocos Islands group, and have been so shared for nearly 100 years. The islands, I suppose because of their geographical position, came under the administration of the Government of Ceylon in 1878. That arrangement continued, no matter how satisfactory, and I suppose no matter how unsatisfactory, it might have been, until the administration passed from the Government of Ceylon to the Government of the Straits Settlements in 1903. It is at this point that I direct the attention of the House to the fact that it would be unreasonable to suppose that overtures might have been made to the Commonwealth of Australia at that time, when the administration had to pass from the Government of Ceylon to some other government. The Commonwealth of Australia was too young at that time,, and so we missed that opportunity. Since then, of course, the Cocos Islands have been administered by the Government of the Straits Settlements. That administration might have been satisfactory, or it might have been unsatisfactory, but it continued in an uninterrupted way until quite recently. During World War II. the Australian Government, in concert with the governments of other allied countries, found il necessary to construct an airstrip in the Cocos Islands group. That airstrip served a very useful war purpose, but, as soon as hostilities ceased in 1945, the work of construction ceased and the airstrip was abandoned. I suggest to the House that, but for the change of government in 1949, the story of the Cocos Islands might have been a repetition of that dreadful story of Manus Island. Fortunately, there was a change of government in 1949, and by 1950 the airstrip, such as it was, was rehabilitated to some degree. In 1951 it was completed, and immediately an air route was pioneered between this country and the Union of South Africa and the countries north of the Union of South Africa. So the Cocos Islands became a place of great significance in our general transport system. But, in addition to that, there was the historical importance of this handful of people populating a group of islands in the Indian Ocean and owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, and of the administration of those islands by the Government of the Straits Settlements without any responsibility being taken by the Government or people of Australia. This Government, having explored the possibilities, introduced a bill last November in which it sought the sanction of Her Majesty the Queen to the transfer of the administration of the islands from the Government of the Straits Settlements to the Commonwealth of Australia. I am very proud of the fact that the Government of Her Majesty the Queen in the United Kingdom saw fit to bring down the appropriate legislation in the Mother of Parliaments. Now it is our duty and our great pleasure to complete the legislative action that is necessary to bring the administration of these islands to this country, where it rightly belongs. I have nothing more to say. Opposition Members. - Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON: -- The applause comes from those honorable members who are not the slightest bit interested in this very important subject, and for that very reason it is necessary for me to repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech. Whether the Opposition likes it or not, this a moment of great historical significance to the people of the Cocos Islands group. Because of that, I appeal to the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** to devise ways and means of making the passing of this final piece of legislation important to those people and, so far as he is able, important to the people of our own country so that it will be imprinted upon their minds, just as our forefathers saw fit to seize every opportunity to mark such occasions with pageants that would be of some historical interest to the succeeding generation. I appeal to the Minister to do something appropriate in that direction. *Sitting suspended from 11.57 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. (Thursday).* *Thursday, 9 June 1955* Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1565 {:#debate-41} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: - Marriage (Overseas) Bill 1955. Matrimonial Causes Bill 1955. States Grants (Universities) Bill 1955. Superannuation Bill 1955. {: .page-start } page 1565 {:#debate-42} ### SOUTH-EAST ASIA Debate resumed from the 10th August, 1954 *(vide* page 105), on motion by **Mr. Casey** - >That the following paper be printed: - {:#subdebate-42-0} #### South-East Asia - Ministerial Statement, 10th August, 1954 {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- So much time has elapsed since this paper was presented that no further debate on the subject is worth while, and the Opposition will allow it to be printed. Question resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1565 {:#debate-43} ### INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Debate resumed from the 2nd November, 1954 *(vide* page 2512), on motion by **Mr. Casey** - >That the following paper be printed: - {:#subdebate-43-0} #### International Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 2nd November, 1954 {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- This paper is as stale as the one with which the House has just dealt. I wish that the Government had given us an opportunity to discuss these matters earlier. However, we do not propose to discuss this matter any further at this stage. Question resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1565 {:#debate-44} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-44-0} #### ATOMIC ENERGY Debate resumed from the 28th April *(vide* page 246), on motion by **Mr. Beale** - >That the following paper be printed: - > >Atomic Energy Act - Australian Atomic Energy Commission - Second Annual Report and financial accounts, together with the Auditor-General's Report, for the period ended30th June, 1954. {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP -- The Opposition has nothing to say on this matter, because it will come before us again during the next sessional period, when there will be much more information available concerning the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. We shall make whatever contribution we have to make on the matter at that time. Question resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1566 {:#debate-45} ### COPPER Debate resumed from the 11th November, 1954 *(vide* page 2870), on motion by **Sir Eric** Harrison - >That the following paper be printed: - {:#subdebate-45-0} #### Copper - Tariff Board's Report - Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-45-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- The Opposition will allow this debate to lapse also, because it is a long time since the paper was presented. In any case, the report of the Tariff Board is well known to the public, as well as to honorable members, and there is nothing more that we have to contribute on the subject. Question resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1566 {:#debate-46} ### INDO-CHINA Debate resumed from the 11th May *(vide* page 615), on motion by **Mr. Casey** - >That the following paper be printed: - {:#subdebate-46-0} #### Indo-China - Ministerial Statement - 11th May, 1955 {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- As this paper deals with IndoChina and not with Malaya, the Opposition does not propose to debate it. Had it referred to Malaya, we should have been prepared to discuss it until 6 o'clock in the morning. Question resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1566 {:#debate-47} ### DEFENCE Debate resumed from the 28th September, 1954 *(vide* page 1636), on motion by **Sir Philip** McBridb - >That the following paper be printed: - Defence Policy and Programme - Ministerial Statement. {: #debate-47-s0 .speaker-JWR} ##### Mr CHAMBERS:
Adelaide -- As this is a very old matter which was introduced into the House last year, and as many statements on the subject have been made since then,I think that it would be quite useless to attempt to speak on the matter now. {: #debate-47-s1 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie -- I shall delay the House for only a few moments, but I contend that the expenditure of vast sums of public money should receive consideration, even at this early hour of the morning. I appreciate that this paper deals with only a certain aspect of defence. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the Parliament and the people should be given more information concerning the expenditure of these large sums. Each year, the Parliament votes £200,000,000 for defence, but very little information is made available to the Parliament, and practically none to the people, about the manner in which that money is expended.Some time ago in this chamber, I suggested that it was desirable to appoint a defence expenditure committee to probe fully waste and extravagance in connexion with the defence programme. I am of the opinion that that suggestion should be more carefully considered. A number of important defence projects are in hand. The Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis)** is putting in hand the building of new defence establishments at various places. At Orange, which is in the electorate of the honorable member for Calare **(Mr. Howse),** additional army buildings are to be erected, although satisfactory buildings at Bathurst have been sold at almost give-away prices. Consequently, our defence programme has been impaired. Valuable work has been thrown aside. A military camp which served this country extremely well during World War II. has been almost given away to people interested in second-hand materials. Instances such as that, in which the mere expenditure of money seems to be an end in itself, are many. The Government seems to be concerned not so much with what is being achieved by way of defence preparations as with the problem of how to spend £200,000,000 each year as expeditiously as possible. Then, at the end of the financial year, we find the Government lamenting the fact that it has been unable to expend all the money voted by the Parliament. That is not only unfortunate; it is also deplorable that public money should be expended in that fashion. Even now, during the closing stages of this sessional period, I think that a protest mould be voiced against that sort of thing. With regard to our other defence com'mitments, I consider that a committee should be appointed to visit these establishments, call for witnesses, and ascertain how the people's money is being spent. The Government has a Foreign Affairs Committee which airily studies, in the fashion of a study circle, vast matters of Australian foreign policy. It could do a much more practical job for the people as a committee on defence expenditure, similar to the committee on war expenditure which rendered such a very fine service to the people of this country during World War II. The industrial development associated with de.fp.nce needs probing. Army, air force and naval expenditure all require investigation and consideration. I make this plea in the hope that, one day, the Parliament will be given further information on these matters and that honorable members will be given an opportunity to probe this expenditure and endeavour to ensure that public money is being spent wisely and bringing the best results. Question resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1567 {:#debate-48} ### ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Sir ERIC** HARRISON) proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #debate-48-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney -- **Mr. Speaker-** Motion (by **Sir** ERIC Harrison) put - >That the question he now put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.) AYES: 52 NOES: 34 Majority 18 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Blouse adjourned at 12.47 a.m. {: .page-start } page 1567 {:#debate-49} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Increase of Retiring Age {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-JZB} ##### Mr Fitzgerald: d asked the Prime Minister, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he have an investigation made to determine the increase in the life span of people to-day compared with 40 years ago? 1. la it a fact that in England the RegistrarGeneral's investigation has shown that now people can expect to live on an average twenty years longer than 40 years ago? 2. If inquiries show a similar figure here, will he give consideration, as a lead to others, to increasing the retiring age in the Commonwealth Public Service, which to-day, despite its shortages and need for trained men, still obliges employees to retire at the ages of 00 and Go? {: #subdebate-49-0-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Investigations in the form of life-tables and calculations as to the expectations of life of people at various ages have been made regularly after each census in Australia (as in England) for many years past. I would refer the honorable member to page 38 of the Statistician's report on the census of 1947. A similar investigation will be made on the results of the census of 1054. 1. The facts in England appear to be approximately as indicated in the honorable member's question in respect of expectations of life of children at birth. However the Registrar-General's reports show that the average expectation of remaining life of men in England who have attained age 60 has increased from only 13J years 40 years ago to a little over 15 years at the present time. In Australia, over a slightly shorter period, the corresponding increase has been from 14.3 years to 15.4 years. 2. The Government has already agreed to the establishment of an inter-departmental committee to examine the employment of aged people. In the . course of its examination, the committee will study amongst other things the effects of compulsory age retirement in public and private employment upon manpower utilization and the financing of social security benefits. Following an earlier examination of the subject of retiring age, the Government decided that it should be studied from its overall national importance and not sectionally only in the Commonwealth Public Service. Flood Damage and Relief. {: #subdebate-49-0-s2 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP s. - On the 12th May, the honorable member for Shortland **(Mr.