House of Representatives
4 December 1957

22nd Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.46 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2809

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that Mr. Nobusuke Kishi, Prime Minister of Japan, is within the precincts. With the concurrence of honorable members, I propose to provide him with a seat on the floor of the House.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear! (Mr. Kishi thereupon entered the chamber, and was seated accordingly.)

page 2809

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question relating to the position on the Sydney waterfront. Is it a fact that the two parties to the real dispute are the Waterside Workers Federation on the one hand and the organization of stevedoring foremen on the other? Is it also a fact that the dispute between them relates to the treatment of certain individuals, or an individual? Has each side suggested a conciliator? Has the Government intervened in an effort to procure a conciliator, irrespective of the general question of a legal decision by some other tribunal?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The position on the Sydney waterfront is very much more complicated than the right honorable gentleman suggests, in that not merely one issue is in dispute - the issue of the deregistration of the man Krespi. There are also questions of the conduct of the federation in relation to the sling loads order of the Presidential Commissioner, Mr. Justice Ashburner, who handles this industry and sundry other matters. T indicated to the House yesterday other legal complications which had entered into the total picture. However, I am glad to be in a position to inform the right honorable gentleman, and the House, that the general secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation has, T understand, undertaken to convey to a meeting of the Sydney branch of the federation to-morrow morning certain proposals that have been put forward by the

Presidential Commissioner to-day. I am hoping that as a result of the meeting tomorrow morning the matter will be resolved - certainly those aspects which are causing the stoppage of work on the waterfront in Sydney at this time - and that a resumption will follow. Under the circumstances, I do not feel it desirable, at this point, to go into more detail than that. It is to be hoped, I repeat, that the good sense of the members of the federation and all others who are parties to this problem-

Dr Evatt:

– Including the Government.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– This Government has had no other objective from the outset than to see that the conditions of peaceful and efficient working on the waterfront should be restored and that equity should obtain between all the parties to this problem. The less we complicate it from this place at the present time the more service will be done to the cause which, I hope, we all have in common.

page 2809

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister acting for the Minister for Primary Industry whether he has been informed of a proposed closing down of the wool sales now being held in Goulburn. In view of the resulting losses in employment and the loss of advantages to the people of this, the finest wool-growing area in the world, can the Minister say whether the Government supports decentralization of all such activities, both in particular and in general?

Sir PHILIP MCBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Of course, the Government does support decentralization, in principle. In this respect my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, has been following closely the discussions that have taken place in respect of the Goulburn woolselling centre. I understand that the woolbrokers’ associations of New South Wales and Queensland have already been in discussion with the New South Wales Graziers Association and the Farmers and Settlers Association. These discussions are continuing, but I do not think there is any likelihood of a decision being made in the very near future. I assure the honorable member that the Government is watching, with very great interest, the proceedings that are taking place at the present time.

page 2810

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN ADELAIDE

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I ask the

Minister for the Interior whether he is yet in a position to say what action or decision the Department of the Interior has taken in regard to representations made to him by South Australian members of both the Government and Opposition parties for the erection of Commonwealth offices in Adelaide?

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The question raised by the honorable member is an interesting one, and has been occupying my attention for some time. The department is rather concerned about the provision of adequate office accommodation for the Commonwealth in Adelaide and interest is centred in the Currie-street area where, as I think the honorable member will know, the Commonwealth Government has two properties, one of which is at 73 Curriestreet. The other is known as Currie Chambers. The department has been in negotiation, quite recently, with the firm of Dalgety and Company Limited in Adelaide, and I am pleased to say that as a result of those negotiations we have been able to arrange for an exchange of properties. Currie Chambers will be taken over by Dalgety and Company Limited, and I understand that they propose to make improvements to it. The Commonwealth Government will exchange that property for an area of land of about an acre next to its premises at 73 Currie-street, having a frontage to Currie-street of 200 feet. The limit height of the building that can be erected on that particular block will take care of our needs for the present and for some time to come. The fact that the Government has been able to obtain this block of land does not mean that construction of a building on it will be commenced immediately; but this arrangement does overcome the major handicap of providing adequate office accommodation for the Commonwealth in Adelaide.

page 2810

QUESTION

DEFENCE PRODUCTION

Mr TIMSON:
HIGINBOTHAM, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether any tangible results are yet forthcoming from the visit of the United States military advisory technical mission to Australia in October last. Is there any firm indication that, as a result of its findings, our defence production establishments and appropriate industries will benefit? Can the Minister state whether the United States of America will participate in work that is going on at the Woomera testing ground?

Sir PHILIP MCBRIDE:
LP

– We have no official information as to the result of the investigation made by the American mission to this country, but we do know that its members were particularly impressed with the establishments they visited and the quality of the work which was produced in those establishments. We know, also, that they took particular interest in their visit to Woomera. I am sure that, as the result of the investigations made here and the report to the American Government, Australia will not lose anything from that visit to this country.

page 2810

QUESTION

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Treasurer aware that the New South Wales Ambulance Transport Service Board transported no fewer than 38,448 pensioners, covering a mileage of 396,978 miles, for the year ended 30th June, 1957? Will the Government consider making a payment of 10s. in each case to reimburse costs to the pensioners, as suggested by the New South Wales ambulance board? Will it also consider making ambulance charges part of the social service scheme, as pensioners become very worried and often go hungry to pay these charges?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The matter of ambulance services is obviously a State responsibility. I suggest that the honorable member for West Sydney should direct his question to the New South Wales Treasurer.

page 2810

QUESTION

UNIFORM TAXATION

Mr HAMILTON:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Treasurer been drawn to a proposal by the Premier of Victoria to contribute a series of articles - I think three in number - to the newspapers on uniform taxation? As this subject is a most interesting and intriguing one, will the right honorable gentleman have his officers watch the newspapers to see the contents of the articles? If he thinks it desirable and advisable will he comment upon them, not only to the newspapers, but also to members of this

Parliament so that we, too, can be aware of the Commonwealth’s views on uniform taxation?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is, “ Yes “.

page 2811

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH HANDLING EQUIPMENT POOL

Mr COUTTS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production whether a decision has yet been made as to the successful tenderer for the assets of the Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool in Brisbane? Is it true that the cooperative group of employees of the Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool in Brisbane will not be permitted to take over the assets of the pool in that city? If the employees’ tender has not been accepted, will the Government hand back to them before Christmas of this year the tender money, held since last July?

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As the honorable member for Griffith knows, my responsibility in this matter relates only to the calling of tenders by the Contract Board within my department. This is really a matter for the Minister for Shipping and Transport in another place. I am not able to tell the honorable gentleman the present position in regard to the tenders of various organizations and groups, including the employees’ group, but I shall get the information for him if I can.

page 2811

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Treasurer a question regarding the periodical exchange of views on financial and economic matters between officials of the Treasury and the Department of Trade in Australia and the corresponding departments in New Zealand. In view of the importance to both countries of maintaining close relationships in these matters, can the Treasurer inform the House what exchange of views has taken place in the recent past? Is any exchange of views contemplated in the near future, bearing in mind the close personal interest taken in these matters by the new Prime Minister of New Zealand?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– There was an exchange of visits between Australian and New Zealand trade, Treasury, and other officials two years ago. Since then there have been exchanges of visits by trade officials, the last of which took place in May of this year. There have also been other opportunities for discussions between Australian and New Zealand officials on trade, economic and financial topics, as recently, for example, as October last at the British Commonwealth Finance Ministers Conference at Mount Tremblant in Canada, and even more recently at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade meetings at Geneva. I have no doubt that further exchanges of visits will be appreciated and will be arranged as suitable opportunities arise.

page 2811

QUESTION

RAIL STANDARDIZATION

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Government is pledged to the policy of rail gauge standardization, and is providing most of the amount of £10,000,000 required for the standardization of the line from Albury to Melbourne, will the Government take a practical step towards standardizing the line from Marree to Alice Springs and the lines from Port Pirie to Broken Hill and Port Pirie to Adelaide? I might say that the need for standardization of the latter two sections is urgent. No doubt the Prime Minister will appreciate my consistent interest in this important national project.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I fully appreciate the honorable member’s interest in this matter. The whole of this problem, in its various manifestations - not all of which are confined to the areas that the honorable member represents - is constantly being considered.

page 2811

QUESTION

SUGAR

Mr BRAND:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Trade. By way of brief explanation, I remind him that early in 1950 the Prime Minister informed the Queensland Government and leaders of the Australian sugar industry that the Government intended to place that industry on a sound basis of orderly marketing of the sugar product. There quickly followed three sugar agreements, namely, the Australian Sugar Agreement, providing for the full requirements of Australian consumers, the British Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, providing Britain with a substantial quantity of sterling sugar for United Kingdom uses, and the International Sugar Agreement, providing for any surplus production for sale in world markets. As these agreements impose obligations on the sugar industry to maintain the highest efficiency in production and to accept responsibility for its marketing arrangements, can the Minister say whether he is satisfied with the methods employed by the industry in discharging its obligation to the Government? Is the Minister satisfied with the United Kingdom negotiations which concluded in London last week, which resulted in an additional export quota of 12,785 tons, lifting the Australian sugar exports to 631,962 tons annually for a period of at least eight years, at an increased price of £43 16s. 8d. sterling a ton for the calendar year 1958? Is the ability to export large quantities of sugar to other countries a strong feature of the economy of the sugar industry, and will it help the overall Australian economy? Is the Minister aware that Australian sugar production this year can meet the demands of these expanding markets?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– In reply to the honorable member for Wide Bay, who has himself played a notable part as a leader of the Australian sugar industry, I would say that the Government is conscious of the efforts that the industry has made to discharge the obligations that have arisen as a result of arrangements entered into by this Government. The Government is also aware that the industry has geared itself to meet Australian requirements and to take full advantage of the immense opportunity that we now have under the British Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the opportunities that exist under the International Sugar Agreement in outside markets. The sugar industry this year will, I think, contribute no less than £40.000,000 in export income to the Australian economy. This is a very large and extremely valuable contribution to the economy. I take the opportunity to congratulate the industry and particularly those who have led it with such notable success, not the least of whom is the honorable member for Wide Bay.

page 2812

QUESTION

PRICE OF BREAD

Mr KEARNEY:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister acting for the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware that the price of bread in New South Wales has been increased by 2d. per 2-lb. loaf? On behalf of twelve women’s organizations and the trade union movement of the Wollongong and Port Kembla areas, I ask: Could this increase have been avoided if the Commonwealth Government had agreed to meet the costs of transporting the required quantities of wheat from Western Australia to New South Wales? Does the Government propose to grant any subsidy to New South Wales to meet the cost of the transportation of wheat? Is the Government aware that as a result of its failure to date to take some action in this matter it has forced a crisis in New South Wales which will result in the price not only of bread, but also of such items as eggs, bacon, butter, biscuits, cheese, meat and other foodstuffs rising sharply, thereby inflicting immediate hardship upon all families dependent upon wages? Is the Government aware also that the rise in such prices will result in a substantial increase in the basic wage at a later period? Is the Government going to accept some responsibility in this matter, or is it going to do nothing?

Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:
LP

– Any increase in the price of bread in New South Wales has been authorized by the State Government. I have yet to hear of any efforts being made by that Government to maintain the price of wheat at its present level. This is a matter which should be dealt with by the State Government in the first instance; and then, I have no doubt, the Commonwealth Government will consider it.

page 2812

QUESTION

BANKING

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is there any reason why primary producers should be denied, for six months and possibly longer, the extra credit facilities which the Government proposed to make available to them through the new Commonwealth Development Bank when they could obtain credit just as easily, and on the same terms and conditions, through existing State authorities? Now that the proposed banking legislation is liable to be considerably delayed, is there any reason why the Government should not arrange with the central bank to lend the £7,000,000 it proposed to make available to the Development Bank, or such proportion of that amount as was granted for rural credit, to the State agricultural banks or such authorities as the Rural Finance Corporation in Victoria whose charter and purpose is the same as that proposed for the Development Bank? Would not the adoption of this proposal obviate the appointment of extra agricultural advisers by the Development Bank as forecast by the Treasurer in his second-reading speech, as all States already have such advisers in their agricultural and lands departments? Further, would not such action be in accordance with the federal system envisaged by the Constitution as compared with the recent rapid trends towards unification through Commonwealth financial controls?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The honorable member’s concern about the consequences of the delay in passing the proposed banking legislation is shared by the great majority of people in this House. The question as to what can be done to avert some of the consequences of that is, of course, not easy to answer, and it is engaging our consideration.

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– My question to the Treasurer is to some extent supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Chisholm. In view of the fact that the Government’s fourteen banking bills have been- rejected in the Senate, will the Treasurer, as Leader of the Australian Country party as well as Treasurer, introduce separately a bill to establish a development bank with power to finance domestic and commercial hire-purchase transactions, as well as the development of primary and secondary industries?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– The Development Bank section of the proposed banking legislation is a component of the general fabric. If the honorable member will give me a guarantee that the proposed legislation will be passed, the aspect to which he has referred will receive serious consideration.

page 2813

QUESTION

MARGARINE

Mr LUCK:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister acting for the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the honorable gentleman aware that world consumption of margarine continues to increase, particularly at the expense of butter? Will he confer with the Minister for Trade with a view to encouraging and developing every possible overseas market for butter, while keeping in close consultation with the State govern ments to maintain agreements made for the limitation of the manufacture or marketing of margarine in Australia?

Sir PHILIP MCBRIDE:
LP

– I will certainly consider the proposals made by the honorable member, and will advise him of any action that it is possible for us to take.

page 2813

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Treasurer see whether something can be done to awaken the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation authorities from their lethargy, and will he also see whether outstanding claims for compensation can be finalized?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is too much audible conversation. I must ask honorable members to co-operate.

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– Will the Treasurer see whether special consideration can be given to the cases of Shepheard, who was killed more than twelve months ago, and of Hassett, who contracted tuberculosis a few years ago while performing national service training, and who has not been able to do work of any sort for about seven months? Is the Treasurer aware that in Shepheard’s case the Army certified that death occurred whilst on duty? In view of that fact, does the Treasurer consider that it should have been necessary for his wife to work to support her three young children, as she has done, because the Commonwealth Compensation Commissioner is unable to finalize this case?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– This is the old story of buck passing. I have investigated every specific complaint that has been brought to me relating to alleged delay in employee compensation cases. The honorable gentleman interviewed me quite recently in connexion with this specific case, and he knows full well where the blame for the delay lies.

page 2813

QUESTION

ALSATIAN DOGS

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for the Interior relating to the administration of the Australian Capital Territory. Will the Minister investigate the peculiar laws of the Territory-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I must ask honorable members, particularly those at the table, to be aware of the fact that the microphones are switched on and to cease audible conversation. That applies also to honorable members on the front benches on both sides. It is not unreasonable to ask them to give an example to other honorable members.

Mr STOKES:

– Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister whether he will investigate the peculiar laws of the Territory in respect of the admission of German shepherd dogs into this area. The present regulations demand that these animals be desexed, on a mistaken belief that their supposedly wolfish ancestry causes them to commit depredations against sheep. However, this idea was originated some 30 years ago by associations interested in another breed of dog, popular at that time, to offset the fact that the German shepherd dogs were jeopardizing their popularity. I give an assurance to the Minister that such depredations are caused mainly by dogs of any breed which, by happenchance, hunt in packs. Will the Minister take steps to remove the stupid barrier that has been raised against these fine animals because of a foolish and unjustified prejudice?

Mr FAIRHALL:
LP

– I am not aware of all the details to which the honorable member for Maribyrnong referred, nor am I au fait with the particular piece of law excluding these dogs from the Australian Capital Territory. I know that this matter has been the subject of considerable study over a long period. It is also the subject of considerable disputation. However, if it will comfort the honorable gentleman, I assure him that I will look into the matter and have every aspect of it reviewed.

page 2814

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Labour and National Service take immediate action to provide employment for the needy unemployed of my electorate, many of whom have been without work for twelve months? Will the Minister make a special effort to alleviate the distress of those without jobs and, at the same time, order the restoration of those without work to the list of persons eligible for unemployment benefit? Is the Minister aware that many workers have been refused unemployment benefit, even though they cannot be found employment by the Department of Labour and National Service?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– As has so frequently been pointed out in this House by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, myself and others, the general economic policies of this Government are directed to bringing about a state of affairs in which there will be full employment throughout Australia. I repeat what has been said, in substance, before on this matter when I say that no country can point to a better record in this connexion than can Australia in the postwar years. In saying that, I do not overlook the fact that, in particular areas, special problems arise. I am well aware of the difficulties which have arisen in the area represented by the honorable gentleman, and indeed, we have given special consideration to the problems of that area. It is not clear to me just what he has in mind when he mentions the ineligibility of some people who are unemployed there to secure unemployment benefit. If he can give me later more precise details, I undertake to have the matter investigated immediately.

page 2814

QUESTION

ALSATIAN DOGS

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Interior and is supplementary to that asked a short time ago about Alsatian dogs. When the Minister is making his inquiries, will he have regard to the fact that, so far in Australia, we have had no man-killing animal breeding and running free in our vast territory, including the Australian Capital Territory? Will he have regard to the fact that there is a strong body of proof that the Alsatian dog has developed from the wolf, and that in certain instances, some species have shown the characteristics of the wolf, including, if I remember correctly, a case in which the daughter of a former Minister of Education in Victoria was viciously attacked by one of her pet dogs? In view of the fact that it is essential that we should not let loose any four-legged destroyers of human life, I ask the honorable gentleman to weigh all the evidence before he decides in favour of the proposal.

Mr FAIRHALL:
LP

– I should hate to see the honorable gentleman’s fears get the better of him in this connexion. I can only assure him that I shall cause an investigation to be made of all the facts surrounding this area of disputation, and I shall pass on to him the best advice that is available to us.

page 2815

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr CURTIN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Health aware that a Melbourne drug company, which has numerous pharmaceutical lines on the free medicine list, invites doctors to take shares through a nominee, usually the wife of a doctor, on the basis of a 100 per cent, dividend? Has the attention of the Minister been directed to the fact that this company records the degree of support afforded by doctors to its products and uses this record to determine the number of new shares to be made available to doctors? Is the Minister aware that the company also awards additional shares to doctors who nominate other doctors to support its products? Is it a fact that the Victorian branch of the British Medical Association is at present circularizing Victorian doctors in an attempt to discourage this most undesirable practice? Does the Minister know that, by these methods, the company concerned is successfully evading the payment of company tax? In view of these dubious practices, is the Minister prepared to permit this company to retain items on the lists of the national health scheme?

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I should imagine that if all the things that the honorable gentleman alleges are facts almost all of them would be dealt with under State law. The question of whether drugs - proprietary or otherwise - should be included in the list of pharmaceutical benefits is decided upon clinical grounds.

Mr Curtin:

– The company is the Virox (company.

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honorable gentleman appears to be very well informed about this matter. As I have already pointed out to him, if the company in question is breaking any law, it is creaking a State law, and therefore the matter is the responsibility of the State concerned.

page 2815

QUESTION

CIVIL DEFENCE

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the Interior whether his attention has been directed to a booklet recently published in England, under the authority of the Home Secretary, in relation to civil defence and the practical measures which can be taken to minimize the effects of any attack. Will the Minister obtain copies of this booklet, and have them circulated so that honorable members may read them during the recess, inform their minds, and be ready to debate, when this House meets again, the necessary measures which can be taken here in Australia in parallel with measures taken in the United Kingdom?

Mr FAIRHALL:
LP

– I am aware of the recent publication of a booklet of this kind, and I am roughly aware of its contents. It would appear to be a most authoritative and useful booklet. I thank the honorable gentleman for his suggestion. I will do what I can to obtain copies of the booklet for distribution.

page 2815

QUESTION

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I ask the Minister for the Interior: As it is now more than three weeks since the Minister said that he hoped to announce within a fortnight the names of the personnel of the National Capital Development Commission, can he say when the announcement can be expected? Is it true that the senior positions have been offered to a series of prospects, each of whom has declined to accept appointment? Can the Minister say what steps have been taken to carry on the work of the National Capital Planning and Development Committee pending the appointment of a new similar body?

Mr FAIRHALL:
LP

– It is true that I hoped to make an early announcement regarding an appointment to the position of Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission to be established under recently passed legislation. The honorable member will appreciate, I am sure, that the sort of individual we want for this particularly important national undertaking is a man who is already in a good, comfortable, well-paid job, in which he has security. It is not an easy matter to find somebody who is prepared to give up the substance of a position of that kind for what may be regarded as a comparative shadow on a short-term appointment here. However, we are following the matter up assiduously. Very capable people whom we should be glad to have for this commission have been contacted, and I am awaiting their reactions to the suggestion that they accept appointment. I assure the honorable gentleman that I would rather delay making an appointment than appoint the wrong man.

page 2816

QUESTION

POLIOMYELITIS

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I address to the Minister for Health a question that concerns the anti-poliomyelitis campaign. I ask the honorable and gallant gentleman: Approximately what percentage of Australian children has received the Salk vaccine? Has the Minister been notified of any adverse reaction to the vaccine? Further, when will the vaccine be made available to the adult Australian population? Can the Minister give an approximate outline of the circumstances in which the vaccine will be administered to adults?

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In reply to the first part of the honorable gentleman’s question, I may say that I am now waiting for final figures, which should shortly come to hand, and which will give us the total number of children inoculated, and the number of inoculations that they have received. I cannot give the honorable gentleman the exact figure, but I expect the percentage to be in the high 80’s or low 90’s. The figure is very satisfactory. We have had no reports of adverse reactions that can be attributed to the vaccine. With regard to the inoculation of the adult population, a little later this month the National Health and Medical Research Council will consider that problem, which is not altogether a simple one, and the Government hopes to be able to extend the campaign to adults early in the new year.

page 2816

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Services a question without notice. Has the means test applicable to age and other classes of pensioners been amended to provide for a re-assessment of the pension rate payable to pensioners who are living on a property, and who are in receipt of income from stock maintained on that property? If a further means test has been applied in those cases, will the Minister say how it is to operate, to what extent it will reduce the maximum rate of pension payable, and the number of cases affected? Will the Minister also say what prompted the decision to discriminate against pensioners whose property includes land that they are no longer able to maintain?

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The honorable member should be able to inform himself that the means test has been liberalized year by year and budget by budget ever since this Government has been in office. It is my hope that that process will continue, to the advantage of the people who qualify for age pensions from time to time. If there is any particular case exercising the honorable member’s mind - if he has a mind interested in social services - I shall be glad to hear from him.

page 2816

QUESTION

NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Immigration a question. On 27th November last, in the Victorian Legislative Council, a leading and distinguished member of that chamber raised the matter of the distribution of Liberal party propaganda at a naturalization ceremony at Essendon a couple of weeks ago. Will the Minister issue instructions through his own department to see that this practice is stopped, as it is likely to prejudice the goodwill of all parties at naturalization ceremonies, and it is a serious reflection on his party?

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

– Municipal councils handle the naturalization ceremonies. If anything improper has been done, it is for them to remedy it.

page 2816

QUESTION

ASIAN INFLUENZA VACCINE

Mr ASTON:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to reports of a recurrence of Asian influenza in Asian countries and the expression of opinion by medical men that the vaccine against this influenza does not give adequate protection? Will the Minister say what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of this epidemic in Australia? Are supplies of a stronger type of vaccine available to combat fresh outbreaks of the disease in this country?

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There has been a recurrence of Asian influenza in Japan of recent months, where more than 300,000 cases have been reported. I understand that the virulence has been low. It is not possible to prevent diseases of this nature from spreading from one country to another, but current medical opinion is that a vaccine is the best defence available. At the same time, it must be appreciated that vaccines against this kind of disease have nothing like the efficacy of vaccines against typhoid or poliomyelitis, or other diseases of that nature. It is not easy to accumulate stocks of vaccine. One reason for this is the keeping qualities of the vaccine. Another reason is the difficulty of manufacture. However, if the disease does recur in Australia, I think it is likely to be comparatively mild, as it was before, and I do not think that extremely serious circumstances need be feared.

page 2817

TRUST FUND

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Mr BLAND:
Warringah

.- On behalf of the committee, 1 bring up the following report: -

Thirty-fourth Report, together with Minutes of Evidence - Trust Fund. and move -

That the paper be printed.

I should explain to honorable members something of what this report is about. I am asking that the minutes of evidence should be printed at the same time as the report, because unless they are printed honorable members would not get them immediately. I do not think the committee is vain in suggesting that this report should be a “ must “ for reading by honorable members.

Honorable members who have followed the work of the committee over the years will recognize that there are two kinds of inquiry upon which it is engaged. In the main the inquiries are into the financial administration of government departments or agencies, but some have been into the form in which the accounts of the Commonwealth are kept by the Treasurer. Honorable members will recall that the eighth report of the committee dealt with parliamentary procedure in this House and discussed a manner in which supply bills and appropriation bills could be dealt with. I think the committee was able to show that the manner in which these bills are dealt with could be improved, and the committee is waiting for its suggestion to be implemented by an alteration of the Standing Orders.

In its eighteenth report, the committee dealt with specific documents that are presented by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) - for example, when he brings down the Budget papers. The committee also wanted a revision of the manner in which the estimates of receipts and expenditure are presented.

In its thirty-first report, the committee dealt with the supplementary estimates, and that matter is on the business-paper at the present time. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has moved that the form in which the supplementary estimates are presented at present should be altered. I hope that that will be dealt with to-day or to-morrow.

The report that I have tabled to-day, the thirty-fourth report, deals with fundamental principles of public financing, particularly with one of the three funds within the Commonwealth Public Accounts. This report deals with the growth of the Trust Fund from its humble beginnings in 1901 to the present day, when its balances total more than £900,000,000 and the annual expenditure from the fund is more than £800,000,000. The report discusses the various types of accounts that have been established, their purposes and their necessity. As we looked at them, we found some instances where the necessity for their existence was doubtful. We pointed out that although we endorse the use of trust accounts in appropriate cases we consider that all trust accounts should be reviewed periodically. We believe that the Treasury is, at the moment, engaged upon such a review. We feel, also, that in this particular field, at any rate, there is room for a great deal more information than is now available in public documents.

We considered also the use made of the Trust Fund and Trust Fund balances, about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding. We wanted to clear up that misunderstanding, so we examined very closely the use to which these trust funds are put. We have concluded that viewed as an instrument of financial control, the Trust Fund has its weaknesses, but that on the whole it is a necessary and useful instrument. We assure the House also that in our opinion, those officers who administer, and those who operate the heads of Trust Fund and trust accounts, are doing so, taken all in all, in a proper manner.

In this inquiry, as with most others we have undertaken, we have sought to answer questions raised by honorable members from time to time as to what is happening to these reports after they have been presented to the House. We can say that it seems clear that the attention we have focused on existing practices by these investigations has already produced useful results. Insofar as the Treasury is concerned, we believe that steps are being taken to improve some of the procedures which we felt called for alteration. Since November, 1956, when the first of the public hearings concerned with this inquiry was held, quite a number of changes have been made in the operation of the Trust Fund. Some accounts to which the committee directed attention have been closed, and other procedural alterations have been made which accord with views expressed by the committee in this report.

But for other reasons, we regard this report as one of the most valuable the committee has yet presented. In the course of our inquiry we found there was a lack of written material about the Trust Fund, its purposes and uses, that was readily accessible to the public. Although this report does not cover every aspect of the Trust Fund in detail, we consider that it will to a very large extent satisfy an urgent need for factual information about the Trust Fund and its operation. As I said at the beginning, I feel that the reading of this report should be a “must” for all honorable members. They ought to know what is in it. The report should be useful not only to members and public servants concerned with the management of Commonwealth finances, but it should also be of value to universities and other places of learning, both as an historical document and as a book of reference.

Mr HULME:
Petrie

.- I wish to do no more than support the remarks of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Bland), who is the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, concerning what has been involved in producing this report and the decisions which it contains. I wish, particularly, to pay tribute to the work of the honorable member. If honorable members have the opportunity of reading this report on what, I think, is an academic subject, and which comprises 87 foolscap pages, together with the minutes of evidence covering a total of 211 pages, they will realize that the one who has guided the activities of the committee is deserving of some appreciation of his work.

Dr Evatt:

– So does the committee as a whole. The chairman is only a member of it.

Mr HULME:

– 1 appreciate the interjection of the Leader of the Opposition. (Dr. Evatt). But although members of the committee may contribute to its working,, the great responsibility falls upon the chairman in relation to the preparation of its reports. He has to sift the evidence, examine the documents and, together with the secretary of the committee, engage in a great deal of detailed work. This report represents work which is different from that of investigating a department to see whether it has spent its funds within the limits of the appropriations approved by the Parliament. This report deals with a question of principle in relation to a particular section of Commonwealth accounting, and it will be regarded as a document of considerable substance. I go further and say that in certain schools of learning and thought it will probably be regarded as a text-book. I place on record my personal appreciation of the chairman’s work in relation to this report, and I am confident that I am voicing the appreciation of every member of the committee in that respect.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– I wish to say, briefly, that this report or* the Trust Fund can be of immense benefit to honorable members generally. The question of parliamentary control over funds of this sort is a matter with which the Public Accounts Committee has been closely concerned, and throughout all its inquiries it has been anxious to preserve the right of the Parliament to control the expenditure from this fund and the way it is operated generally. When honorable members realize that the total amount held in trust funds exceeds £800,000,000, and that sometimes the question arises whether some of the amounts in that total should be regarded as trust funds or only appropriations, they will realize something of the importance of this inquiry. This whole matter has been gone into very thoroughly in the report. If honorable members read the evidence as well as the report they wilt obtain valuable information in connexion with the control of the Parliament over funds and with the investment or otherwise of trust funds. The question has arisen at times whether some trust funds should continue or should be closed and the money returned to Consolidated Revenue. Attention has been given to that question.

I agree with the honorable member for Petrie (Mr. Hulme) that the committee has been very fortunate to have the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Bland) as its chairman. He has been prepared to devote so much of his time to this work, and he knows intimately the many matters involved. This report will be of great value to honorable members if they study it. It deals with the operation of trust funds and the subject of parliamentary control of expenditure generally.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.-I would not venture to express an opinion in respect of this most recently tabled report of the Public Accounts Committee, because, obviously, honorable members have not had time to read and study it. I -am anxious to know, however, what action the Government has actually taken as a result of the work of this committee in respect of the various reports and recommendations it has presented from time to time, other than to circulate those reports?

Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Order! The motion before the Chair is for the printing of the report. I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the motion and not to deal with the report generally.

Mr WARD:

– So far as this debate has proceeded, we have heard nothing but eulogies of the committee, and nothing has been said about the printing of the report. On the second page of the report a list of the duties of the Public Accounts Committee appears as laid down in section 8 of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951. That section reads -

The duties of the committee are -

to examine the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Commonwealth and each statement and report transmitted to the Houses of Parliament by the Auditor-General in pursuance of sub-section (1.) of section fifty-three of the Audit Act 1901-50.

I want to ask, before I approve of the printing of this document, whether we are able to get some information from the chairman of the committee as to what action has been taken to investigate the criticism contained in the Auditor-General’s report regarding the St. Mary’s munition factory?

Mr Beale:

– I rise to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for East Sydney will be out of order in departing from the question as to whether the paper should be printed. Is the Minister for Supply raising a point of order?

Mr Beale:

-I was going to do so, but you anticipated it, Mr. Speaker, and blew him out.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I had no intention of blowing him out. I wanted him to keep to the subject-matter before the Chair. I ask the honorable member for East Sydney to confine himself to the question of whether the paper should be printed or not. I ask him not to introduce side issues.

Mr WARD:

-I am opposed to its being printed. I want to state my query.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Any reference to the St. Mary’s project will be out of order.

Mr Calwell:

– The whole thing is grossly out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member for East Sydney want to continue? He has the right to speak to the question of whether the paper should be printed.

Mr WARD:

– Because I believe that the committee is avoiding some of its most important functions, I think that we ought to hesitate to continue this waste of public money in printing reports on which no action is taken by the Government. The Parliament ought to consider its attitude to the continued publication of these documents because it is creating the impression with the public that this committee - I am not doubting its ability to investigate the various matters that it considers - is doing all the things which the relevant act of Parliament obliges it to do. I say that the committee is not doing all those things. It is not investigating the St. Mary’s scandal. Because I believe that the committee is not performing all its functions, I think that the Parliament ought to re-examine its attitude to the printing of this report.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– -The presentation of this report gives me the opportunity to do two things. One of them is to reply to the criticism of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), which 1 shall do presently. But first and foremost, it gives me the opportunity to pay a compliment to the valuable work that this important committee has done ever since its institution. I say with great pride that this committee is an instrument which I instituted when I became Treasurer. The committee, by its efficiency and vigilance-

Mr Ward:

– I rise to order. I desire to know whether the Treasurer’s remarks are in any way related to the printing of this document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the right honorable gentleman is trying to pay a courtesy to the mover of the motion, and therefore he is in order.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– I am doing more than that. I am leading up to the reason why this report should be printed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A very good idea.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– The very foundation of the proposal for this report to be printed is the acknowledgment of the value of the committee that made the report. The committee has performed very valuable work ever since its establishment. The honorable member for East Sydney asked whether any action had ever been taken to implement the recommendations that have been made in the reports that have emanated from this committee. This is not a political committee. It is an allparty committee. It includes honorable members of the Opposition, who have participated in very valuable teamwork, and their co-operation and effectiveness is appreciated by me, as Treasurer.

As far as my memory serves me, sixteen reports have been presented by this committee, and have been ordered to be printed. To every one of those reports there has been an annexure showing what the Treasury has done in connexion with the recommendations made in the reports. That answers the attempted criticism by the honorable member for East Sydney. Other reports will be printed in due course, and the Treasury’s action on them will also be reported to the House. I can say, on behalf of the Government, and as the responsible Treasurer, that I appreciate the vigilant work and efficiency of this committee in safeguarding public expenditure of this country. I join with the honorable member for Petrie (Mr. Hulme) who has eulogized the leadership that this committee has been given by its chairman. But, in doing that, I do not overlook the valuable co-operation of other members, and the general contribution that has been made to the work of the committee by them.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

Mr. Speaker, you have allowed, in this debate, reference by honorable members, including the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), to the value of the work of the committee. I do not wish to detract from that, although I rather fancy that the work of the chairman has been exaggerated at the expense of the work of the rank and file.

Sir Arthur Fadden:

– The chairman is a very distinguished member of the committee.

Dr EVATT:

– Of course he is; but so are other members of it. Mr. Speaker, as you have allowed previous speakers to praise the work of the committee in discussing the question of whether its report should be printed, it is obvious to me that you must allow any criticism that any honorable member likes to make. That is why I claim that, in allowing this privilege to the Treasurer, you were wrong in not allowing to the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) the right to criticize.

Mr Calwell:

– As the subject is said to be of great importance, and as I hope that we shall be given an opportunity to debate it next year, I think that the debate should be adjourned.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 2820

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1957

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1956.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable members will recall that I referred, in my speech on the Budget, to the Government’s decision to provide increased rates of pension to children of deceased pensioners and deceased contributors under the Superannuation Act. This bill will implement this decision in regard to pensions payable to similar classes of children under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. At the same time, the opportunity is being taken to make several other amendments, the principal ones being the payment of a new rate of gratuity consequent upon variations in conditions of service of members of the Permanent Defence Forces and changes in title or rank to accord with service policy or regulations.

The bill will provide for an increase from £26 per annum to £52 per annum in the rate of pension payable to children under the age of sixteen years, of deceased contributors or deceased pensioners, and for an increase from £39 per annum to £78 per annum in the rate of pension payable to children under the age of sixteen years who are orphans or children of a deceased father whose wife has been divorced from him.

A further matter dealt with by the bill concerns the gratuity payable to a member following changes in the period for which he may be re-engaged. The existing legislation provides a gratuity of £120 to a member who retires on completion of an initial engagement of six years, and a gratuity of £360, or one and one-half times the amount of his contributions, whichever is the greater, to a member who on retirement completes twelve years’ service. To encourage members to re-engage after completing an initial engagement of six years, a shorter re-engagement terms of three years has been introduced; this bill provides a gratuity of £210 to a member who retires after completing nine years under the two engagements.

Provision is also made for an increase in the rate of gratuity payable to a member who completes six years’, but less than twelve years’ service, and retires upon reaching the prescribed retiring age for his rank. The gratuity payable is an amount equal to £120 for the first six years and £30 for each completed year of service beyond six years, thus giving him an entitlement after nine years’ service at least equal to that of a member who retires on completion of engagements totalling nine years.

The other matters dealt with in this bill are of a minor nature and generally concern details of administration.

The main purpose of the bill is to provide increases in children’s pensions in respect of members of the Permanent Defence Forces to bring the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act into line with the provisions of the Superannuation Act, and for changes in gratuity entitlement to accord with variations in the period for which a member may be re-engaged. I recommend this bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 2821

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1957

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act relating to the Stevedoring Industry.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a short bill, lt has limited purposes, which are directed principally towards overcoming difficulties that may be created by a possible decision of the High Court rendering invalid the present scheme for the hearing by the Commonwealth Industrial Court of appeals by waterside workers who may be appealing against their deregistration by the Stevedoring Industry Authority.

It will be recalled that, following the decision of the High Court in the Boilermakers’ case last year, we made some farreaching amendments to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, in order to separate the arbitral from the judicial functions. It will be recalled that a majority of the High Court in that case - the decision subsequently being confirmed by the Privy Council - took the view that certain functions formerly exercised by the

Commonwealth Arbitration Court could be exercised only by a judicial body, and that the arbitral and judicial functions could not be exercised by the same persons. We amended the legislation accordingly, in order to set up a Commonwealth Industrial Court and to establish a Commonwealth Arbitration Commission, the idea being that the judicial functions would henceforth be exercised by the court and the arbitral functions by the commission.

Some doubt persisted regarding certain functions which had formerly been exercised by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. It was not easy, at that stage particularly, before the Privy Council had given its decision, to say precisely which matters involved an exercise of the judicial function and which were those in which the arbitral function was being exercised or, perhaps, the arbitrator was functioning in some administrative capacity. We assigned, therefore, such functions as appeared to us to involve the judicial process to the new Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and we left the commission free to concentrate on the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.

At the time when the 1956 legislation was being drafted, as I have mentioned previously, litigation in connexion with the Boilermarkers’ case was still proceeding before the Privy Council. Obviously we could not know what its outcome would be, nor whether the decisions pronounced upon particular provisions of the old act would necessarily hold in relation to those provisions as re-distributed between the commission and the court under the 1956 act. Since then, we have had the majority decision of the High Court in what has become known as the Builders’ Labourers’ case. Judgment in that matter was given on 23rd November. As an outcome of this decision we must now re-examine some aspects of our 1956 legislation. The court, in the case I have just referred to, has supplied answers to some questions which were previously obscure, but a degree of obscurity remains, and we are trying to put beyond doubt the practical outcome, dependent upon further legal proceedings which are now in process.

If there had been time to prepare it, I would have liked to bring before the House before the end of this sessional period a “Bill to make some adjustments to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, taking into account the most recent High Court decision. In the course of the recess I intend, in conjunction with my colleague, the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan), and in association with his department and the Department of Labour and National Service, to make a closer study of what needs to be done. There is need, however, for urgent action in relation to some aspects, of the Stevedoring Industry Act.

One particular provision of the 1956 legislation which gave jurisdiction to the Commonwealth Industrial Court is section 37 of the Stevedoring Industry Act. Thisgave a waterside worker the right of appeal to the court against disciplinary action taken against him by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. This section 37 hasbeen in existence, in one form or another, since 1942. The right of appeal has been availed of by the Waterside Workers Federation in literally hundreds of cases since then. It has been used since the 1956 legislation, and, since that amending act was passed, appeals have been taken in the Commonwealth Industrial Court. But we believe that, having regard to the majority view in the Builders’ Labourers’ case, there is now a distinct possibility that the High Court might hold that jurisdiction to deal with these appeals cannot validly be given to a court of law. The Government does not want the situation to arise in which, if the High Court should hold that section 37’ as it now stands is invalid, no tribunal will be available to waterside workers to which their appeals against disciplinary action imposed by the Australian Stevedoring. Industry Authority may be taken. We consider that machinery for such a purpose - that is, to appeal against disciplinary action imposed by the authority - should be available to the waterside workers, and we want to ensure that suitable machinery will be available. We are, therefore, making provision in this measure for a substitute section 37 which will be brought into operation only if the High Court pronounces, against existing section 37.

Under the substitute provision the appeal tribunal will be the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission instead of the Commonwealth Industrial Court as at present; but, in substance, the same rights by way of appeal will continue as they have for the last fifteen years. The appeals will be heard by presidential members of the court. The new provision will apply to appeals against disciplinary action taken before or after the commencement of the section. At present, under section 37 the authority may postpone the operation of a suspension when notice of appeal is given. The legislation now provides that the authority may postpone operation of suspension when it is satisfied that an appeal will be lodged. That is written into both the existing and substitute section 37. What I have said in respect of the risks associated with the existing section 37 applies similarly to section 35, which deals with the deregistration of employers, so we have included in the measure a substitute section 35 which can be brought into operation should the necessity arise.

A good deal has been said in recent weeks about there being one disciplinary process for the employers and another for the waterside workers. This matter received attention during the debate in this House when the Stevedoring Industry Act 1956 was before us, and it has been alluded to in the report of the authority for the year 1956-57 which I tabled in the House to-day. What seems to have been overlooked is the fact that the committee of inquiry which the Government set up to examine the stevedoring industry was very much in favour of a system of fines. The committee also favoured cancellation and suspension of registration, both of employers and waterside workers, but it said that the exercise of discipline through the courts was unsuitable as it involved proceedings which, in its opinion, were too cumbersome.