** Griffith) asked the following question: - >Is the Prime Minister aware that as a result of the appalling devastation caused by the recent disastrous floods in areas such as Hexham, Singleton and Maitland, an enormous amount of work still remains to be done to clear debris and silt from streets and homes? > >Does he also know that miles of fencing will have to be erected and farmlands will need to be cleared and levelled? All this work will have to be done, but because of the shortage of labour and finance in many cases, homeowners, businessmen and farmers are unable to make much headway in the work required. As a result the national economy must suffer. Will the right honorable gentleman confer with the Minister for the Army and ask him to visit the areas affected to ascertain whether military personnel and equipment, including national service trainees, could be made available and used in the work of restoring the Hunter Valley centres to their once prosperous state ? The matter raised by the honorable member has been discussed with my colleagues, the Minister for the Navy and Army and the Minister for Air. At the outset, I would point out that the work of clearing and rehabilitation after a flood disaster is a matter in which it is appropriate for the State Government rather than the Commonwealth to assist. The provision of military aid for such a task may, therefore, only be considered in response to a specific request from the State authorities. As the honorable member is aware, personnel from all three services were extensively used in aid and rescue work when the floods were at their height. The Commonwealth Government does not, and, I hope, never will, begrudge this form of assistance. However it must be remembered that the great majority of the servicemen then concerned were national service trainees and this must also be the case in the event of any similar future assistance. Their participation in relief work was so extensive as to have serious repercussions on the fulfilment of essential training exercises. In addition, and in common with industry, the manning position in the services is such that it is extremely difficult to meet services by the Government. While, therefore, it is appreciated that the work involved in clearing up the aftermath of the floods constitutes a serious drain on the national economy, I am unable to accede to the honorable member's request that servicemen be used in this work. UNIVERSITYSCHOLARSHIPS. {: #subdebate-49-0-s3 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- On the 31st May, the honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr.. Joshua)** asked that following question:- I address a question without notice to the Prime Minister, concerning university students. In view of the fact that a mature-age scholar ship, of £4 10s. a week is awarded to university students who have reached the age of25 years and are still studying will the Prime Minister make inquiries into the deplorable living conditions of married students of this class, whose wives go out to work? Because of this the students are deprived even of the £4 10s. a week. It is necessary to add that the matureage scholarship relieves a parent of financial: responsibility on this scale even when in receipt of considerable income, but if the wife of a student earns more than £250 a year the meagre allowance is withdrawn. Will the Prime Minister examine the position with a view to relieving distress amongst advanced universitystudents? The maximum allowance payable to a mature-age scholar is £4 12s. 6d. a week. In addition a married mature-age scholar may receive dependants' allowances of £111s. a week for his wife and 9s. a week for the first dependent child under sixteen years of age. The maximum allowance is payable in the case ofa married scholar when the income of the scholar and his. wife does not exceed £4 10s. a week. Where the weekly income exceeds this amount the maximum living allowance is reduced by 2s. for every 3s. of the excess. It will he seen that if the wife of a mature-age scholar earned £250 per annum the scholar would receive an allowance of £518s. 6d. a week and their total weekly income from all sources would be £10 14s. 8d. The living allowance would be progressively reduced as the wife's earnings increased beyond £250 per annum, but some allowance would be payable until her earnings amounted to £13 14s. 7d. a week. I assure the honorable member that in fixing the rates of living allowances under the Commonwealth scholarship scheme, attention is paid to existing economic conditions and the allowance; are determined only After vary careful consideration. {: #subdebate-49-0-s4 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA d asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, *upon notice-* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that the stevedoring industry inquiry has now lasted for 00 days atan estimated cost of £33,000? 2.Is,it a fact that each day's hearing costs £500? 1. Is it a fact that the employers propose *to.* call 50 witnesses and the Waterside Workers Union, a similar number of witnesses? 2. What action does,he propose to take to shorten the inquiry in order that Parliament might know the true condition of affair on the waterfront? {: #subdebate-49-0-s5 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES n asked the Minister representing the Minister forRepatriation, *upon notice-* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has a decision yet been reachedas to whether the special cars madeavailable by this Government to ex-servicemen who are doubleamputees are the property of these men or the Government? 1. Can these people trade-in these cars when they feel they are getting old and worn out as part payment on new ones? **Mr. FRANCIS-I** am advised as follows by the Minister for Repatriation:- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. These cars have always been a gift to the eligible ex-serviceman and are the property of the. grantees, who are required to givean undertakingthat they willnot sellorother wise disposeof the car without priorwritten approvalof the Repatriation Commission. 1. See answer *to* No. 1 above. {: .page-start } page 1569 {:#debate-50} ### STEVEDORINGINDUSTRYINQUIRY {: #debate-50-s0 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. Thecommittee of inquiry into the stevedoringindustry began its investigationon the 16th, December, 1954, and, at the 31st May, 1955, had sat on. 66 days. As the committee is still proceeding with its inquiry, it would not be jn accordance with normal practice, to furnish at this stage the particulars concerning easts, sought by the honorable member. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. It is not known haw many witnesses the employers or the federation propose to call. That will be determined presumably by the course of the inquiry and be subject to the wishesof thecommittee. 4- As I informed the honorable member in the House on the 24th May, 1955, submissions were made to the committee by counsel assisting thecommittee suggesting courses of pro. ceading designed to shorten the inquiry, Broadly speaking the comittee endorsed the submissions and it continues to be myhope that the committee will complete its taskmuch sooner than was thought likely a few weeks ago. REPATRIATION.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 June 1955, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1955/19550608_reps_21_hor6/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 8 June 1955