When we came to draft the 1956 legislation we found that many difficulties stood in the way of introducing a system of fines for waterside workers, difficulties of procedure and so forth. It is fitting to record that the Waterside Workers Federation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions were very strongly opposed to a system of fines directed against waterside workers. While I do not say that that was the determining factor in our decision, it was given the consideration it merited. To introduce a system of fines against waterside workers the Government would have had to create offences and then prosecute them in the courts, so we abandoned that idea and retained the former system of cancellation and suspension of registration.

It therefore becomes rather ironic to hear criticisms to the effect that we have made the going tougher for the waterside workers than for the employers.

Mr Ward:

– How many prosecutions have there been?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– In the case of the employers the same difficulties were not present and we provided for a series of offences in regard to employers for which they could be prosecuted in the Industrial Court and fined very heavily.

Mr Ward:

– How many fines were imposed?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– In addition, employers may also be de-registered,

Mr Ward:

-How many were deregistered?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Adermann
Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I was pointing out to the House that whilst we have not proceeded with a system of fines against waterside workers, a system providing for very heavy fines is included in this measure in respect of employers who offend against the requirements of the act. It can hardly be said, therefore, that the Government has one law for the employer, which is rather more favorable than that which operates for the employee. Another important reason why the full judicial process should be pursued as far as practicable when offences against employers are being prosecuted is that not only may the employer be deregistered but, if in fact he is deregistered, his employees also would be directly affected. So, the interests of the employees require adequate protection. It is provided, therefore, that deregistration shall not take place without full judicial inquiry.

I have reminded the House of the action the Government took in regard to the 1956 legislation. The Government does not believe that any reasonable person could regard that legislation as being uneven or unfair in its approach to the discipline of both sides in the industry. Unfortunately, if substitute section 35 for which the bill provides has to operate, the court and the commission will both be involved in the discipline of employers. That will create a rather more cumbersome procedure than operates at present, but I do not see any escape from it if the results which we think reasonable and just are to be obtained. This cannot be avoided because power to fine cannot be given to the commission.

The complaint has been made in recent weeks that employers are not being disciplined whereas waterside workers are being disciplined, and it is asserted that the existing law has defects that render it doubtful whether disciplinary action against employers would be successful. The Government’s law officers do not accept this view, but in the one respect where there could be any doubt this measure makes provision to remove it. Section 33 of the Stevedoring Industry Act imposes certain obligations on employers. One obligation is that employers must not act in a manner whereby the expeditious, safe and efficient performance of stevedoring operations is prejudiced or interfered with. It has been asserted that an employer can be found guilty, under this provision, only if his actions interfere with expedition, safety, and efficiency whereas, under section 36, a waterside worker may be punished if he so acts as to interfere with any one of these aspects of stevedoring operations. As I have said, we have been advised that this is not the proper construction to place upon section 33. [Quorum formed.]

I have indicated the action being taken to place the proper construction of section 33 beyond doubt. To do so, we are substituting the word “ or “ for “ and “ in paragraph (a) of section 33(1), thereby making abundantly evident that failure to carry out any one of the three aspects of waterfront conduct which I have mentioned will render the employer concerned liable to the disciplinary provisions of the act.

Another duty of an employer is to provide proper supervision. It has been suggested that this obligation is met if supervision is provided at the start of an operation. We believe that this strains the meaning of clear words, but again we are putting the matter beyond any possible doubt by making it even more evident that the obligation extends to all phases of stevedoring operations.

I believe that the provisions, to which I have directed the attention of the House, of what can be fairly regarded as a stopgap measure pending the more comprehensive overhaul of this legislation, which we will make during the period of recess, will be welcomed by all sections of the waterfront industry. As a result of the action we are taking, there will be no gap in the provision of suitable machinery to deal with the rights and obligations of the various sections of the industry. Accordingly, 1 commend the bill to the House, and hope for its speedy passage.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Ward) adjourned.

page 2824

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That Government business shall take precedence over general business to-morrow.

page 2824

DIESEL FUEL TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1957

Motion (by Mr. Osborne) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act relating to taxation imposed on certain diesel fuel.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable members will no doubt recall the introduction in this House on 3rd September this year of Customs Tariff Proposals No. 5 and Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 which, among other matters, gave effect to the Government’s decision to impose a duty of1s. a gallon on imported and Australian diesel fuel of the type used in diesel-engined road vehicles. The object of the tax was to ensure that operators of diesel-powered vehicles made a reasonable contribution to road construction and maintenance, as is the case with petrol-driven vehicles.

At the time of introduction of the proposals, it was explained that it was necessary to impose the duty on all automotivetype diesel fuel irrespective of the purpose for which it would be used but that reimbursement to the extent of ls. a gallon would be made to those persons who used this type of fuel other than in the operation of road vehicles. With the co-operation of the oil companies, however, it has now been found possible to provide exemption from duty for users by issuing certificates, in accordance with provision and conditions laid down in departmental by-laws, to cover fuel used for purposes other than propelling road vehicles on public roads. A certificate holder will obtain duty-free supplies by presenting the certificate to his supplier.

Legal provision is required, however, for the payment of rebate of the ls. a gallon customs and excise duty on diesel fuel which has been purchased and used for exempt purposes prior to a person being issued with a certificate. The bill which I am introducing will give to the Department of Customs and Excise this authority and make the necessary appropriation out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Because fuel on which rebates are to be paid has been duty paid and delivered from customs control, the provisions of the existing acts relating to customable and excisable goods have no application. For this reason, therefore, it has been necessary to prescribe certain obligations and powers in this bill. They follow the pattern of those now laid down in customs, excise and bounty acts, and are considered necessary in the proper protection of the revenue.

As diesel fuel which will be purchased by certificate holders will have been delivered free of customs or excise duty under the proposed scheme, it is necessary to provide separate taxing bills to empower the department to recover an equivalent of ls. a gallon if diesel fuel purchased free of ls. a gallon duty by certificate holders for use other than in road vehicles is in fact used in road vehicles on public roads or sold to persons who do not hold a certificate. I will introduce these bills later as complementary legislation to this administration bill.

I submit the bill for the favorable consideration of honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 2825

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILLS

(Nos. 1 and 2) 1957.

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

.- I move -

  1. That, in this Resolution - “ certificate “ mean a certificate issued by the Minister, or a delegate of the Minister, certifying that a person specified in the certificate is a person who requires diesel fuel for use otherwise than in propelling road vehicles on public roads; “ diesel fuel to which this Resolution applies “ mean diesel fuel that has been purchased, whether before or after the commencing date, by a person, being the holder of a certificate, at a price which, by virtue of that person being the holder of a certificate, was less than the price that would have been payable if that person had not been the holder of a certificate; “ road vehicle “ mean a vehicle designed solely or principally for transporting persons, goods or animals by road; “ the commencing date “ mean the date on which the Acts passed to give effect to this Resolution come into operation.
  2. That, subject to the next succeeding paragraph, a tax at the rate of One shilling per gallon be imposed on diesel fuel to which this Resolution applies that, after the commencing date, is sold or otherwise disposed of to a person who is not the holder of a certificate.
  3. That tax referred to in the last preceding paragraph be not imposed on diesel fuel by reason of a sale or disposal of that diesel fuel if tax has been imposed on that diesel fuel by reason of a previous sale or disposal of that diesel fuel.
  4. That, subject to the next succeeding paragraph, a tax at the rate of One shilling per gallon be imposed on diesel fuel to which this Resolution applies that, after the commencing date, is used in propelling a road vehicle on a public road.
  5. That tax referred to in the last preceding paragraph be not imposed on diesel fuel by reason of its being used in propelling a road vehicle on a public road if tax referred to in paragraph 2 of this Resolution has been imposed on that diesel fuel by reason of a sale or other disposal of that diesel fuel.

The resolution I have just presented to the committee proposes to impose a tax of ls. a gallon on diesel fuel that is purchased by a certificate holder free of customs or excise duty but has subsequently been used in a road vehicle on a public road or sold to a person who is not a certificate holder. The tax is not to apply, however, to diesel fuel upon which a tax has been imposed by reason of a previous sale or disposal of that diesel fuel.

In introducing the Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Bill I gave the background to the introduction of the Customs and

Excise Tariff Proposals relating to the duties on diesel fuel. The purpose of the tax and the administrative procedures to be applied were then explained. As diesel fuel which will be purchased by certificate holders will have been delivered from customs control free of the ls. a gallon customs or excise duty under the proposed scheme, it is necessary to provide separate taxing measures to empower the Department of Customs and Excise to recover an equivalent of ls. a gallon on diesel fuel purchased by certificate holders and used in road vehicles on public roads or sold to persons who do not hold a certificate. When this resolution is adopted I shall introduce two bills to give effect to the proposals in the resolution.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended. [Quorum formed.]

Resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Osborne and Mr. Townley do prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2826

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1957

Bill presented by Mr. Osborne, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill imposes a tax of ls. a gallon on diesel fuel purchased free of duty by a certificate holder and sold, or otherwise disposed of, to a non-certificate holder. Honorable members will note that the bill exempts fuel from tax altogether when tax has already been imposed by reason of previous sale or disposal.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 2826

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1957

Bill presented by Mr. Osborne, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Whereas the Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 1) 1957 imposed a tax on diesel fuel sold, this bill imposes a tax of ls. a gallon on diesel fuel purchased free of duty by a certificate holder and used in propelling road vehicles on public roads. Honorable members will note that the bill exempts fuel from this tax when it has already been taxed on previous sale or disposal.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 2826

CUSTOMS TARIFF (INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION) BILL 1957

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I move -

  1. That duties of customs be imposed in accordance with the following provisions: -

Dumping Duty - Third Country.

  1. – (1.) If the Minister is satisfied that goods which are produced or manufactured in a particular country have been or are being sold to an importer in Australia at an export price which is less than the fair market value of the goods at the time of shipment and that detriment may thereby result to the trade in the Australian market of producers or manufacturers in a third country, the Minister may publish a notice in the “ Gazette” specifying the goods as to which he is so satisfied. (2.) Upon the publication of the notice, there shall be charged, collected and paid to the use of the Queen for the purposes of the Commonwealth, on those goods imported into Australia, a special duty (in this paragraph referred to as “ the third country dumping duty “). (3.) The amount of the third country dumping duty in each case shall be the sum which represents the difference between the fair market value of the goods at the time of shipment and the export price, but where the importer satisfies the Minister that he purchased the goods within six months prior to the time of shipment and that after the date of purchase and prior to the date of shipment the fair market value of the goods had increased, the fair market value to be taken for the purposes of this paragraph shall be the fair market value at the date of purchase.

Dumping below Cost Duty - Third Country.

  1. – (1.) If the Minister is satisfied that goods which are produced or manufactured in a particular country have been or are being sold to an importer in Australia at an export price which is less than a reasonable price and that detriment may thereby result to the trade in the Australian market of producers or manufacturers in a third country, the Minister may publish a notice in the “Gazette” specifying the goods as to which he is so satisfied. (2.) Upon the publication of the notice, there shall be charged, collected and paid to the use of the Queen for the purposes of the Commonwealth, on those goods imported into Australia, a special duty (in this paragraph referred to as “the third country dumping below cost duty”). (3.) The amount of the third country dumping below cost duty in each case shall be the sum which represents the difference between a reasonable price of the goods at the time of shipment and the export price of the goods. (4.) In this paragraph, “a reasonable price”, in relation to goods, means such an amount as represents the cost of production of the goods plus such addition, not exceeding twenty per centum, as is determined by the Minister, plus free on board charges. (5.) In the absence of satisfactory evidence as to the cost of production, the Minister may fix such amount as he thinks fit as the cost of production, and the amount so fixed shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be deemed to be the cost of production.

Dumping Consignment Duty - Third Country. C. - (1.) If the Minister is satisfied -

  1. that goods which are produced or manufactured in a particular country have been or are being consigned to Australia for sale;
  2. that the goods may be sold at less than a reasonable selling price; and
  3. that detriment may thereby result to the trade in the Australian market of producers or manufacturers in a third country, the Minister may publish a notice in the “ Gazette “ specifying the goods as to which he is so satisfied. (2.) Upon the publication of the notice, there shall be charged, collected and paid to the use of the Queen, for the purposes of the Commonwealth, on those goods imported into Australia, a special duty (in this paragraph referred to as “ the third country dumping consignment duty “). (3.) The amount of the third country dumping consignment duty in each case shall be the sum which represents the difference between the wholesale selling price in Australia and a reasonable selling price. (4.) In this paragraph, “ a reasonable selling price “, in relation to goods, means an amount ascertained by adding to the sum of -
  4. the fair market value of the goods;
  5. the freight, insurance, landing and other charges; and
  6. the amount of duty payable under the Customs Tariff, such amount, not exceeding fifteen per centum of that sum, as is determined by the Minister. (S.) If the evidence of the fair market value is, in the opinion of the Minister, insufficient, the Minister may, for the purposes of the last preceding sub-paragraph, substitute for the fair market value the ascertained cost of production plus such addition, not exceeding twenty per centum of that cost, as is determined by the Minister.

Dumping Freight Duty - Third Country. D. - (1.) If the Minister is satisfied -

  1. that goods which are produced or manufactured in a particular country and have been or are being exported to Australia have been or are being carried -

    1. in subsidized ships at rates of freight lower than the normal rate of freight;
    2. at ballast rates of freight, being rates lower than the normal rate of freight; or
    3. freight free; or
  2. that, by reason of any circumstance, including the granting of rebates, refunds or other allowances, the amount or the net amount of freight paid or payable on goods exported to Australia is lower than the amount of freight which would have been or would be payable at the normal rate of freight, and that in any such case detriment may thereby result to the trade in the Australian market of producers or manufacturers in a third country, the Minister may publish a notice in the “ Gazette “ specifying the goods as to which he is so satisfied. (2.) Upon the publication of the notice, there shall be charged, collected and paid to the use of the Queen, for the purposes of the Commonwealth, on those goods imported into Australia, a special duty (in this paragraph referred to as “ the third country dumping freight duty “). (3.) The third country dumping freight duty shall be -
  3. in the case of goods which have been or are being carried freight free - the amount which would have been or would be payable as freight on those goods if they had been or were carried at the normal rate of freight; and
  4. in the case of any other goods - such amount as, in the opinion of the Minister, is equal to the sum by which the freight which would have been or would be payable on those goods if they had been or were carried at the normal rate of freight exceeds the freight or the net freight paid or payable on those goods. (4.) The normal rate of freight in respect of any goods to which this paragraph applies shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be such as is determined by the Minister, but not exceeding the highest rate of freight payable, at the date of shipment of those goods, on similar goods carried by general cargo vessels which, in the opinion of the Minister, trade regularly with Australia. (S.) If any dispute arises as to the rate of freight in respect of any goods, or the amount of any rebate, refund or other allowance in respect of freight on goods to which this paragraph applies, that rate or that amount shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be such rate or amount as the Minister determines.

Countervailing Duty.

  1. – (1.) If the Minister is satisfied, after inquiry and report by the Tariff Board, in respect of goods exported to Australia which are produced or manufactured in a particular country and are of a class or kind produced or manufactured in Australia, that a subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance has been or is being paid or given directly or indirectly upon the production, manufacture, carriage or export of those goods and that detriment may thereby result to an Australian industry, the Minister may publish a notice in the “ Gazette “ specifying the goods as to which he is so satisfied. (2.) Upon the publication of the notice, there shall be charged, collected and paid to the use of the Queen for the purposes of the Commonwealth, on those goods imported into Australia, a special duty (in this paragraph referred to as “ the countervailing duty “). (3.) The amount of the countervailing duty in each case shall be a sum equal to the amount of the subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance referred to in sub-paragraph (I.) of this paragraph. (4.) If the evidence of the amount of subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance is, in the opinion of the Minister, insufficient, the amount of subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance shall, for the purpose of this paragraph, be such as is determined by the Minister. (5.) In this paragraph, “ financial assistance “ includes the benefit accruing to an exporter from the use of dual or multiple rates of exchange in relation to the proceeds of export sales.

Countervailing Duty - Third Country.

  1. – (I.) If the Minister is satisfied, in respect of goods which are produced or manufactured in a particular country and have been or are being exported to Australia, that a subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance has been or is being paid or given directly or indirectly upon the production, manufacture, carriage or export of those goods and that detriment may thereby result to the trade in the Australian market of producers or manufacturers in a third country, the Minister may publish a notice in the “ Gazette “ specifying the goods as to which he is so satisfied. (2.) Upon the publication of the notice, there shall be charged, collected and paid to the use of the Queen for the purposes of the Commonwealth, on those goods imported into Australia, a special duty (in this paragraph referred to as “ the third country countervailing duty “). (3.) The amount of the third country countervailing duty in each case shall be a sum equal to the amount of the subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance referred to in sub-paragraph (1.) of this paragraph. (4.) If the evidence of the amount of subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance is, in the opinion of the Minister, insufficient, the amount of subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance shall, for the purpose of this paragraph, be such as is determined by the Minister. (5.) In this paragraph, “ financial assistance “ includes the benefit accruing to an exporter from the use of dual or multiple rates of exchange in relation to the proceeds of export sales.

International Obligations.

  1. The Minister shall not publish a notice under sub-paragraph (1.) of paragraph A, B, C, D or F of this Proposal unless he is satisfied that the publication of the notice is not inconsistent with the obligations of Australia under any international agreement relating to tariffs or trade.

Application of Certain Provisions of Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act.

  1. That the provisions of sections 2, 3, 12, 12a, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1956 apply to and in relation to the duties referred to in this Proposal in like manner as they apply to and in relation to the duties imposed by that Act.

Definitions.

  1. That, in this Proposal - “ the “ Gazette “ mean the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette; “ the Minister “ mean the Minister of State administering the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1956, as amended from time to time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Osborne and Mr. Townley do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Osborne, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement, which was signed in Canberra on 26th February last, the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government recognised that industries in each country engaged in trade with the other could be materially injured by the competition, or dumping, of subsidized export from third countries. Both governments declared their intention to introduce legislation which would enable them, consistently with their international obligations, to impose anti-dumping or countervailing duties where such material injury was caused or threatened. The United Kingdom Parliament, earlier this year, passed the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. The purpose of the present bill is to amend the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act so as to enable the Australian Government to act accordingly. As honorable members know, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) already has power under the act now being amended to impose anti-dumping duties on goods dumped on the Australian market and which threaten Australian industries. He has had no power, up to the present, to protect the goods of other countries. Such an amendment is also complementary to the changes secured by this Government in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade during the review session, to ensure that permission would automatically be forthcoming for an importing country to levy countervailing duties to protect the interests of another supplying country against serious damage by subsidized goods from a competing supplier. The effect of the proposal is to give the Government legislative authority to impose a special duty on goods which are in any way dumped or subsidized, and which are being imported into Australia so as to cause or threaten material injury to imports from the United Kingdom or any other country.

The opportunity has also been taken in the proposal to strengthen the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act in relation to the protection of Australian industries against competition from imports subsidized by the exporting country. In particular, the amending proposal puts beyond doubt the Government’s power to impose countervailing duties on imported goods which carry a government subsidy of any kind where such subsidized imports cause or threaten damage to Australian industry. Australian exports have increasingly encountered, in our overseas markets, subsidized competition from other supplying countries. This has applied particularly to Australian exports to the United Kingdom, where so much of our exports are marketed. The present proposal will complete the reciprocal undertaking between the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government. Additionally, it will provide a legislative backing in cases where the Government seeks to negotiate corresponding protection for Australian produce in other overseas markets which may be exposed to the depredations of subsidized competition.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 2829

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1957

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 7); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 1); Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

.- I move- [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 7).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1957, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, 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 1933-1957 as so amended.
  2. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time, by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the British Preferential Tariff shall apply to such goods as are specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British country, being a British non-self-governing colony or a part of the Queen’s dominions which was, on the fifteenth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and forty-six, a British non-self-governing colony, specified in that Proclamation in relation to those goods.
  3. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the British Preferential Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a country specified in that Proclamation.
  4. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the British Preferential Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the British Preferential Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  5. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time, by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
  6. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
  7. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 5 of these Proposals may, from time totime, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  8. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ British non-self-governing colony “ include British Protectorates, the Trust Territory of Tanganyika and so much of the Trust Territories of the Cameroons and Togoland as is administered by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom; “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely: - 3rd September, 1957; and 17th October, 1957; “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette; “ the British Preferential Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ British Preferential Tariff “, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used ; “ the Intermediate Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff “, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.

[Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 3).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1957 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, 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 (New Zealand Preference) 1933- 1957 as so amended. [Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 1).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1956 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, 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 (Canadian Preference) 1934-1956 as so amended. [Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2).] That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1956, as proposed to be amended by Excise Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the third day of September, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fifth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, at five o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Excise be collected in pursuance of of the Excise Tariff 1921-1956 as so amended. **Mr. Chairman,** the four Tariff Proposals which I have just introduced cover amendments of the schedules to the Customs Tariff 1933-1957; the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference 1933-1957; the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1956; and the Excise Tariff 1921-1956. The new duties, which will operate from to-morrow morning, are, in the main, based on recommendations made by the Tariff Board. Tariff protection is being given by Customs Tariff Proposals No. 7 to industries engaged in the manufacture or production of- Passionfruit pulp and passionfruit juice; Wheeled agricultural tractors up to 10 belt pulley horse-power, including rotary cultivators, hoes and tillers; Floor polishing machines and floor polisher-scrubbers, of the household types; Cathode ray tubes for television sets; and A range of papers including toilet paper and some surface coated papers. The proposals also reduce duties on some papers, such as true vegetable parchment, plain transparent cellulose paper and copying paper, and on safety helmets and bathing hats and caps. A drafting amendment associated with the proposed alteration relating to rotary cultivators, hoes and tillers is introduced in tariff item 333 (a) (2). This is necessary to ensure that tyres and tubes imported with or for rotary cultivators covered by the new item 177 (c) will be charged duty at the same rates as tyres and tubes imported with or for tractors. I propose to table the relevant Tariff Board reports at a later stage to-day. In addition to the alterations recommended by the Tariff Board, Customs Tariff Proposal No. 7 provides for two amendments of an administrative nature. No change in the rates of duty is involved. The first of these alters the wording of item 174 (x) (88) from "Balancing machines, static-dynamic ", to " Balancing machines, dynamic ". This action follows a report by the Tariff Advisory Committee of the Department of Customs and Excise. The committee ascertained during the course of its inquiries that the term " staticdynamic balancing machines " was relatively unknown in the trade and apparently was intended to describe machines which balance both statically and dynamically. Such machines are, in fact, dynamic balancing machines, and it is considered desirable that the description more widely known should be used. The other administrative amendment relates to tariff item 401 (b), and proposes to amend the present restriction in that item requiring that re-imported goods shall have remained the property of the exporter from the time of exportation until the time of re-importation. This requirement of ownership operates adversely against an importer who imports goods on loan. As such an importer at no time owned the goods he cannot at present take advantage of the provisions of the item if he brings the goods back to Australia for further use. An example of the transactions which the proposed amendment to item 401 (b) will cover is where an Australian manufacturer imports goods such as stamping dies, pays customs duty at the appropriate rate thereon, uses them in the production of goods, and returns the dies to the overseas owner. If, subsequently, the Australian manufacturer borrowed the dies, he would, prior to this proposal, be required to pay duty a second time on the same stamping dies. The proposed amendment will permit the borrowed dies to be admitted free of duty when imported on the second and subsequent occasions. The amendment proposed thus places such an importer in a no less favorable position than an importer who is the actual owner of goods and who sends such goods out of the country and subsequently re-imports them. Turning next to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposal No. 3, in view of the re-drafting of tariff item 114 relating to hats, caps and bonnets it has been necessary to re-state the position for New Zealand hats, caps and bonnets. This proposal ensures that no higher rates of duty than those applying to similar goods when admissible under the British preferential tariff are charged on such goods when of New Zealand origin. Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposal No. 1 is complementary to Customs Tariff Proposal No. 7 in relation to rotary cultivators, hoes and tillers, and will ensure that these goods, when the manufacture of Canada, will continue to receive most-favoured-nation treatment as heretofore. The final proposal is Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2, which reduce the duty payable on Australian-made cathode ray tubes from £7 to £6 each. This action arises from the Tariff Board's recommendation that tariff protection be given to the extent of £5 each against tubes admissible at British preferential tariff rates, and £5 each plus 10 per cent. ad valorem, otherwise. Honorable members may recall that the Government imposed revenue duties on both imported and locally produced cathode ray tubes in August last year. The decision to adopt the Tariff Board's recommendation to accord protection makes it desirable to fix customs and excise duties at levels which will return approximately the same revenue as can be expected under existing duties. On this basis, the Government considers that the rates for Australian tubes should be fixed at £6 each, and for imported tubes at £11 each when admissible at British preferential tariff rates, and at £11 each plus 10 per cent. ad valorem, otherwise. A summary of alterations has been circulated to honorable members. The Deputy . Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** will recall that, during the passage of the Customs Tariff Bill 1957, he requested that a simplified statement be issued for the information of honorable members. I am glad to tell him and other honorable members that the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Senator Henty)** has now arranged to include in the summary circulated a " short summary ", which sets out, very briefly, the goods on which increases and decreases in duty are being made, the reasons therefor, and other administrative and consequential changes. I would, however, ask honorable members to refer to the detailed summary for more precise information. Honorable members will, at a later date, have an opportunity to debate the tariff changes proposed. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2836 {:#debate-35} ### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. {: #debate-35-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
LP -I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - >Cathode ray tubes. > >Euclid twin power scrapers. > >Floor polishing machines. > >Hats, caps and bonnets. > >Paper and paper products. > >Passionfruit and passionfruit products. > >Tractors and rotary hoes up to and including 10 belt pulley horse-power. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 2836 {:#debate-36} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1957 Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** - by leave - agreed to - >That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of Customs under Customs Tariff Proposals. Bill presented, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Second Reading **Mr. OSBORNE** (Evans- Minister for That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to validate, until 30th June, 1958, the collections of customs duties made in pursuance of the following Customs Tariff Proposals: - >Customs Tariff Proposal No. 7, > >Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposal No. 1, and > >Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposal No. 3, which were tabled in this House earlier to-day. It will not be practicable, in the time available, to hold a full-scale tariff debate to enable the enactment of the customs tariff proposals concerned. The proposed tariff variations, as set out in the various tariff proposals covered by this bill are, I might mention, in practically all cases, based on recommendations emerging from Tariff Board inquiries. This bill, as honorable members will appreciate, is purely a machinery measure. Unless tariff alterations are enacted or validated within six months of their introduction into the Parliament, or before the end of the parliamentary session, whichever first happens, such alterations would be open to legal challenge. The bill merely safeguards that position until 30th June, 1958. I commend the bill to honorable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Crean)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2837 {:#debate-37} ### EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1957 Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** - by leave - agreed to - >That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of Excise under Excise Tariff Proposals. Bill presented, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP -- by leave - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** the reasons for this bill are similar to those associated with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1957. It provides for the validation, until 30th June, 1958, of the collection of excise duties made in pursuance of Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2, which I have tabled. As was the case with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1957, this bill is purely a machinery measure. I commend it to honorable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Crean)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2837 {:#debate-38} ### PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is intended to assist the search for petroleum in Australia by means of a subsidy on stratigraphic drilling. There is no need for me to emphasize the importance of finding oil in Australia. The consumption of petroleum products in the Commonwealth is increasing each year, and although all our refineries are in full operation, we are still spending about £120,000,000 per annum on the importation of crude and refined petroleum. This consumption is increasing steadily, and in the period of five years ending 31st December this year, the increase has averaged 10 per cent. per annum. The benefit that would accrue to the nation following the discovery of supplies of petroleum in quantities large enough to satisfy its needs cannot be calculated. Since the beginning of the century, it is estimated that about £50,000,000 has been spent in the search for oil in the mainland and Territory of Papua-New Guinea, and of this total, about £33,000,000, or 66 per cent., has been spent since the discovery of oil at Rough Range, Western Australia, in November, 1953, that is, in the last four years. The larger oil search companies maintain their exploration programmes at a steady level, taking into account their longterm interests, whereas, usually, small investment is spasmodic. There has been a great upsurge in exploration in the last three years, but the problem is to ensure that exploration is continued steadily all the time. The Commonwealth contributes to oil exploration in two very important ways; directly through the Division of National Mapping and the Bureau of Mineral Resources, and indirectly through substantial tax concessions. The Division of National Mapping supplies the maps, without which, no survey can be made, and the Bureau of Mineral Resources carries out the basic geological and geophysical surveys. All their results are made available to the public. This financial year, the Bureau of Mineral Resources will spend £396,000 on oil search surveys, and the total expenditure to date by the bureau in this field amounts to £1,567,300. By this bill, the Government proposes to increase its contribution by a further £500,000 in a full year. It is known that sediments which have been deposited in a marine environment are those in which the possibilities of finding oil are greatest, and so any area in which thick marine sediments are known to exist merits investigation. There are many such areas in Australia; indeed, there are a number of places where the presence of oil has actually been proved, either as seepages at the surface or as shows in bores. Some of these are Lakes Entrance, Victoria; Roma, Queensland; Rough Range and Kimberley Division, Western Australia; the Torrens Basin of South. Australia and at numerous places in Papua on the north-eastern side of the Gulf of Papua. A number of geological structures in Papua and Western Australia have been tested by the drill, but so far none has resulted in the discovery of an oilfield. But there is no reason to assume that sooner or later oil in commercial quantities will not be found at these and other places. It is unfortunate that the conditions under which oil occurs in these areas are more complicated than was originally thought. It is pertinent to note that, in comparison with other areas, the number of holes drilled in the Commonwealth specifically to search for oil is insignificant. The total to date is about 400, 123 of which are relatively shallow holes drilled in the Lakes Entrance area. In the Sahara, 2,000 holes were drilled before oil was discovered in commercial quantities, and in Alberta over 3,000 holes were drilled over a period of 30 years before the big fields were found. The only way to find oil is by drilling, which, must be carried on systematically both for the purposes of obtaining geological information which cannot be obtained in any other way, and for the purposes of testing suitable geological structures for oil. It is unfortunate that so far we have been unable to discover in Australia what can be classified as a normal dome type oilfield. There is no doubt that once economic quantities of oil have been found in one place, the probability of making further discoveries will be greatly increased. Drilling may be classified under three headings: - shallow drilling to obtain information to supplement geological surveys; stratigraphic drilling which is aimed at obtaining information concerning formations and structures at depths at which reliable deductions cannot be made from surface and geological surveys; and drilling aimed at testing domes or other suitable geological structures to see if they contain oil. A geological survey will usually reveal the types of rocks which have been deposited on the edges of sedimentary basins, but as these sediments can and do vary in texture both laterally and vertically due to changes in the conditions of deposition, drilling is required. Detailed information concerning the rock types which are present in our sedimentary basins is known in only a very few places in Australia. Drilling for information of this nature is as costly as drilling directly for oil, and naturally when a company's resources are limited, it prefers to concentrate on drilling in areas where the chances of finding oil are considered greatest. Some stratigraphic drilling has been done in certain shallow basins, for example, Lakes Entrance, but the deeper basins remain unexplored. In some of the better known basins, for example, the Great Artesian Basin, a large number of relatively shallow bores has been put down for water, and in some of these, it is known that shows of oil were noted. However, it is unfortunate that in few of these bores was any accurate record kept of the formations penetrated, or any comprehensive testing of oil shows made. It is expected that exploration companies will take full advantage of the funds now being made available by Parliament and so augment their drilling programmes. Companies which had considered drilling a hole to a relatively shallow depth may, on the recommendation of Government advisers and the assurance of financial assistance, be prepared to drill a deep hole. It has been suggested by prominent overseas oil experts that the subsidizing by the government of deep stratigraphic drilling could lead to more overseas oil companies entering the search for oil in Australia. The Government's own professional advisers would like to see at least one bore put down in each sedimentary basin to the maximum depth attainable by drilling plant now in Australia. There is no doubt that there is need greatly to increase the amount of drilling in Australia. However, unsuccessful haphazard drilling done by speculative companies would almost certainly frighten capital investment away. As long as it is difficult to persuade private companies to do the basic exploratory work, there is justification for the Government to enter this field. However, we must ensure that the Government is not committed to do this work alone, as the situation could be foreseen in which the Government itself might have to do all stratigraphic drilling. In order to avoid this situation, on 15th August, Cabinet approved a proposal to subsidize drilling specially undertaken for the purposes of obtaining stratigraphic information. It approved that the sum of £500,000 per annum be set aside for this purpose, and the subsidy would be payable on the following terms: - Half the cost of each hole drilled will be paid by the Commonwealth and half by private enterprise; the sites be approved by the responsible Minister after recommendation to him by his departmental advisers; that officers of the Bureau of Mineral Resources should have access to the sites and shall be supplied with samples (including cores and cuttings) and all information obtained in the course of drilling; and that the scientific information obtained may be published by the Commonwealth after a period of twelve months has elapsed from the completion of drilling. It is noted with pleasure that following the announcement of the above proposals by the Treasurer in his Budget speech of 3rd September, the Department of National Development has already received eleven applications for subsidy and more are expected. It is proposed the Commonwealth enter into agreements with those companies whose applications are approved and that the subsidy shall be payable only in respect of the cost of drilling in a location in which the stratigraphic information is unknown or incomplete. As the purpose of this drilling is to increase our geological knowledge of potential oil areas, it must be understood that there is no direct intention of drilling to discover commercial deposits of oil. It is proposed to administer the subsidy by means of two stages. The first is purely technical in nature; the applicant must give details of the location of the drill site and the proposed drilling programme, the depth to which the hole will be drilled and the estimated time required for drilling to that depth. It is proposed that this first technical stage should be handled by the department, and that ministerial approval should be given on the recommendation of the permanent head of the department. After the completion of this stage, the approved applicant can then apply to the Minister for subsidy. This application must be made within three months of approval, as an indefinite delay could tie up funds which could have been used elsewhere. The second stage will involve agreement as to the terms and conditions upon which the drilling will be carried out and upon which the payment of subsidy for the drilling operation will be made. This agreement will be entered into by the Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth. It is intended to include in the cost incurred in the operation both those costs directly and indirectly connected with the drilling. The former would include drilling costs, coring, running and cementing, casing used in the bore, logging, testing, and other bore hole surveys. Indirect costs would include the preparation of access roads or strips, preparation of location, camp accommodation, delivery of plant, materials and personnel into and out of the working area, and installation and removal of plant. It is proposed that the detail of costs to be covered in particular instances will be dealt with by the relevant agreement. However, the bill specifies a number of matters in connexion with which the agreement may make provision. It is proposed to make progress payments of subsidy, but the hole must have reached a depth of at least 2,000 feet before the first payment will be made. Other payments would be made as each succeeding 2,000 feet of hole had been drilled. These progress payments would amount to not more than 80 per cent, of the subsidy payable at each stage. The balance would be paid on completion of the hole, provided the Minister was satisfied that drilling had been carried out in compliance with the terms of the agreement. Payment of subsidy could be withheld in certain instances. These could include, if - (a) the drilling were not proceeding according to the timetable; (b) the drilling, logging or testing were not being carried out satisfactorily; (c) the applicant were not taking the necessary action to provide access to sites and information; (d) the applicant were not supplying to the department cores, cuttings and other samples. The agreement will specify the rights and obligations of the parties in the event of the original programme being varied for any reason. A case could arise in which the applicant wished to abandon a subsidized drilling operation after work had commenced. Provision will be made for such a case. In circumstances such as these, it might be considered desirable to continue the drilling operation at government expense rather than to waste the investment already made. It is proposed to assemble and publish all information obtained from subsidized operations. The department was immediately approached by numerous people following the public announcement by the Treasurer on 3rd September. It is clear that no operations which had been started before this date could qualify for subsidy. Tt has been agreed that, so long as an interested party had not entered into a commitment for drilling before 3rd September, the fact of having started an operation before the passage of this bill would not disqualify the applicant from subsidy. It is intended that, unless appropriate action by amendment is taken before this date, the subsidy will not by payable after 30th June, 1961. I commend this bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Crean)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2840 {:#debate-39} ### AIR FORCE (CANTEENS) BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to validate the Air Force (Canteens) Regulations, which became void on 10th October, 1957, because, consequent upon a piece of human frailty, they had not been tabled in Parliament. The regulations, being Statutory Rules 1957, No. 48, were made by the Governor-General on 31st August, 1957, and came into operation on the following day, 1st September, 1957. Through a departmental oversight, copies of the regulations were not tabled in Parliament in accordance with section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act, and they are now, by reason of sub-section (3.) of that section, "void and of no effect". Section 48 (1.) of the act requires, amongst other things, that regulations should be laid before each House of Parliament within fifteen sitting days of that House after the making of the regulations, and sub-section (3.) provides that if any regulations are not laid before each House in accordance with sub-section (1.), they shall be void and of no effect. I might mention that, until some ten years ago, the tabling of regulations was the responsibility of the particular department administering the regulations. Owing to the frequent occasions on which regulations were omitted to be tabled, the AttorneyGeneral's Department undertook the responsibility for tabling, and this is the first time since then that an omission has occurred. The administrative procedure for tabling has been further strengthened, and it is highly unlikely that a similar omission will occur in the future. The regulations under consideration replaced a previous set of regulations, made in 1945, which established a canteens service for the Air Force. The service was reestablished, but a number of changes were made for the purpose of giving improved service and increased amenities for the welfare of Air Force personnel. The Royal Australian Air Force Canteens Service Board was reconstituted with additional members. It was created a body corporate with powers and functions specified in the regulations. Amongst other things, it could purchase, lease or hire property, sell goods and merchandise, supply and provide services and entertainment and other amenities, and employ staff. The omission to table the regulations was only recently noticed, but the Royal Australian Air Force Canteens Service Board, as constituted under the lapsed regulations, has been carrying on its activities under the statutory authority that the regulations purport to provide. It is essential, therefore, that remedial action be taken to replace the statutory authority that has lapsed. Retrospective legislation is necessary, and the Crown law officers have advised that the proper method of approaching the problem is by act of Parliament, and not by a fresh set of regulations, the reason for that being that, generally speaking, regulations cannot have retrospective effect. Section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act prescribes certain conditions which must be met by any regulations having a retrospective operation, and it is doubtful, in the present case, whether fresh regulations designed to restore the authority that has lapsed would comply with the section. The regulations were avoided by act of Parliament, and as the law at present stands, they must be restored by the same means. I therefore ask honorable members to rectify the position which has arisen, by passing this bill and so restoring to effective operation the regulations that were omitted to be tabled. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Crean)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2841 {:#debate-40} ### ACTS INTERPRETATION BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-40-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP -- 1 move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Acts Interpretation Act so as to provide that a reference in any Commonwealth act to the Governor of a State shall be deemed to include any other chief executive officer or administrator of the government of the State. The need for the amendment arises as a matter of urgency, in order that an agreement may be executed without delay with the State of Queensland, pursuant to section 5 of the Statistics (Arrangements with States) Act 1956, for the integration of the statistical services of the Commonwealth and the State. This section provides that the Governor-General may enter into an arrangement with " the Governor of a State ". The office of Governor of Queensland is at present vacant, and will remain so till February next. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- He has not been imported yet? {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE: -- He has not yet arrived. That is a nicer way to put it. Meanwhile, the duties of the office are being performed by the Chief Justice, as Administrator. A difficulty has arisen, by reason of the fact that there is no definition enlarging the meaning of the expression " Governor ", for the purposes of Commonwealth acts, so as to include the person administering the government of the State for the time being. This is the first occasion on which the absence of a provision of this nature has created any difficulty, though the problem could easily have arisen in connexion with other provisions in Commonwealth legislation for the taking of action by a Governor of a State, such as section 78 of the Public Service Act, which provides that the Governor-General may arrange with the Governor of a State for the performance of services for the Commonwealth by an officer of the State Public Service. It is, in fact, surprising that a difficulty similar to the present one has not arisen earlier. What is now proposed is an amendment of the Acts Interpretation Act, to extend to the interpretation of Commonwealth acts generally the principle already recognized, but only for the purposes of the Constitution itself, by section 110 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. This section provides that references in the Constitution to the Governor of a State " extend and apply to the Governor for the time being of the State, or other chief executive officer or administrator of the government of the State ". The present amendment will remove the difficulty which has arisen, and prevent the occurrence of similar difficulties in the future. The opportunity is also being taken to elaborate the definition of " the GovernorGeneral ", as already contained in the Acts Interpretation Act. The present definition, which is contained in section 17 (f) of the act, provides that " ' the Governor-General ' shall mean the Governor-General of the Commonwealth, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Executive Council ". The Constitution of the Commonwealth makes provision, in section 4, for the appointment by the Queen of a person to administer the government of the Commonwealth in the absence of the GovernorGeneral, and, in section 126, for the appointment by the Governor-General himself of deputies to perform such of his functions as he may assign to them. The existing definition of " the GovernorGeneral ", contained in section 17 (f) of the act, refers to an Administrator, but does not refer specifically to a deputy appointed by the Governor-General. While no difficulty has been occasioned by the present definition, it is nevertheless desirable that it should contain a reference, not only to an Administrator, but also to a deputy. The present amendment merely recasts the definition of the expression " the Governor-General ", appearing in any act, so that specific reference is made to a deputy, when exercising any function conferred on the Governor-General by the act, and assigned by the Governor-General to the deputy. I commend the bill to the House. {: #subdebate-40-0-s1 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton -- This bill is supported by the Opposition. In one sense it is purely formal. It is, in a way, odd that the definition of the Governor of a State in the Acts Interpretation Act does not clearly include a person other than the Lieutenant-Governor acting as Governor. The Constitution itself deals with the subject, as the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** has pointed out. It provides that any reference in the Constitution to the Governor of a State applies to the Governor for the time being of a State, or other chief executive officer or administrator of the government of the State. The provision was inserted in the Constitution so as to make it clear that the term " Governor ", used in the political sense, includes the person acting as the Governor, who is often the Chief Justice. No such definition, however, appears in the Acts Interpretation Act. I should have thought that the provision in the Constitution would be followed in any interpretation of the Acts Interpretation Act. It has been thought better, however, to include specifically in the definition the official acting for the Governor. There can be no objection to that. After all, the Acts Interpretation Act simply gives to those reading the statutes the full meaning of shorthand references to persons or things mentioned in the statutes. The second part of the bill deals with the term " Governor-General " appearing in acts of the Commonwealth. It makes it clear that " Governor-General " shall include the deputy of the GovernorGeneral. The existing definition of the Governor-General does not refer specifically to a deputy appointed by the Governor-General. The appointment of such a deputy is a procedure that is, of course, often and necessarily followed in order to enable the Governor-General's functions to be performed by a State Governor or State official who does, lawfully, the various acts, on the political advice of the Commonwealth Government, that fall within the functions of the GovernorGeneral. Both of these provisions are quite beyond criticism and we think they should be adopted. {: #subdebate-40-0-s2 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- I wish to take up only a couple of minutes of the time of the House to ask a question, and request an explanation, of the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale).** In the second part of this bill there is a reference to the Governor-General, or a person so deemed to be included in the reference, acting with the advice of the Executive Council. I want to ask the Minister whether this provision fetters in any way the discretionary powers of the Governor-General. In other words, is this any impingement upon the reserve powers that can be exercised by the Governor-General for the time being? The Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** some years ago made an outstanding contribution to this subject in his magnificent work, " The King and His Dominion Governors ". He traced in painstaking detail, from a historical point of view, the exercise of the reserve powers of the Crown by various Governors-General and various Governors. If my memory serves me correctly, the right honorable gentleman said in one passage of that great work, " Surely it is wrong to assume that the Governor-General for the time being is merely a tool in the hands of the dominant political party ". We all know that it is conventional for the Governor-General and for the Governor to take the advice of their Ministers, but we also know that the precise powers of the Governor-General, or of the Monarch, are not denned. The Leader of the Opposition, in the work to which I have referred, suggested - I think this is an approximation of his argument - that the reserve powers of the Crown should be denned. That, of course, is the same thesis that was propounded on a number of occasions by the late Professor Laski, notably in his work, " Parliamentary Government in England ". In that work Professor Laski said, " The mere fact that we do not know the limits of the Royal power that remains to be invoked on one side or the other in the twilight zone of crisis is sufficient evidence to indicate the difficulties of the position ". I say, without any heat, that every socialist constitutionalist of any standing has pursued in some form or other the argument that the reserve powers of the Crown should be reduced to a known and defined form. So far this definition has not been forthcoming. I want to ask the Minister this afternoon: Does the reference in this bill to the " Governor-General, or a person so deemed to be included in the reference, acting with the advice of the Executive Council " mean that on all occasions the Governor-General or the administrator shall automatically take the advice of the Executive Council; in other words, that the discretionary power that is known to exist, and which, of course, is not defined, will be completely obliterated? I would appreciate some explanation by the Minister of this provision. {: #subdebate-40-0-s3 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne .- For some years past I have been urging the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** to publish a new edition of his book "The King and His Dominion Governors ", because, as the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** has said, it is truly a monumental work. T believe that copies of it are on the desks of all Governors-General and Governors in the British Commonwealth. I think, however, that the honorable member for Moreton misunderstood the whole purport of that work. If I recollect my reading of it, the views expressed were the result of a contest between the Leader of the Opposition and the great Professor Berriedale Keith, the leading authority on jurisprudence in Great Britain. The thesis **Sir Berriedale** Keith advanced was that the constitutional practice had made it impossible for the King to have any reserve power any longer. The right honorable member for Barton argued that there was a reserve power vested in the Sovereign, which he must exercise in order to protect and, if necessary, save the realm. The right honorable gentleman did argue in favour of a definition of the reserve power, but he did not do so for socialistic reasons, or for any reasons other than constitutional reasons. Professor Berriedale Keith was no Communist, but if his views were to prevail he would have reduced the Monarch to the position of a salaried puppet. The right honorable member for Barton argued that this was not and could not be the position of the Monarch because all power finally rested in the monarchy. Thinking back over the years since I read his remarks, I feel I am giving a correct interpretation of what he said. The Governor-General, when absent from Australia, is no longer able to exercise his authority and the person designated to exercise that authority is generally the senior Governor, in point of time of holding office, of the States of the Commonwealth. He, however, is always referred to as the Administrator. The alteration of the title from Governor-General to Administrator seems to me to smack of something like the director-general of a penal establishment, to take the extreme view, or the administrator of a penal colony. {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale: -- That title is provided for in the Constitution. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- I know that. We should endeavour to get round the Constitution by referring to the person concerned as the Deputy Governor-General or the Acting Governor-General. I have not the slightest doubt that the legal advisers to the Crown can find some title which will not be challenged by anybody in the courts of Australia. Although it is only an honorific title, the use of the term Administrator seems to be antiquated and outmoded. Perhaps, some day the Parliament will alter the Constitution to permit of a person being appointed as deputy to the GovernorGeneral. The States make provision for a Governor and a Lieutenant Governor, and the Lieutenant Governor is not always the Chief Justice of the State. In Queensland he frequently is not the Chief Justice. If we wish to honour a person who has rendered distinguished service, there is no reason why the office of Administrator of the Commonwealth or Lieutenant Governor of the State should not be occupied by somebody other than the person who happens for the time being to be the Chief Justice of the State. It would be stretching the Standing Orders too far to assert my wholehearted support of the lifelong belief in the principle that every office of Governor-General and Governor in Australia ought to be occupied by an Australian citizen. No person in this country would then carry the stamp of inferiority which is imposed upon all Australians whenever we import somebody from some other part of the world to fill a gubernatorial post. There is no post in this country that cannot be filled with greater benefit to Australia by an Australian than by an imported person. {: #subdebate-40-0-s4 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP -- in reply - I trust I am too prudent to enter into a controversy as to the merits of Professor Berriedale Keith and **Dr. H.** V. Evatt on this question of reserve power. I assure honorable members that this bill only enlarges the definition of " Governor-General ", and does not touch the question of reserve power. The honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell),** having said he would not transgress the Standing Orders to discuss the question of Australian Governors-General, proceeded to do so. A good case can be made for Australian Governors-General, and a good case can be made for Governors-General coming from other parts of the world. 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 2844 {:#debate-41} ### NATIVE MEMBERS OF THE FORCES BENEFITS BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide legal authority for the repatriation benefits which have previously been provided as an act of grace for, and in respect of, those natives of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, or of an island of the Torres Strait or of the Pacific Ocean, who served in the native units raised for service in those areas during the 1939-45 war. When the War Cabinet in 1941 decided to raise these native units, special conditions of service were fixed to accord with the social and economic conditions of the natives enlisted. Accordingly, the conditions under which, for example, a Torres Strait islander served, differed from those under which a native of Papua or New Guinea served. No action was taken, however, to enact legislation to give effect to the decisions of the War Cabinet so far as the repatriation benefits available to the native ex-servicemen and their dependants were concerned. This bill applies to those natives who served at a rate of pay less than the minimum rate that was prescribed as payable to a male member of the Australian Military Forces and it will remedy that omission. The rates of pension payable in respect of native members of the Torres Strait Islands have been reviewed from time to time and have been increased after consultation with the Government of Queensland, within the boundaries of which State they reside. The position with regard to the native members of Papua and New Guinea was somewhat different. In 1944 the Native War Damage Compensation Committee was set up under the chairmanship of **Mr. J.** V. Barry, K.C., now **Mr. Justice** Barry of the Victorian Supreme Court, to " recommend a just and practicable plan for compensating natives in Papua and New Guinea for loss of or damage to land and property and death or injury arising from military operations or arising out of causes attributable to the existence of a state of war in the Territories ". The recommendations in the report of that committee were adopted by the government of the time, and effect was given to those recommendations. Payments covered compensation to the natives generally for war damage suffered as well as compensation to natives enlisted for war service. Notwithstanding those payments which were in the nature of final payments, and which amounted to approximately £2,000,000, there could still be a need for further provisions to be made in the future in relation to death or incapacity due to a native's war service. Accordingly, this bill does two things. It validates payments already made in respect of native ex-servicemen and their dependants by way of pension compensation or other benefits and it enables appropriate provisions to be made for the future. In determining appropriate pensions and other benefits, due regard must of course be had to the social and economic conditions of the community in which the various classes of persons to receive those benefits live and to the changing nature of those conditions, which vary from time to time and from place to place. Therefore, the bill provides that the details of the benefits, which will be worked out by the two ministers responsible for the administration of the act in consultation with the Treasurer, are to be prescribed in regulations made under the act. Regulations are in course of preparation and it is expected that the act will, in accordance with clause 2 of the bill, be proclaimed shortly after it receives the Royal Assent. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Calwell)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2845 {:#debate-42} ### CHRISTMAS ISLAND (REQUEST AND CONSENT) BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 3rd December, (vide page 2741), on motion by **Mr. Casey** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton -- This bill is an illustration of the authority conferred upon the Australian Parliament by the Statute of Westminster, which contains specific provision that the request and consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth is necessary in certain cases where Australia is affected. Australia is gravely affected by this bill because, in effect, Christmas Island will be placed under the authority of the Commonwealth by the Parliament at Westminster on the passing of the bill. The Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** gave details of the legislation in his second-reading speech. He referred to the discovery of Christmas Island and to the historical connexion between the island and Australia. Christmas Island was annexed by the British Government in 1888 and was administered by that Government, along with the Straits Settlement, from Singapore. The Minister referred to the phosphate deposits and then proceeded to the question of administration. Christmas Island, apparently, has always maintained its status as a separate possession of the Crown. There is no geographical link between Singapore and Christmas Island. Now that Singapore has achieved full internal self-government, the British Government considered that the responsibility for administering Christmas Island should be vested in Australia and/or New Zealand. The solution agreed to by all parties concerned was to give Australia the responsibility for the administration of Christmas Island, and the New Zealand Government concurred in that view. This bill places Christmas Island under the administration of Australia. From Australia's point of view, the island is an important possession. One matter to which special attention should be given is the question of the inhabitants. The population of the island consists of 2,000 Chinese, 500 Malays and 150 Europeans. The Australian Government has agreed that British subjects normally resident on the island at the time of transfer will be given the option of acquiring Australian citizenship, but it is not known how many of the present inhabitants qualify for Australian citizenship. That is one matter to which special attention should be paid. This bill illustrates the present trend in British Commonwealth relationships. That trend is for territories administered by the Crown in right of the United Kingdom gradually to be placed under the administration of self-governing dominions, or nations as they are to-day, in both their internal and external authority. In this instance, Australia takes over the administration of Christmas Island. It is quite obvious that that trend has not yet by any means finished and that other possessions in the Pacific will come under Australian administration as the years go on. It is right that Australia should assume responsibility and authority in this way. Therefore, the Opposition supports this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: The bill. {: #subdebate-42-0-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .-I shall be very brief and I apologize for taking up the time of the committee. A moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** adverted, if I understood him correctly, to the requesting power contained in the Statute of Westminster. I am now referring to clause 3 of the bill. I am interested in the possibilities of the exercise of the requesting power. The committee may recall that during the debate on the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department, I asked whether it would be possible for the requesting power of the Statute of Westminster to be used in a way that it was never intended to be used. When the Statute of Westminster was adopted by this Parliament in 1942, the Leader of the Opposition, who was then AttorneyGeneral, mentioned that the Premier of Victoria had written to him asking that a provision be inserted in the bill or in the preamble that the requesting power should never be used to request of the United Kingdom Government that legislation relating directly to State powers be applied to Australia. The right honorable gentleman said - he did not disguise it - that the Parliament's power to request should not be confined to matters within this Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction but to matters within the Parliament's jurisdiction. I think that is a fair approximation of the right honorable gentleman's declaration. This afternoon we see an example of the use of the requesting power requesting and consenting to United Kingdom legislation. I put to the committee that in certain circumstances it would be possible for this Parliament acting in connivance - I use that term deliberately - to take unto itself powers that more properly reside within the jurisdiction of the States. I would be grateful if the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey),** who is in charge of this bill, would consider whether or not the requesting power of the Statute of Westminster, which is vividly illustrated this afternoon, could be used in effect to destroy the Australian Constitution. 1 do not want to presume on your patience, **Mr. Chairman,** or the patience of the committee and I do not wish to go outside the confines of the bill, but there are, prima facie, a number of ways in which the Australian Constitution can be amended, such as by referendum or by the States rendering powers. I want to know whether this requesting power is not a potential method of altering the Australian Constitution. {: #subdebate-42-0-s2 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton -- I think the answer to the question raised by the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** is to be found in the Statute of Westminster, section 8 of which provides - >Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia- That, of course, deals with the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States - or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act. Victoria feared that the Statute of Westminster might be used to effect a change which required, under the Constitution, the consent of the majority of the States - four at least - and of the majority of the people. That was a very relevant question. According to many legal authorities at that time, the Parliament at Westminster had authority, for instance, to give the Commonwealth additional powers at the expense of the States. What prevented that being done was that we had a written constitution which precluded such action. When the Statute of Westminster was passed to enable the Commonwealth, or the Union of South Africa, or the Dominion or New Zealand, to exercise powers, it was expressly provided that their local constitutions should not be alterable in that very way. That is the safeguard. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Could I interrupt the right honorable gentleman to ask: Why, then, -was it necessary to have section 4 of the Statute of Westminster in the form that it takes? {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- The vital provision is the one that I have read. That was inserted in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act to protect the States against any such event as the honorable member has indicated. Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster provides - >No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall -extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof. That is an illustration of what I have been saying. In other words, Australia having been given authority, this section affects Australia as a dominion. So, there are two hurdles to be got over before legislation of this kind can be passed by the Parliament at Westminster. The first is that the dominion concerned must consent, and the second is the safeguarding clause which says that the Parliament at Westminster cannot interfere with the division of powers within the area concerned. In this particular case, the proposal does not, of course, affect in any way the division of powers within Australia, because it deals solely with territory external to Australia, with the government of a territory that is not in any way within the authority of a State. The administration of Christmas Island would, in any division of powers, clearly be an external matter. Therefore, the Constitution is not being breached. I think that that is the short and clear answer to the honorable gentleman. {: #subdebate-42-0-s3 .speaker-KCK} ##### Mr DOWNER:
Angas .- I should like to take the opportunity afforded by this discussion in committee to ask the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** whether he can give some indication of his plans for the administration of Christmas Island. In the right honorable gentleman's second-reading speech yesterday, unless my hearing was much astray, I do not think he said anything about the form that the daytoday administration would take. I should imagine that, with so small a territory as this, there would not be the elaborate superstructure of a full-scale administrator. If the right honorable gentleman could enlighten the committee, I should be grateful. I should also like to know what the sea or air communications are likely to be between Australia and Christmas Island, and whether, over the years, in this rapidly expanding, changing, and quite unpredictable world facilities may be afforded to Australians to enable them to visit this latest acquisition of what could well become some sort of a private empire of our own. {: #subdebate-42-0-s4 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · La Trobe · LP -- The answer to the two questions asked by the honorable member for Angas **(Mr. Downer)** is that there is only one business on the island, that of getting phosphate rock. That activity is under the control of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, which is the sole employer on the island. Naturally, it looks after its 1,000 or 2,000 employees. Great Britain has had an Administrator there - not of a very high rank - to represent its interests. The Administrator usually has been some one from Singapore, and his duties, broadly, have been to look after the interests of the United Kingdom Government, to register births, deaths and marriages, and to deal with the normal every-day events. We will have, in due course, an Australian administrator. This, again, will not be a very senior appointment. This matter will be made clear in detail when the following bill comes before the House at the instance of my friend and colleague, the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck).** He will introduce the administrative bill during the next sitting of the Parliament. Communication with the island at the moment is provided by the phosphate ships which, of course, call there very frequently indeed. Some hundreds of thousands of tons of phosphates are obtained each year, which means that a great many vessels go there for phosphates. As far as I know, that is the only means of getting to the island, although in the past there has been an occasional visit by the Governor of Singapore, or one of his staff, on a small naval or other vessel, merely for the purpose of having a look round. I believe there is now on the island a rough airstrip that will take an aircraft of the type and size of the DC3, but there is no organized air service. However, it is possible to land on the island and perhaps, if it were necessary, that airstrip could be developed into something rather more ambitious. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. Sitting suspended from 5.52 to 8 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2848 {:#debate-43} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate, without requests: - >Customs Tariff Bill (No. 3) 1957. > >Excise Tariff Bill 1957. {: .page-start } page 2848 {:#debate-44} ### SUPERANNUATION BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 28th November (vide page 2655), on motion by **Sir Arthur** Fadden - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- This bill to amend the Superannuation Act 1922-1956 does two things. First, it increases by £13 per annum the value of each unit of pension taken out by public servants who retired prior to 14th May, 1942. It goes further, and secondly, provides, on a sliding scale, for increased pensions for superannuated public servants who retired after that date. This is only one of many bills by which the Superannuation Act has been amended from time to time. As a consequence of events in recent years, and particularly of changes in economic conditions in Australia, pensions received by superannuated public servants have lost a great deal of their purchasing power, and it has been necessary, from time to time, to increase the rates. On 14th May, 1942, cost-of-living increases were granted to public servants, and from that time onwards, salaries and wages were periodically increased in accordance with decisions of either the Public Service Arbitrator or the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. In accordance with the provisions of the principal act, officers who went from one salary group to another were entitled to take out additional units of superannuation, and as a consequence, they were entitled to greater pensions on reaching the retiring age, or in the event of their being retired before reaching the retiring age. This bill proposes to divide superannuated public servants into groups. Those who retired prior to 14th May, 1942, are to receive an additional £13 a year, or 5s. a week, for each unit of pension. As 1 have pointed out, those who have retired since that date are to be paid increases of pension on a sliding scale. For example, public servants who retired on or after 5th April, 1947, will receive an additional £9 2s. a year, or 3s. 6d. a week, for each unit. In this measure we see a departure from the principle adopted when the Superannuation Act was introduced in 1922. The whole idea was that the contributions of public servants, to which were to be added grants made by the Crown, would provide, on retirement, a pension at a certain standard, all units having the same value. Since 1922, of course, there have been many changes in social conditions, and pensions based on a basic wage of £4 a week in 1922 are totally inadequate under present conditions. I want to point out to the House particularly that, at that time, and up to 1954, every unit of pension had the same value. In 1922, each unit had a value of 10s. a week. This was the equivalent of £1 a week to-day. Originally, a person who contributed for ten units would have received a pension of £5 a week. This bill introduces a principle of differentiation into superannuation, and with this the Opposition disagrees. It believes that the original conception of units of equal value, regardless of the date of retirement, should still prevail. The division of public servants into classes with superannuation units of various values certainly will not achieve the satisfaction and contentment that the Public Service superannuation scheme should give. The Opposition appreciates the difficulties of superannuated public servants, and therefore will not vote against the bill. However, I desire to point out that the principle embodied in this measure is wrong. It is improper to have differing rates of pension. The provision for an increase of 5s. a week in the value of each unit for public servants who retired before 14th May, 1942, and for increases on a sliding scale down to 3s. 6d. a week for other public servants, is the principal change made by this bill. The measure does something else, however. It increases the payments in respect of orphan children from £39 to £78 per annum, or from 15s. to 30s. a week, and for other children from £26 to £52 per annum, or from 10s. to £1 a week. All the increases are to be paid from 31st October, 1957. So there is a certain amount of retrospectivity in the operation of this measure. The differentiation in pensions proposed toy the Government is based on the assumption that, because wage and salary increases enable officers to take out additional units, the value of the units taken out by them should not be increased to make up for the decline of the purchasing power of money since they entered the superannuation scheme. The Opposition does not regard that reasoning as sound, because, in the main, although not wholly, wage and salary increases have been due to increases in the cost of living. The taking out of additional units by employees because they enter a new salary range means that an additional amount of their income goes to meet their superannuation payments. Honorable members know that those persons who retired between 1942 and 1947, and after 1947, will receive an increase of 3s. 6d. a unit a week, but since 1947 there has been a substantial, if not revolutionary, change in the purchasing power of money, which is evident no matter in what direction we look. This change is evident from the stand-point of taxation; from the stand-point of wages, prices of commodities, and everything that affects the person with an income to spend. Inflation has caused wages to rise. That inflation is mainly the responsibility of this Government. During its period of office wages have doubled because of increases in the cost of living. The Government, which was elected on the promise that if returned to office it would put value back into the £1, has failed miserably. Putting value back into the £1 means not only stabilizing prices, but reducing them so that the £1 will purchase more. This has not been done, and on the other hand the purchasing power of money has considerably diminished. One cannot see any reason why the Government has been unable to prevent inflation, or why the public servants who have retired since 1947 and who have suffered so seriously owing to the decreased purchasing power of money, should receive only £9 2s., instead of £13 a year. The opposition suggests that the proposed alteration in the value of units should apply to all retired public servants, whether they retired prior to 1942 or 1947, or since 1947. I regret that so little information has been given to the House as to the effect of the bill. The Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** read a speech that occupied roughly one foolscap page. He gave very little information about the bill or its effect. I think that the House is entitled to know how many persons are affected by this bill and what will be the cost so far as the Superannuation Fund is concerned. No information whatever on those particular matters is given. In order to find out what is the actual position and to what extent the superannuation fund is affected, one naturally turns to the 34th Annual Report of the Superannuation Board, which deals with the board's position up till 30th June, 1956. Whilst the report deals with the actual disbursements from the fund and gives a lot of other information, it certainly does not give very much information about the legislation that has been introduced by the Treasurer. For instance, we do not know how many people who retired prior to 1942 are affected. There cannot be very many of them affected for the simple reason that if they retired at the age of 65 in 1942, to-day they would be 80 years of age, and if they retired at the age of 60 in 1942 they would be 75 years of age to-day. So, very few of those persons would be concerned in collecting the £13 increase. One is unable to secure any information from the report as to how many people retired prior to 1947, or in 1947. Those who retired in 1947 at 65 years of age would be 75 years of age to-day, and there may be very few of them who are affected. The people who will be affected mainly will be the public servants who will retire in the future, to whom the purchasing power of their pension will be a very important matter, because it will be upon their superannuation that they will have to live in a period of high prices. The amount they will receive in superannuation, irrespective of their number of units, will be very small. The report of the Superannuation Board indicates that at present there are 80,859 contributors to the superannuation fund. For the year ended 30th June, 1956, they contributed £4,980,000, and the balance sheet attached to the report indicates that the total funds available for investment and distribution, in accordance with the requirements of the Superannuation Act, amounted to almost £45,000,000. There must be some effect upon the payments that are to be authorized as a consequence of this legislation, but up to the present no information has been given to the House in respect of the matter. The only information that one can get is that the total number of persons who were receiving superannuation payments in 1946 was a fraction over 14,000, and it is quite possible that to-day the number is close to 15,000. I should like the Treasurer, if he is able to do so, to explain one of the tables contained in this report. I refer to table IV., which deals with contributions as at 30th June, 1956, classified according to the year of birth. This table indicates the persons contributing to the superannuation fund, and so one reads with astonishment that although the Public Service Act provides for persons to elect to retire at 60 years of age and to compulsorily retire at 65 years of age, there is one person in the Public Service who was born in 1877 and who must, therefore, be now 80 years of age. That person is still paying into the superannuation fund. Another person, who was born in 1878, is contributing for retirement at 60 years of age. To-day that person must be 79 years of age. There are two other persons who were born in 1890 - they therefore must be 67 years of age - and who are paying into the fund. It is astonishing to find that whilst the law provides that a person shall retire either at 60 or 65 years of age, there are at least one person of 80 years and another of 79 years contributing to the fund. I do not propose to say anything further about the bill, but I feel that the Treasurer should explain why it is desirable to divide public servants into two classes - one to receive an increase of 5s. a week, and the other to receive an increase of only 3s. 6d. a week. He should explain the real reason for the fact that public servants are not placed upon a uniform standard in regard to superannuation. This bill indicates that they are not. The Minister should also give some information as to the number of persons who will be affected by this measure, the amount that it will cost the superannuation fund, and some explanation of the apparent anomalies in table 4 of the Superannuation Board's annual report. As I said before, the Opposition does not oppose this measure. We should vote for it but we feel that it is not as satisfactory as. it might be. It contains certain principles, that are not in the best interests of the employees of the Commonwealth at the present time. {: #subdebate-44-0-s1 .speaker-K6T} ##### Mr COSTA:
Banks .- This bill gives to honorable members an opportunity to examine the very important security plan that was worked out for the Public Service in 1922. In that year when the Superannuation Act came into operation it was a very good act. It is still very good, but it has been rendered ineffective to a large extent by the unstable economy that has developed since the legislation was first passed in 1922. However, this scheme provided a real measure of security to those who contributed to the superannuation fund from that year onward. After ten years' operation, when the depression came and the country experienced a deflationary period, retired public servants found themselves better off than they would have been if they had not begun to contribute to the fund in 1922. The scheme was most beneficial until we reached that period in our economy when the cost of living rose,, not by 1 per cent, or 2 per cent, at a time but by 100 per cent. Honorable member* can understand that these new circumstances greatly affected the efficiency of the original superannuation scheme for the Public Service. I agree with the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** that the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden),** in his second-reading speech, should have given more details of what the bill really means. It is a very technical measure. I know that the Treasurer will say, " If the information you want is not in the second-reading speech, you will find it all in the bill ". But honorable members do not get much time to go into the technicalities and legalities of bills of this kind. They are being brought down pretty fast. The Government is rushing business through this House and does not give honorable members a real opportunity to understand measures fully. The proposed increases in superannuation benefits provided for in this measure have (been elaborated by the honorable member for Bendigo. I have obtained some figures which, although not absolutely correct, are approximate. Naturally, with a fund that is fluctuating, with the number of contributors to it constantly changing, it is not easy to state the exact number of contributors at a given time. However, my information is that at the moment about 16,200 persons are receiving superannuation benefits from this fund. They include 1,000 children. Some of these are orphans and they will receive an increase of 15s. a week, making their pension 30s. a week. That is a very good increase, which the Opposition wholeheartedly supports. There are also children -of superannuated pensioners who are to receive an increase of 10s. a week to £1 a week. We heartily approve of that. But if from the total number receiving superannuation benefits the 1,000 children are subtracted, the result is that 15,200 persons are receiving payments from this fund. I understand that of those 15,200 persons the proposed amendment will benefit only 6,350 persons. From that point of view the measure is unsatisfactory. I understand that a conference was held between what is known as the Joint Conference of the Commonwealth Public Service Unions and the Public Service Board. Delegates to that conference favoured a plan to increase the value of the units by 2s. 6d. for the first eight units. That would mean that those who contributed for a small number of units quite a number of years ago, and who anticipated that eight units would provide them with a fairly reasonable pension after they retired, would receive an increase in benefit of £1; and all other contributors would be entitled to a like benefit also. The bill provides, however, that this is only a temporary arrangement, and will benefit only public servants who retired before 1942. As the honorable member for Bendigo pointed out, many of these people are now 80 years of age, and they will receive an additional 5s. a week. I venture to say that there would not be many retired public servants in that age group. There would not be many aged 75, and soon all those in both these age groups will pass out and the benefits that are being provided in this measure will lapse. The number of these pensioners will continually diminish until nobody will be receiving this 5s. a week increase; they will all have gone to their eternal reward. Those who will then be entitled to this benefit will be the group who retired between 1942 and 1947. They will not have much longer to go, either. I hope that by the time all these people have received their benefits and have gone to their eternal reward, inflation will have gone also. If the inflationary period comes to an end it will not be necessary to amend the act, as it has been amended three times since 1947, in an unsuccessful effort to keep pace with the inflationary spiral. There is just a risk that the benefits proposed in this bill will soon be out of date. As a result of the present drought I understand that many necessary commodities will be in short supply. Consequently, the prices of these goods will rise, and that will affect the purchasing power of the superannuation benefit. Consequently, it may be found urgently necessary next year to bring down another amending bill. The Opposition supports the bill because it will do some good for retired public servants. We would like to see all Commonwealth public servants receive some benefit under this measure. The Government should take into consideration the fact that all contributors to superannuation funds - not only public servants, but also many others - to provide for security in their old age, save the Government a great deal of money. I notice in the annual report of the Superannuation Board that the average number of units contributed for by Commonwealth public servants is 14.72. The value of those units works out at about £12 a week. On that basis, the average married member of the Public Service who contributes to the Superannuation Fund saves the Government, on his retirement. £3 15s. a week in social service payments. This fact should be taken into account by the Government when increasing the amount of superannuation benefit, and it should be a little more liberal in increasing the value of each unit. Commonwealth public servants, in addition to contributing to the Superannuation Fund, also pay taxes as do other citizens. Also, public servants save the Department of Social Services a considerable amount of money because when they are sick they do not receive unemployment or sickness benefits. That is another reason why there should be more liberality when these matters are being considered. Since this legislation was first enacted in 1922 the basic wage has increased from £4 a week to £13 14s. a week, an increase of about 300 per cent., and age and invalid pensions have rightly risen by 585 per cent. But prior to this bill becoming law, superannuation payments will have increased by only 75 per cent. So the value of superannuation has deteriorated very considerably. Quite a lot of interesting figures are contained in the annual report of the Superannuation Board. They have been commented upon by the honorable member for Bendigo. I should like to comment on the investment of funds. The annual report shows that the total amount of the funds invested at 30th June, 1956, was £44,300,000. The face value of securities held by the board was £44,600,000, of which £14,200,000, or 32 per cent., was invested in Commonwealth Government loans: and £30,300,000, or 68 per cent., was invested in semi-governmental loans. I know that the board has to be very wise and invest contributors' funds very securely. But it has been suggested, from time to time, by Public Service groups, that some of this money should be made available to contributors to the fund, that is Commonwealth public servants, to finance the building of their own homes. This is a very important matter. I think that aiding a public servant - a bread-winner - to buy his own home may be regarded as a gilt-edged security. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- Who would pay the administration costs? {: .speaker-K6T} ##### Mr COSTA: -- The honorable member for Petrie knows that in most of the States provision has been made for employees in various industries to form their own cooperative building societies. Those societies are administered free by the groups concerned. Small groups have attempted to form their own societies from time to time under State legislation but the fly in the ointment has been that they cannot get finance. Very reputable building societies, which have existed for years, have been unable to get finance immediately from the Commonwealth Government and have had to wait their turn, for two or three years. Here is a ready fund from which money could be made available for home construction to the people who contribute to the fund. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- It would be questionable, after the administrative charge had been made, whether the total rate of interest payable would not be higher than that payable on finance available from other sources. {: .speaker-K6T} ##### Mr COSTA: -- I believe that a way could be found to use this fund to assist Commonwealth public servants to procure their own homes. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- It is worth considering. {: .speaker-K6T} ##### Mr COSTA: -- It is worth considering and I hope that the board will consider it. Commonwealth public servants have attempted many times to form building groups and their problem has been to get finance. It is here. It would not be a bad thing if a certain portion of the Superannuation Fund were used for this purpose in order to give the scheme a trial. The construction of homes is a national problem. **Sir Douglas** Copland has stated that it is so urgent that the Commonwealth Government should confer with State Ministers in order to find a way of building about 75,000 homes each year, increasing to 80,000 a year by 1960. Possibly, the proposal that I have put forward would be one way of solving some of the problems in connexion with this important matter. Therefore, 1 would like the board to look at this proposal and see if it is wise. I think that it is wise from a national point of view, and I would like the board to put it into effect. Commonwealth Public Service groups have been looking for this kind of finance and there is a ready pool of it in the Superannuation Fund, in my opinion. I join with the honorable member for Bendigo in supporting the bill because it will improve the lot of superannuated Commonwealth public servants. It does not go all the distance that the Opposition would like it to go, but it does something to improve the situation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported. Message recommending appropriation reported. In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral's message): Motion (by **Mr. Roberton)** agreed to - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bin for an act to amend the Superannuation Act 1922- 19S6, and for other purposes. Resolution reported and adopted In committee: Consideration resumed. The bill. {: #subdebate-44-0-s2 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo -- I rise in order to secure some information from the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. Roberton)** with regard to the schedule attached to this bill. The schedule gives details of pensions payable to 23 persons in accordance with section 29 of the principal act. I ask my question because of the discrepancy between the schedule to the bill before the committee and that attached to the principal act. In 19S4, the Superannuation Act was amended, and in the schedule some 24 names were included. The rates of pension per annum, and the amounts payable by the Commonwealth were shown. Most of those names are included in the schedule to the bill now before us. I direct the Minister's attention to the rates of pension provided for certain persons whose names are included in the schedule. They are as follows: - All the other persons whose names are shown in the schedule attached to the principal act, and also in the schedule to this bill, have received substantial increases to their pensions, but the bill provides for these five persons the same pension rates as were provided in 19S4. Persons to whom the provisions of section 29 apply are those who have been retired and who are entitled to a pension based on the actuarial value of the contributions paid into the fund. As all these persons come under the provisions of section 29, I want to know why it is that eighteen of them have received increases, in some cases of as much as £130 a year, while in the other five cases no increases have been granted. I shall be very grateful to the Minister if he can give me this information. {: #subdebate-44-0-s3 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP -- I regret that, in the absence of the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** I cannot give the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** the detailed information that he requires. I can say, however - and it may be some explanation to the honorable member - that the superannuated persons whom he has mentioned are very largely ex-Army men who were retired under an interim arrangement. The schedule to the bill shows the increased rates that they- will receive. Five of them did not qualify for the increases because of the dates of their retirement. There is no other explanation of that aspect of the question so properly raised by the honorable member for Bendigo. . The honorable member has remarked upon the number of persons likely to be affected by this bill. There are some 16,200 pensioners, and, as the honorable member for Banks **(Mr. Costa)** has said, 6,350 of them will receive increases under this bill. In addition to that, of course, there are some 1,000 children also who will receive increases. The cost of the increases is apparently exercising the mind of the honorable member. It is estimated that the cost will be something less than £300,000. As to the two contributors mentioned by the honorable member for Bendigo, bom in 1877 and 1878 respectively, they are exState officers with no limit to their retiring age. The reason for the different rates can be given if the committee will bear with me for a few minutes. Many pensioners are receiving superannuation pensions calculated as a proportion of the salaries in force many years ago. The position of those who were retired in pre-war days was first examined, and an increase of 5s. a week in the value of each unit was determined as a contribution towards the difficulties that they face. From 1942 onwards salaries started to rise, and, correspondingly, the entitlement to pension benefits rose. Consequently a sliding scale of increases was necessary to provide a similar measure of alleviation to those who retired after 1942. For that reason, those who retired in a certain year receive an increase of 5s. a week under this bill; other increases of 4s. 6dM 4s. and 3s. 6d. a week have been provided for, according to the year of retirement. Most of those who retired after 5th April, 1947, enjoyed substantial salary increases, commonly called marginal increases. That is the reason - the only reason - for selecting that date as a cut-off point. The scheme of adjustment does reasonable justice to the group of pensioners now most in need of assistance. {: #subdebate-44-0-s4 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- I express my appreciation to the Minister for the information that he has given, but I must say that that information makes the whole position much more serious from the point of view of the Opposition than we understood it to be from the secondreading speech of the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden. We are now informed that of the 16,000 people at present receiving pensions only 6,000 will receive benefit under this measure in the form of an increase in the value of their units from 3s. 6d. to 5s. a week, whilst the remaining 10,000 will receive no benefit whatsoever. That certainly was not understood from the speech of the Treasurer, who used these words -** >The increase of £9 2s. per annum for those who retired on the 5th April 1947 will, therefore, be extended also to those who retire subsequently in similar circumstances. At least the Opposition side of the House was misled by the second-reading speech. It now appears that 10,000 superannuated public servants will receive no increase at all as a consequence of the passing of this measure, and in the view of the Opposition such treatment of public servants is neither right nor just. I appreciate the fact that in 1947 alterations in margins were extended to public servants following the decision in the Engineers case in 1946, the results of which gradually filtered through industry. But the mere fact that employees received an increase in margins can be no reason why they should not have the same rights on retirement in respect of the purchasing power of their pension as have other public servants. Even if they are in a position to take out extra units, they should not now be obliged to live under conditions which operated in 1922 when the original act was passed. At that time society did not, and could not, afford the conditions of living which we expect to-day. The basic wage was then £4 a week;, prices were relatively static, and we assumed that the same smooth passage of economic life with no sharp increases or decreases in prices would continue. As our standards of living have improved, the pension rate should be adjusted to give pensioners in their retirement a standard of living equal to that which they enjoyed at the time of their retirement. By denying to these 10,000 public servants an increase in the benefit- and I suppose all who retire in the future will also be denied an increase - the opportunity to enjoy the standard of living we are experiencing in society to-day is also denied them. Any measure that does that sort of thing is not a good measure. In a democratic country it is our duty and our function to afford to those who have given a lifetime of service to the Commonwealth of Australia the highest possible standard of living in their retirement. Cutting down their pension rates does not do that. For that reason, the bill now appears to be much worse than we were led to believe it was. {: #subdebate-44-0-s5 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP -- I am afraid that perhaps quite unintentionally the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** is creating his own difficulties, because the 10,000 people who are excluded will receive a corresponding benefit by qualifying automatically for higher units of pension before their retirement by virtue of the higher salaries they receive. The question of these 10s000 people, therefore, does not arise at this juncture. The measure is designed to be of some material assistance to the 6,000 adults and 1,000 children whom it affects. As I have said, the 10,000 people to whom we have referred are excluded by virtue of their more favourable circumstances during the period of their effective employment. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bil] - by leave - read a third time, {: .page-start } page 2854 {:#debate-45} ### DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-45-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 2821). {: #subdebate-45-0-s0 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- This measure is somewhat similar to that with which we have just dealt. It provides principally for an increase in the rate of pension payable in respect of children under the age of sixteen years from £26 to £52 per annum, and in the rate of pension payable in respect of orphan children under the age of sixteen years from £39 per annum to £78 per annum. The Opposition agrees with that particular provision. This measure provides for a new rate of gratuity to be paid to service personnel on retirement from the defence forces. It also provides for a re-engagement period of three years after six years service. These increased gratuities will probably assist in the recruitment of people to the defence forces of Australia. The Opposition raises no objection to the measure. {: #subdebate-45-0-s1 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr BARNARD:
Bass .- I have no desire to speak at any great length on this measure, but merely wish to mention one or two pertinent points. This measure is complementary to the one we have just passed. As outlined by the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** it provides for certain increases in pension for dependants of deceased pensioners and deceased contributors under the superannuation scheme. In each case the amount received under the existing legislation has been doubled. That indicates that the Government recognizes that the present benefits are insufficient. However, the increase of from £26 per annum to £52 per annum is completely inadequate if measured in terms of the tremendous increase in the cost of living that has taken place in recent years. Very few honorable members would be able to maintain a child on an amount of £52 per annum. In the second case the amount has been increased from £39 per annum to £78 per annum. This applies in the case of orphan children under the age of sixteen years and children of divorced parents, the husband being deceased. Although in terms of the amount payable under the existing legislation this increase might be regarded as generous, it is completely inadequate when measured in terms of the commitments to be borne by the widowed mothers. The Opposition does not oppose the measure. That was made clear by the honorable member for Bendigo, but I wanted to raise the two points that I have mentioned and to say on behalf of the Opposition that we still do riot consider the amounts to be sufficient. I pass from that point to the question of a gratuity, and this again is most important. I have always held the opinion that one reason why it has been extremely difficult for this Government, and indeed for other governments, to attract young people into the defence forces is the inadequacy of the gratuity that is paid to those who are compulsorily retired, in many instances while they are still in their thirties. I refer particularly to the young people who, to-day, are entering the permanent military forces immediately after leaving school, at an average age of seventeen years. They may do no better than retire with the rank of lieutenant. Under the bill, a lieutenant will retire after twenty years' service. That means that these young people are compulsorily retired at the age of 37 years. People who engage in the permanent military forces, particularly these young people, have had no opportunity to train for any other profession. Therefore, when they retire at, say, 37 years of age, obviously they are at a great disadvantage compared with those who left school at the same time as they did, but who went into some other profession in the community. The gratuity paid to a lieutenant who retires after nine years, service is only £210. That is completely insignificant! Certain amendments have been made. The Government has frequently expressed the desire to attract suitable people into the permanent military forces. If the Government is sincere in this, it will need to give more consideration to the gratuities that are paid to those who are compulsorily retired at the age laid down in the act. As I pointed out only a moment ago, the period of service for a lieutenant is only twenty years. A major retires after only 22 years' service. In all these instances, these men are still comparatively young. They are obviously at a disadvantage if compared with people who engage in other professions. Therefore, 1 suggest that that point of view should be further considered by the Government. Apart from this matter and the comments that I have made concerning the inadequacy of the amount paid to dependants of deceased pensioners, I have no intention of opposing the measure in any way. {: #subdebate-45-0-s2 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Wills .- I join with the honorable member for Bass **(Mr. Barnard)** and the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** in pointing out the rather parsimonious nature of the provisions made in this bill. If there is any fallacy in this matter, it is the fallacy behind the thinking that this fund should be complementary to the superannuation fund. In dealing with members of the defence forces, we are dealing with people whose service is different in kind, as well as different in degree, from the service of a person in the Public Service generally for the duration of his working life. The honorable member for Bass has pointed out the difficulties that occur as a result of people retiring at a comparatively early age, no matter what their rank may be. In consequence of that early retirement, they have the cost of re-establishing themselves in civil life with deflated money values and, therefore, the amounts mentioned in this amendment to the principal act are quite inadequate. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- There is also an element of risk. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- As the honorable member for Darebin, who has had some experience in this matter, says, there is an element of risk in the defence forces. Of course, anyone who has had any service or association with permanent servicemen will know of all the complications that arose during the last war in this connexion. I do not think that at any stage has this matter been tackled in a way that would solve the problems of service. These problems fall into four categories. First, there is the problem of superannuation as :such - giving a person security in retirement. Secondly, there is the problem that arises from service itself. Thirdly, there is the problem of recruiting people into the services and retaining their loyalty and service for as long as they are prepared to serve. Fourthly, there is the human problem which is approached inadequately in this bill - the problem of pensions for dependants of deceased members. I shall take those problems in the order in which I have enumerated them. An examination of the principal act, of the report of the Retirement Benefits Board and of this amendment indicates that an actuarial attitude has been brought to the consideration of this problem. But that is not the attitude that should be adopted. One should not attempt to bring to this problem the same attitude of mind as one would bring to a consideration of superannuation principles generally. The latest report of the board, which dealt with the administration of the fund for 1956, shows that there were 43,357 contributors, representing a net increase for the year of 228, after allowing for 3,647 retirements. Contributions paid during the year totalled £1,392,391. The interesting point is that the fund is especially solvent. The system is based upon the ability of the fund to pay rather than on the needs of the servicemen, the aims of the Government and the problems that have to be solved. For instance, last year 2,274 pensions were in force and the annual liability of the fund and the Commonwealth arising from pensions in force at 30th June, 1956, was only £67,776. The fund has total investments of £8,474,664, and the interest alone amounted to £322,809. As far as the Government is concerned - and unfortunately this has been a tradition in this sort of fund - the fund is a paying concern. I believe that we should bring an entirely different attitude of mind to bear upon it. I shall refer now to the amounts enumerated in the bill. After six years' service, the gratuity to the member is £120. After nine years' service, the gratuity is £210 - about the price of a television set. After twelve years' service - twelve years out of a man's life in a service which imposes very great strains upon his loyalty and devotion to his task - the payment he will receive is £360. I ask honorable members: Where can a man find a home to buy - apart perhaps from a war service home, if he is exceptionally fortunate - on a deposit of £360? The first consideration should be: What are the problems that face a serviceman when retiring from the service after the specified period of time and how can we best meet them? By interjection, an honorable member has pointed out that a man would need at least £1,000 to establish himself in civilian life. From that figure we should work backwards. Instead of taking the minimum payment in the first instance, we should work from a sum laid down by the board itself after considering the problems involved, including the declining value of money and so on, and base the calculation upon the requirements of a soldier, sailor or airman who retires, perhaps at the age of 30, and who possibly has acquired a wife and a number of children. Regard should be had to what it will cost to establish him in civil life and to start off home life properly, because this is one of the main problems that face most servicemen. It is not necessary to talk to many servicemen to learn that one of the principal disabilities involved in serving full time in the services is the interruption of family life through continually being posted from one place to another. I say that the act and this proposed amendment of it make no provision whatever to solve these pressing problems. I understand that, in 1958, a large proportion of the present Regular Army cadre staffs are due for retirement. In 1952, there was a large body of enlistment. The six-year term of service of many of the servicemen who enlisted then will end next year, and I know quite a number of personnel who propose to leave the service immediately their time is up. I suggest that we must devise a system which will attract more people to remain permanently in the services. I believe that the provisions of this act should have been presented for consideration by the Parliament earlier in the sessional period, so that they could have received something better than the rather cursory examination that they are receiving at this stage of the sittings, when everything has to be done hurriedly and nobody can give proper attention to the whole of the problems involved. Unfortunately, it appears likely that only honorable members from this side of the House will contribute to this debate. I am sure that honorable members opposite, many of whom have had a good deal of experience in the services, would have something of value to contribute to a discussion of this nature. As one of my colleagues points out, there are only a few supporters of the Government present at the moment, but perhaps that is not entirely their fault. The fact is that this proposed amendment has been introduced at a stage of the sittings when a good deal of interest seems to be devoted elsewhere, so that the House is not giving sufficient time and consideration to a matter that is associated very closely with the welfare to some 43,000 people in the services from whom we will demand the absolute degree of sacrifice, should that be necessary. Those 43,000 people are the backbone of any future expansion of the ser vices. They are 43,000 very important people. Of course, this amendment, which was foreshadowed in the Budget speech of the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden),** will touch only a very few of them. As the honorable member for Bass has pointed out, this is a very parsimonious measure. The children of deceased contributors to the fund are to receive £1 a week. That will be their pension. For a child now in infancy, the total payment by the time it reaches the age of sixteen years will be only a little more than £800. I say that, in this regard, the provision is completely inadequate. Honorable members on both sides of the House, particularly the Ministers associated with the defence ministries, should be giving very serious consideration to this matter of the gratuity payment. I, personally, think that the retiring ages for officers of the permanent forces are ridiculously low. At a time when they have acquired years of experience, and when they could make, perhaps, their most valuable contribution to the services, they are thrown out. If they retire as lieutenants, as the honorable member for Bass has pointed out, some of them may be in their late thirties. Even if they reach the rank of captain or major and retire at about 47 years of age, it is nonsense for us to waste the years of service that they would still have before them if they were treated as ordinary public servants. Because of this early retiring age, a particular duty devolves on us to see that reestablishment in civilian life is accomplished without heartbreaks. I am sure that the act, as it is at present, does not guard against heartbreaks. This amendment is little more than a machinery measure. It does not even acknowledge the devaluation of money, nor does it acknowledge the pressing problems of how we are to attract to the services the types of people we want in them, how we are to keep their services once we get them, and the need to give them the prospect of easy re-establishment in civil life. Those problems are not attacked at all. Therefore, our approval of this measure to-night is rather grudging. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and committed' pro forma; progress reported. Message recommending appropriation reported. In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral's message): Motion (by **Mr. Beale)** agreed to - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1956. Resolution reported and adopted. In committee: Consideration resumed. The bill. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2858 {:#debate-46} ### STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-46-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 2824). {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- The measure that we are now considering was represented by the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** as being quite an innocuous one to which he felt that no objection could be raised. This debate at least affords us the opportunity to examine the present position on the Australian waterfront, and to consider the Minister's bungling of the whole matter of the present industrial dispute. I want to take the Minister to task, first, for his initial attack on the waterside workers in an answer that he gave to a " Dorothy Dix " question on 14th November. The honorable member for Robertson **(Mr. Dean)** had asked the Minister whether the present dispute on the waterfront had any relation to the recent return from overseas of **Mr. Healy,** the general secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. The Minister, in reply, said that he believed that it was more than a coincidence that there had been a resurgence of serious industrial unrest on the waterfront following the return to Australia of **Mr. Healy.** He went on to say - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . for most of the period that Healy has been overseas, there was remarkable quiet on the waterfront by contrast with earlier times. The Minister adopted the usual tactics of anti-Labour political parties, which try to dismiss any industrial unrest merely on the assumption that it was caused by the Australian Communist party for political reasons. I have no doubt that there may have been occasions when the Australian Communist party has used an industrial situation, if it thought it could turn it to some advantage, but it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that if Healy had stayed overseas there would have been no trouble on the waterfront at present, as the Minister tried to convey in his reply to the honorable member for Robertson. Strangely enough, despite what the Minister said about this period of peace, the records show that, far from Healy being responsible for the present trouble, shortly after his return to Australia, he was invited by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to attend a conference called to deal with the trouble prevalent on the Australian waterfront. The conference was held on Tuesday, 22nd October last. It was attended by the three members of the authority; by **Mr. Monk,** the president, and **Mr. J.** Kenny, the junior vice-president, of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; and **Mr. Beitz,** the general **president, Mr. Healy,** the general secretary, and **Mr. Roach,** the assistant general secretary, representing the Waterside Workers Federation. The authority admitted that the prevailing industrial unrest, which the conference was called to examine, had arisen during the period when Healy was overseas. This campaign of attacking the waterside workers and suggesting that they are only troublemakers in the community will not lead to smooth working on the Australian waterfront. Let us examine the position and see what caused the trouble. The Minister tried to make out that it arose from the deregistration of a waterside worker by the name of Krespi. Nothing of the kind! All that Krespi's case did was to highlight the troubles that were present. It was like the last straw on the camel's back. The union felt that it had to protest, and make a stand. It may surprise a number of members of the Parliament to learn that the Waterside Workers Federation has not, up to this time, questioned Krespi's dismissal. He was dismissed from his place of employment because it was alleged that he had been absent from his work, and that, when he returned, he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. It was the events subsequent to his dismissal to which the waterside workers took strong exception. They say, neither that Krespi is guilty, nor that he is not guilty, of the offences charged against him. Their argument - quite rightly - is that the matter has not yet been properly investigated and determined. Subsequent to his dismissal, Krespi was charged with assaulting a foreman. He countercharged, saying that, after he had left the wharf where he had been employed, he was followed by two of the foremen, who attacked him. It can be said for Krespi that at least he suffered physical injury. Whether he suffered the injury in the attack that he alleges occurred, or whether he suffered it elsewhere, is a matter for proper investigation to prove. It is a fact that he was able to produce to his union a medical certificate stating that he had sustained a broken rib. In my opinion, that at least requires explanation. It is supporting evidence of Krespi's claim. This incident occurred on " Oceania " on 11th October. On 21st October, **Mr. Murphy,** as a delegate for the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, held an investigation. Krespi's defence was that he had not been absent from his work - that he had been in the toilet when he was alleged to have been absent. Krespi does not deny that he struck one of the foremen, but he says that he was provoked. He says that the foreman remarked, " I have had enough of you dagoes ". Krespi says that, in retaliation, he then hit the foreman. But it can be shown that there was some provocation for this alleged offence. The Waterside Workers Federation does not claim that Krespi was justified in striking the foreman, but it considers that the procedure adopted by the authority indicates that there is good reason for the union's claim that, on the Australian waterfront there is one law for the waterside workers, and another for the ship-owners. That is the union's main complaint. After Krespi had been assaulted, according to his own statement, he returned to the wharf to report the matter to the job delegate. The police were then called, and he was arrested. As I have already mentioned, he was eventually able to prove that he had sustained a broken rib. The union is able to produce evidence to support Krespi's claim that he was provoked. **Mr. Minter,** a member of the Waterside Workers Federation, said that the foreman threatened to fight Krespi, and later came back with skin off his arm and admitted that there had been a fight. I come now to the present arrangements on the waterfront, and I will indicate why this measure will not improve the situation. It is an unsatisfactory approach to the problem and, in my opinion, the Minister, who has completely bungled his handling of these industrial matters, is merely using this device in an attempt to cover up the futility of the steps that he took at an earlier stage of the dispute. The proposals contained in this bill will not end the dispute on the waterfront. One of the objections of the union to the present scheme of things is that, when an inquiry is conducted by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority into charges against a waterside worker, the employers are allowed to have their representatives appear before the authority, which, I remind the House, is supposed to be an impartial body, not as witnesses, but as prosecutors. Why should this be? I think that the authority should be empowered to call witnesses, and the Waterside Workers Federation raises no objection to representatives of the shipowners giving evidence. However, it does object to representatives of the shipowners being allowed to crossexamine, and to appear in the capacity of prosecutors. The waterside workers have directed attention to the counter charges that they have made against the stevedoring company concerned under section 31(l.)(b) of the Stevedoring Industry Act. They claim that the employers have breached the provisions of the act. But what happens? When an employer makes allegations against a waterside worker, the employee is immediately dismissed. It is completely within the power of a foreman to dismiss him. When an inquiry finds in favour of a waterside worker, as inquiries have done on occasions, the employee is not reimbursed for all the time lost, but, if he had not completed his shift, he may claim for the unworked balance of the shift during which his dismissal occurred. He can be completely exonerated by the inquiry, yet the authority has no power to see that the man is reimbursed for all time lost. Under the present arrangement, if the shipowners want to victimize a waterside worker all they have to do is get their foremen continually to suspend his registration. The suspension, which in the first instance may only be for one or two days, may be extended under the act, for almost any period of time. The Stevedoring Industry Act provides that the authority can declare that any day upon which the suspension is operating is not a normal working day. So that if waterside workers are engaged in a dispute on any ship in any part of the harbour while other waterside workers are under suspension, all the authority has to do is to declare that that day is not a normal working day. Then it does not count in respect of the suspension. That is what is being done in Sydney and in other ports to-day. The authority suspends the men when they refuse to work under these particular foremen, and having suspended them it then proceeds, because disputes occur in other parts of the port, to extend the suspension by declaring that that day is not a normal working day. Do honorable members think that we will have smooth working on the waterfront if that is the way we are going to deal with these matters? **Mr. Murphy,** the delegate of the authority who held the investigation into the suspension of Krespi, said when the question of provocation was raised - >Even if the allegations made with regard to provocation were true- And he does not say they were not true - in my opinion this would not justify the assault on the foreman. That may be a correct statement to make, but, on the other hand, what does the authority intend to do with respect to Krespi's allegations of assault, which are supported by the evidence of other waterside workers? What action does it propose to take against the foremen concerned? It does not propose any action at all, and that is why the waterside workers claim that there is discrimination against them with respect to disciplinary powers on the waterfront. According to the legal representative of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, **Mr. O'Connor,** it had no power to force the presence of foremen before the investigation. My reading of the act - I do not claim to be a lawyer, and I think that the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** also would know very little about the law - seems to indicate that the authority has the power to compel the attendance of any witness it wishes to call before the investigation. If the authority has not got that power, is it not evident that the waterside workers have established their claim that there is one law for the waterside worker and another for the shipowner and his agents, when it comes to applying disciplinary measures on the waterfront? The Waterside Workers Federation claims that the Sydney branch has obtained further evidence that fully confirms Krespi's allegation. Supporters of the Government are claiming that the waterside workers are entirely responsible for the disturbance that has now occurred. **Mr. Justice** Ashburner called a conference on 2nd November, and at that conference the shipowners and the Stevedoring Industry Authority were represented by **Mr. Burt** and **Mr. McKenzie. Mr. McKenzie** suggested that an inquiry should be conducted by His Honour, and that each party should be asked to agree to the decision arrived at. The waterside workers agreed. The only condition they sought was that during the course of the inquiry the foremen who were involved should not be employed on their usual work, but should be transferred to some other form of activity. They asked that, unless that was agreed to, Krespi's suspension should be lifted until the inquiry was completed. That was a reasonable request. The foremen stevedores were in agreement with this procedure. The Waterside Workers Federation had had correspondence with the Foremen Stevedores Association. It had agreed to an inquiry, and it had agreed to co-operate. As I have already indicated, the shipowners suggested that the inquiry be held. When **Mr. Justice** Ashburner called them together, on 4th November, it was discovered that the shipowners had not carried out their undertaking to see that the foremen were transferred to other work, but they then gave a further undertaking. On 6th November, when the inquiry was supposed to commence, and the waterside workers were prepared not only to participate in the investigation, but also to accept the decision, even if it was against them, the people who objected to the inquiry proceeding were the foremen stevedores, through their counsel. They were supported by **Mr. Smyth,** Q.C., who appeared for the shipowners. If the authority really desired industrial peace on the waterfront and a settlement of this dispute, one would have expected them to press for a continuation of the inquiry, but counsel for the authority said that the authority would not necessarily feel bound by any decision made by His Honour. Under those circumstances, **Mr. Justice** Ashburner decided that it was useless to proceed, and the inquiry collapsed. The only party that was prepared to co-operate and continue was the Waterside Workers Federation. Let us have a look at these heavy penalties that the Minister suggests are provided for offences committed by shipowners. To-day, he tabled the report of the Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30th June, 1957. On page 34, under the heading " Discipline of employers ", the report states - >The provisions of the 1956 Stevedoring Industry Act relating to the discipline of employers are markedly different to those contained in the 1949 legislation. The 1949 legislation provided that the authority that was established, the Stevedoring Industry Board, had power to apply disciplinary measures not only against the employees but also against the employers. The 1956 act changed this, and now the disciplinary powers of the Stevedoring Industry Authority apply only to waterside workers and not to shipowners. The report says: - >Section 23 of the 1949 act placed employers in a similar position to waterside workers by giving the Board power to cancel or suspend registration. > >The conclusions of the Committee of Inquiry on the question of discipline of employers are set out in paragraph 38 of the report of the committee and are inter alia: - 38. (b) " It is necessary in this industry in the interests of efficiency that there should be discipline both over employers and employees and that this discipline should be both prompt and uniform and should be administered by a statutory authority . . ." > >"The exercise of discipline through the courts is unsuitable for the day-to-day requirements of the waterfront. It involves proceedings which are too cumbersome and not sufficiently prompt to be effective and has been found to be impracticable . . ." > >" There should be some system of discipline against employers administered 1 by the statutory authority . . ." That was the finding of the body that was established by this Parliament to investigate the ramifications of this industry. The recommendation of the committee of inquiry was that whatever statutory body was established to control the waterfront, it should have power to apply penalties to employers as well as to employees. The report goes on - >Under the 1956 Act, the Statutory Authority's power to discipline employers was taken away and certain acts by employers are now, by virtue of Sections 33 and 34, made offences, punishable upon conviction by the Commonwealth Industrial Court, by a fine of not less than £100 and not more than £1,000. That is perfectly true. But how many prosecutions of employers have taken place? What is the use of having severe penalties included in the legislation if no prosecutions are launched against the employers? That does not indicate there is fair and impartial treatment of employees who commit offences. To show that numerous complaints have been made in respect of breaches under this provision committed by employers, the report, at the bottom of page 34, states - >During the year, the Authority considered a number of cases with a view to instituting legal proceedings under the Act. In some of these cases the Authority formed the view that the facts were not such as to warrant the institution of such proceedings, and, instead, appropriate warnings were issued to the employers concerned. > >In certain other cases which are referred to below, the Authority considered that the incidents were of such a nature as to warrant the institution of proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Act and they were accordingly referred to the Crown Law Authorities. So, even the Stevedoring Industry Authority was satisfied that in regard to certain of the complaints there was every justification and ground to institute proceedings. But then the matter is referred to the Crown Law authorities who discover that even in the legislation that was passed through this Parliament, there are flaws which prevent any action from being taken against employers under sections 33 and 34 of the Stevedoring Industry Act unless there is evidence to show that there have been complaints in respect of all of the offences provided for. This seems to be a preposterous interpretation of the act. It means, in effect, that employers could be guilty of two of the actions that are regarded as offences under the act, but if they were not guilty of all three, there was no punishable offence at all. That appears to be an utterly ridiculous position into which the Government has now put the waterfront industry. The union went to the trouble of getting an opinion from **Sir Garfield** Barwick, and he ridiculed the contention of the Commonwealth Crown Law authorities. He does not accept the opinion of the Commonwealth Crown Law authorities that no prosecution could be launched against the employers on the grounds now submitted by the Government. We naturally ask, as do the waterside workers: Why have there not been prosecutions against the employers? To-day, I received a long telegram from the Waterside Workers Federation which put the matter very clearly. It is as follows: - >Only one summons has been issued against employers and that within the last few weeks hundreds of waterside workers have been disciplined. It goes on - >The statutory authority should have power to discipline registered workers and registered employers. The present system is not only unfair but is completely lacking in equity and natural justice. The union puts the situation very clearly and fairly to this Parliament. How can we hope to get the men back to work? It is not a question of Krespi. The Minister introduced the question of whether Krespi was a suitable person to be employed on the waterfront. That is an entirely different issue, divorced from the present consideration. If it is right that the authority should have the power to determine whether a person is suitable to continue in waterfront employment, why has not the authority power to determine whether a foreman stevedore is a suitable person to continue in the industry? But it cannot do that. That is a matter solely for the shipowners. The waterside workers are able to give the name of a foreman stevedore employed by the very stevedoring company involved in this dispute - the Central Wharf Stevedoring Company - who has been involved in more than 30 fights with members of the Waterside Workers Federation, and no action has been taken against him. There has been no suspension or proper investigation by the authority because it says that under the legislation it has no power to take any action. Is that dealing fairly with the industry and those engaged in it? In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Labour party, something has to be done. The union, in desperation was driven to make a stand in respect of this particular matter. There are many things happening on the waterfront. It is not merely a question of deregistration and suspension of employees. That is bad enough, but there is discrimination in the treatment given to employers and employees. There are all sorts of provocative acts on the part of the shipowners to-day because they believe that the employment situation has moved in their favour. Everybody in this country knows to-day that on the Australian waterfront the employment position is not so good as it was a little while ago. Import restrictions imposed by this Government, the international situation and drought conditions are some of the factors responsible for a falling off of employment on the Australian waterfront. But here is the amusing part of it. The shipowners and the Stevedoring Industry Authority, supported by this Government, have always contended that the waterside workers should keep a full quota of men. available in every port in Australia. But they do not hesitate to suspend them upon the most trivial ground when they do not require their services. Consequently, we find that many of these disputes are provoked by the owners themselves. Let usexamine the situation in regard to sling loads. There will never be peace on the waterfront unless these problems are faced and some solution found for them. No solution is contained in what the Minister now proposes. The Minister, in his secondreading speech on this bill, said that there is now a case before the High Court, and in view of previous decisions given, evidently the Government is expecting that the High Court will declare that the Commonwealth Industrial Court cannot be validly regarded as an appeal authority against decisions made by the Stevedoring Industry Authority. Therefore, the Minister said, if we do not do something about it now and the High Court should give such a decision while the Parliament is in recess, there will be no appeal authority. Consequently, if the Stevedoring Industry Authority suspends men for an indefinite period or has proceeded to deregister them, those men would have no place of appeal during that period. For that reason we do not raise any objection to that procedure. We think there ought to be an appeal authority. If the men cannot go to the court, they ought to be permitted to go to the commission. The other alteration mentioned by the Minister is that in order to overcome the difficulty now brought to light by the Crown Law authorities a slight amendment is proposed to the section dealing with offences committed by employers, to provide that proceedings can be taken under any of the headings set out in the legislation. We support that proposal as well - not that we expect there will be any great improvement in the situation - but it will at least destroy the argument that has been used by this Government and by the Stevedoring Industry Authority as to why it has not taken action against the shipowners concerning some of the complaints that have been made about them. It will put them to the test of whether they propose to do anything about it. I mentioned sling loads. This measure does not do anything to solve this problem on the Australian waterfront. The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** in the speeches he has made in this House, and by interjection also, has endeavoured to lead honorable members and the Australian public to believe that the waterside workers are a most unreasonable body of men and that they determine sling loads For themselves. That has been the impression created by the honorable member's speeches. It may surprise him to know that at no time have the waterside workers been in a position to determine sling loads, and that at no time have they ever argued that they ought to be the people to exercise the sole right to determine this matter. During the war years the authority which was established to control the waterfront determined the sling loads, not the waterside workers. Now, the shipowners, not being satisfied with the sling loads determined by the authority established by this Parliament, and thinking that this antiunion Government will support them in any attack on industrial conditions have persuaded **Mr. Justice** Ashburner that sling loads should be determined not by the authority, but solely by the shipping companies and their employees. The shipowners have issued what they call guide sheets to give foremen some idea of what a sling load should be - from the shipowners' viewpoint, of course. In order to show the confusion and unfairness of the Government's attitude and that of the authority to this question I shall tell the House about a ship called the " Malaita " which is at present in Sydney Harbour. It has been discharging copra. It has been declared that sixteen bags of copra should go to the sling. Never at any time in the history of waterfront work in this country have waterside workers on the Sydney waterfront been asked to include sixteen bags of copra in a sling. Strangely enough, although this dispute in respect of sling loading has proceeded in the port of Sydney, another vessel the " Sinkiang " has entered Newcastle Harbour and, in unloading it, the waterside workers are required to put only twelve bags of copra into a sling. Even the shipowners themselves, evidently, cannot make up their minds as to the proper amount of copra to place in a sling. I do not claim to be fully conversant with the situation in the south, but at every port north of Sydney, no more than twelve bags of copra are placed in a sling. So it is quite obvious that the shipowners in the port of Sydney are altering industrial conditions that have existed for many years on the Sydney waterfront. In my opinion, this is provoking a great deal of the trouble. Whilst the shipowners have added to the quantity of material or goods that must be placed in a sling, they have sought to reduce the number of men working in the holds. Until recently, potatoes were discharged at the rate of twelve bags to the sling by the use of eight men in the hold. Now, the shipowners have reduced the number of men in the hold from eight to six, and they have increased the number of bags to the sling from twelve bags to fifteen! It is no wonder that there is industrial trouble. One of the things that the Government and the authority should examine is the tremendous increase in the accident rate among waterside workers. In one week, three waterside workers lost their lives on the Australian waterfront as a result of industrial accidents. So it can be seen that this is a dangerous occupation. I want to refer to a matter which concerns a waterside worker who suffered an injury. This will show what the union is battling against in order to maintain conditions won by great personal sacrifices over the years. No doubt, this Parliament will be amazed to learn of the experiences of a waterside worker who was seriously injured whilst working aboard a ship some eighteen months ago, was in hospital for a period, and had to undergo a number of operations. This man suffered injury from which he has not fully recovered although he is now working in the industry again. A claim was made for workers' compensation for this man. The case went before the compensation commission. Negligence was admitted and he got an award. Immediately he got an award the shipowners, or the insurance company, discovered that there was a flaw in the act. An appeal was made to the High Court and it was argued that although negligence had been established, the negligence was claimed to be not on the part of the company but on the part of its employee. The award was set aside, and if this waterside worker now wants to be compensated for industrial injury he will have to take action against the unfortunate foreman under whom he was working aboard the ship. The shipping company and the insurance company have wiped their hands of any responsibility. The Government ought to attend to these matters. It has been the practice for as long as I can remember for a company to have to accept responsibility for the negligence of its employees. Evidently that situation has been changed by the High Court's decision. Unless these things are rectified how can the Government expect to have peace on the waterfront? This measure is only a face saver for the Minister for Labour and National Service. It provides that in the event of the High Court deciding in a certain way in respect to a matter which is now before it the waterside worker who is suspended or de-registered will have the right of appeal to the commission instead of to the Industrial Court as at present. The Opposition does not object to that. Nor does it object to the other slight amendment designed to make it possible to overcome the announced opinion of the Crown law authorities in regard to the power to proceed against employers. But we do not regard the carrying of these amendments as a satisfactory solution to the trouble on the waterfront. If the Government wants discipline on the waterfront it must have a code of discipline that applies to employers as well as employees. It will have to clothe the statutory authority which controls waterfront employment with the power that it had before the introduction of the 1956 act to take disciplinary action against any section of the industry where such action is believed to be warranted. I heard the Minister say that as the de-registration of a company was a serious matter not only for the company but for its employees, the imposition of fines should be sufficient. He mentioned " heavy " fines, but under this measure fines may range from £100 to £1,000. Who would regard £1,000 as a heavy penalty to impose on the wealthy shipping and stevedoring companies operating on the Australian coast? It would be the equivalent to the price of a tram fare in the case of a worker, and probably not that. Is there any insuperable difficulty in the way of giving to the authority the power to deregister a stevedoring company if it commits an offence? If the stevedoring authority were working efficiently the employees of a deregistered company could be provided with work under other employers, because work on the waterfront would still proceed, even if a company were deregistered. Work on the waterfront can be interfered with seriously if any large number of waterfront workers is deregistered or suspended. But a stevedoring company can be deregistered without causing any great dislocation. It simply means that the authority has to set about reorganizing the waterfront to absorb the workers who have been displaced as a result of the de-registration of a company. I hope that when Parliament reassembles the Minister will not persist in saying that all this trouble is due to the activities of the Communists and the Communist officials of the union. Why has not the Government consulted its own authority which invited the general secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation to a conference immediately he returned to this country, not merely to deal with the present situation, but to deal with the generally unsatisfactory conditions on the Australian waterfront. The Government will not serve any useful purpose by continuing with its present tactics. The Opposition wants the Government to make a proper examination of the problems of the Australian waterfront, giving due and proper consideration to the viewpoint of the Waterside Workers Federation which in my opinion - and this was proved during the war years - has done a remarkably good job in the interests of the Australian nation. Waterside workers should not be considered a lawless body, as this Government tries to represent them. Having lived for some time in a district where many of these waterside workers reside, I can say that they are just as reasonable members of the community as are members of any other section of our people. They have been labouring under terrific handicaps, difficulties and disabilities, imposed upon them by an anti-union and anti-Labour government. We want the Government to examine their problems in a proper way, and to give them an authority which can impose, without any show of partiality towards any one section, disciplinary measures in the industry when they are required. If the Government does that, it can hope to achieve peace, but it will certainly not deal with this situation effectively by means of the couple of amendments to the act that the Minister has now put before us in this measure. {: #subdebate-46-0-s1 .speaker-KE7} ##### Mr KEARNEY:
Cunningham -- We have been told that the basis of the Government's approach to the problems of the waterfront is that justice shall be meted out, under the industrial code that applies in the industry. That statement has been completely confounded by the particular case that has stirred the Government to action, and has given the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** an opportunity to scramble back from the extremity of the limb to the main trunk and to find a secure place from which to re-examine his position and devise a new approach to put before this House at a later date. The attitude of this Government to the problems of waterside workers, as is shown by its legislative enactments, is completely devoid of any semblance of justice. Any one who cares to analyse the position must conclude that we have one law for the shipping companies and their representatives, and a completely different law for the waterside workers. The case of John Krespi concerns only one incident, but it highlights what has been going on on the waterfront for some years in Sydney, in the Port Kembla area, as well as in other places. It emphasizes the fact that waterside workers should be given just treatment. This proposal of the Government that we are now considering does not meet the position. The legislation before us is merely a face-saver for the Government. Honorable members opposite should consider the facts relating to the Krespi case. If they do, they must agree that the facts revealed by the inquiry into the incident show that a position exists that calls for positive action in order to prevent a recurrence of such incidents. Let me read to honorable members a report that I have of the circumstances surrounding the Krespi case. It is as follows - >On the 28th October, 1957, a member of the Sydney Branch (of the Waterside Workers' Federation), John Krespi, was deregistered by the Local Representative because, after he had been dismissed for being absent from his place of work and being under the influence of liquor, he assaulted a foreman. > >The incident occurred at the vessel " Oceania," berthed at No. 10 Walsh Bay, Sydney, on the 11th October, 1957. A Red Discharge was issued by the Central Wharf Stevedoring Company, which read as follows - > >Krespi (8130) was found to be missing from his post at 6.30 p.m. At 7.15 p.m., on resumption of work after smoko, he reappeared under the influence of liquor, and being informed that he was finished, he abused and assaulted Foreman J. Toomey. Inspector Hopwood was in attendance and witnessed the incident. Krespi's number was removed from the work board, and at 8.30 a.m. on Monday, 21st October, an inquiry was opened by J. A. Murphy of the Stevedoring Authority. That is a very simple statement of the position from the point of view of the Central Wharf Stevedoring Company. It explains the company's action from its point of view. The report goes on - >At the Inquiry, after evidence had been given by **Mr.** Toomey, the foreman concerned, **Mr. O'Brien,** another foreman on the job, and **Mr. Hopwood,** the Authority's Inspector, **Mr. Krespi** stated that when he returned *tn* his place of work after smoko Foreman Toomey told him he was finished. He asked what for. and he said he was told, " because he was missing." He denied thai he was missing, and said he was in the toilet. He then claimed that Foreman Toomey said to him, " I have had enough of you dagoes." " I then hit him in the back because he called me a dago." What man in this country is not entitled to defend himself against a rotten, dirty slur by a foreman or anybody else? There is not one honorable member of this House who would not respond vigorously to such a slur cast upon him. The report continues - >He then went on to say that when he walked away from the gate to go home, **Mr. Sykes** (a foreman on the job) came to him and said, "You t)- . I will fight you." This shows the serious conditions that prevail on the waterfront. Any member of this House would respond, under similar conditions, in a perfectly Australian manner, to such an approach by these domineering people who have the power on the waterfront to take the bread and butter out of the mouths of waterside workers with whom they do not agree. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr Anderson: -- What nonsense! {: .speaker-KE7} ##### Mr KEARNEY: -- It is the truth, and the honorable member for Hume can analyse the facts if he wants to. The report then goes on - " I told Sykes ' 1 don't want to fight anyone ', but he put his hands up, and then another foreman came behind him and punched me in the ribs." Here we have an instance of a double attack by two of the minions of big business. The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** would not have a clue about these things. He would not know what the Australian waterfront was. His whole attitude towards Australian workers oozes with bias and is coldly reactionary. There is not one atom of Australianism in this honorable member's attitude. The report continues - " They then went away, and 1 went to the job to see the delegate to tell him the two foremen had assaulted me in the street. After that two policemen came and took me away in a car. I went to the police station and was there all night. In the morning I went into the court and was dismissed. I found that my rib was broken." This case has occupied the forefront of attention, but, as has been said by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** this isolated case is not what calls for action on the waterfront. The waterside workers have been labouring under difficulties for years. They have suffered provocation, assault and battery by all manner of people. A couple of weeks ago, the Minister for Labour and National Service was very prompt in giving this House and the Australian public the police record of this man Krespi. We have not heard any statement from the Minister as to the police record of the foremen involved in the case. That is a matter yet to be looked into. If there is such a police record, for either of the foremen concerned, it should be produced in this House. I have reason to believe that there is a police record in existence, and, furthermore, that it is a bad record. Honorable members should be told of that record by the Minister for Labour and National Service, who poses as a reasonable kind of fellow in the handling of industrial problems. He is a sham and a fraud, and he is a hypocrite with regard to his whole approach to the handling of these problems, and the quicker the people understand that this is so the better. {: #subdebate-46-0-s2 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND -- Order! To whom did the honorable member refer? {: .speaker-KE7} ##### Mr KEARNEY: -- The Minister for Labour and National Service. {: #subdebate-46-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member will withdraw and apologize to the Chair. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable member was talking about the foreman. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member said, in reply to my question, that he referred to the Minister, and I have asked for a withdrawal and an apology. {: .speaker-KE7} ##### Mr KEARNEY: -- I withdraw. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- And apologize. {: .speaker-KE7} ##### Mr KEARNEY: -- And I apologize. These matters should be taken into account when we are considering waterfront problems. We are considering an industry that represents, virtually, the lifeblood of commerce in this country, and it is incumbent upon any government which is handling the day-to-day problems of the waterfront to ensure that justice is dispensed evenly to all sections concerned. The facts should be analysed and an endeavour made to ascertain reasons for the disputes that occur, which are responsible for a considerable proportion of the man-hours lost. The proportion of man-hours lost through industrial disputes on the waterfront was 5.8 per cent, in 1954-55, and 3.7 per cent, in 1956-57. Matters of that kind should be looked at when we are dealing with amendments to legislation that relates to the waterfront. I refer now to stoppages reported at Port Kembla on Friday 2nd August, Monday 5th August, Sunday 11th August, Friday 23rd August, and Wednesday 28th August, when a total of 8,820 manhours were lost. In forwarding these complaints the authority made no mention of the fact that delays in the performance of stevedoring operations occurred due to its own failure to comply with the provisions of the act. On Thursday, 1st August, the vessel "Mulera " lost 19 man-hours as a result of a stoppage owing to the failure of the authority to provide a safety net across a brow adjacent to the working position. I point out to honorable members that the authority itself failed to provide a safety net, and it expected *the* men to proceed to work in the absence of that net. The men rightly refused to work under those conditions, which were a breach of the established safety measures on the waterfront. On the following day, 2nd August, the Port Kembla Stevedoring Company caused a loss of 88 man-hours when a gang picked up to load steel was unable to commence work because the vessel's gear had not been prepared for the loading of heavy girders. Again on the 2nd and 3rd August, that same company caused a loss of 139 manhours on the vessel " Carradale " when a cleat to which a preventer guy on the midship derrick was secured, pulled out of the deck at 5.25 p.m. on the 2nd instant. The Stevedoring Authority found that the accident had been caused by the method used to secure the preventer guy, which was not corrected until 9.30 a.m. the following day after the nautical surveyor ruled that the guys should be rigged in a safe manner. There we had an incident occurring on account of laxity by the Stevedoring Authority in the handling of that particular vessel, as a result of which 139 man-hours were lost. The action of the authority was condemned by the nautical surveyor who was called in. On that occasion, on 2nd August, on the second shift on the " Carradale " on which three gangs were employed, as a result of the preventer guy carrying away they refused to work on the ground of danger. The mid-night shift also refused to work. I do not think any fair-minded person in Australia will criticize men for taking action on the job to obviate injury, and perhaps loss of life, due to accidents arising from the use of inferior gear. The day shift on the following day also refused to resume work, but did resume at 9.30 a.m. after the nautical surveyor, Captain Christie, had ruled that the men's complaint was justified. It is quite clear that in that dispute the employers were at fault, and by refusing to have the gear position corrected after the preventer guy had carried away at 5.25 p.m. on the 2nd August they deliberately interfered with the safe and speedy stevedoring operations of the port. However, no attempt was made to discipline the employers in this case. That is the crux of the discussion. We have a situation in which one rule applies to the worker on the waterfront, who can be suspended by the immediate supervisor, the foreman, whereas on the other hand a company, which is guilty of a misdemeanor, is not subject to correction except by the invocation of involved legal process. Just prior to that incident, on 23rd July thirteen members of the Waterside Workers Federation, who insisted on what they believed to be their rights under the award, were suspended for two days, and when all members of the branch stopped work in protest the suspensions were extended for a further two days. The thirteen men concerned had been transferred from the vessel " Noonga " to the vessel " Bilkura ". They worked on " Bilkura " from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., at which time they knocked off, insisting that under the provisions of the award they were not compelled to work any longer. This view was supported by the union, but notwithstanding this, the local representative of the authority did not hesitate to impose a vicious suspension of two days. The suspension of these men virtually deprived them of bread and butter by reducing their wage for that week by two days' pay. No working family in Australia can afford to lose wages for two or three days in a week. Another incident occurred on 5th July when, at 8.50 p.m., eight waterside workers were dismissed from " Kimona " for alleged insufficient effort. At a subsequent inquiry the union was able to prove beyond any possible doubt that this charge could not be sustained, and the authority was compelled to find that the men had been wrongfully dismissed. On that occasion work was stopped from 8.50 p.m. until midnight, and eight members of the union were wrongfully deprived of their job. In addition, they were forced to attend an inquiry to prove that the employers were in the wrong. However, no attempt was made by the authority to penalize the employer concerned in any way. That sort of incident fully justifies the attack by the Opposition on the illconsidered and ill-balanced justice that exists under the law on the waterfront. Eight men were deprived of their wages and they lost further time attending an inquiry which proved that the employers were in the wrong. But there no redress or recompense whatever was made to those men. The employer had full liberty to do as he wished; to write his own ticket, as it were, and those men were deprived of their pay. That is an injustice that calls for correction. We trust that when we go to the polls the people will return us to office to remedy the injustice inherent in this legislation. In the meantime, the Minister might well look at these matters. He stated that during the recess he will review the general situation on the waterfront. I presume he proposes to put before this House on its resumption measures to restore balance on the waterfront. I shall believe him when such a measure is introduced. The existing conditions must be looked at. I am sure every reasonable honorable member will agree with that view. The conditions to which I have referred, of course, are not confined to Port Kembla. There was the recent case in Sydney on the " Carradale " when men were sacked for insufficient effort. The authority's representative found that there was no evidence to support the charge but, notwithstanding this, some men were suspended for a day on the ground that they had refused to comply with the employer's order, although the award compels a waterside worker to obey only a reasonable order. Justice is discarded because people who probably are not capable of interpreting their responsibility to the Australian nation take complete control of operations. Every one of the hold-ups I have mentioned struck not only against the waterside worker but also against the good order and business of Australia. Goods were held up, cargoes were lost and costs rose. Those factors should concern every honorable member. The situation, therefore, calls for some positive action to eliminate these conditions, as far as it is humanly possible to do so. Section 33 of the act refers to the obligations placed on employers and indicates how an employer can be challenged. The onus is placed in a very unjust fashion upon the waterside worker, the federation or any portion of that body which cites a case against the employer's interests. The position is that those responsible for the conduct of operations in the port must be convicted on three counts before a charge can be upheld, namely the expeditious, safe and efficient discharge of their obligations. In other words, if only two of those three requirements can be supported by the federation, then the case against the employer is lost. But second and third opportunities are not given to the men who work on the waterfront! They are suspended at the behest of the foreman who may or may not be doing his job, who may or may not be capable of doing his job, or who may be a deliberate provoker and who may incite men to action. It may be possible for a foreman in any port to act outrageously against a worker in the industry and thus cause a complete hold-up at the port. Abusive language can be used, and the waterside worker is the victim of the circumstances. The Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority has not the power to intrude itself deliberately in these cases. There is no on-the-spot control, as it were. The only recourse of a waterside worker who is assaulted is through the normal channels of the law. On the other hand, his bread and butter can be taken from him at a snap of the fingers by any hooligan who happens to be blessed with the title of foreman. The people of this nation must know the truth about these matters and must ensure that we get a semblance of justice and some measure of equality. As I said earlier, the Australian waterfront is a sensitive and important point. It is the nerve centre of the distribution of our goods from this country to other countries. It is the point at which incoming cargoes are received. What happens there is important to every businessman and indeed to every person in the community. If any section of workers should have a model industrial code, it is obviously the men employed on the waterfront, because that is the important, sensitive point and any disturbance there is reflected throughout the affairs and economy of this country. At the same time, these men should not be brow-beaten and stood over. No class of Australian worker is expected to stand that sort of thing from any section of the community. If the law is such that it permits provocation, assaults and abuse of workers during the course of their work, then the law is wrong and must be altered in the interests of fair play for all sections and to ensure that our high standards and the Australian characteristics are maintained. {: #subdebate-46-0-s4 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- I am rather disappointed at the position that has arisen. I thought that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** would introduce in this bill something that would help to solve the present difficulty on the waterfront. However, the bill is so innocuous that to bring it down urgently at this time seems to be an attempt to mislead the people. I shall not repeat the arguments of the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** and the honorable member for Cunningham **(Mr. Kearney).** On many occasions stoppages on the waterfront and losses of man-hours are the result of action by the stevedoring companies