PENSIONS

Petition

Mr WARD:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION NOT PROCEEDED WITH

Mr MORGAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Turnbull:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr MORGAN:

Mr Holt:

Mr ALLAN FRASER:EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Menzies:

Mr ALLAN FRASER:EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Menzies:

Mr ALLAN FRASER:EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Morgan:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr JEFF BATE:MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

QUESTION

OBSERVANCE OF THE QUEEN’S BIRTHDAY

Mr DOWNER:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:LP

FREE MILK SERVICE AT WENTWORTH SCHOOL

SIR EARLE PAGE:Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

AIR NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT

Mr BOSTOCK:INDI, VICTORIA

Mr CASEY:Minister for External Affairs · LP

QUESTION

FIRST TRANS-PACIFIC FLIGHT

Mr COUTTS:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr TOWNLEY:Minister for Air · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

EXPERIMENTS ON WATER CONSERVATION

Mr CASEY:LP

Mr Leslie:

Mr CASEY:

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr LUCHETTI:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HASLUCK:Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

HOSPITAL AND SICKNESS BENEFITS

Mr HAWORTH:ISAACS, VICTORIA

Sir EARLE PAGE:CP

QUESTION

SUB-NORMAL CHILDREN’S NATIONAL COUNCIL

Mr FITZGERALD:PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:LP

QUESTION

AWARDS FOR SCIENTIFIC INVENTIONS

Mr DRURY:RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:LP

QUESTION

ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Mr GALVIN:KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr TOWNLEY:LP

QUESTION

FREE MILK FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN

Mr SWARTZ:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Sir EARLE PAGE:CP

QUESTION

CANBERRA LIQUOR TRADING HOURS

Mr J R FRASER:ALP

Mr KENT HUGHES:Minister for the Interior · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE FOR BLINDED PERSONS

Mr FALKINDER:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr McMAHON:Minister for Social Services · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

DOLLAR IMPORTS

Mr JOSHUA:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

House of Representatives
8 June 1955

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

Mr DOWNER:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:
LP

SIR EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr BOSTOCK:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

Mr COUTTS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Air · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

Mr CASEY:
LP

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

Sir EARLE PAGE:
CP

Mr FITZGERALD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:
LP

Mr GALVIN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Sir EARLE PAGE:
CP

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

Mr KENT HUGHES:
Minister for the Interior · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Social Services · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr JOSHUA:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr FAIRHALL:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ANTHONY:
Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr HOLT:
LP

Mr WIGHT:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Sir EARLE PAGE:
CP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr CURTIN:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP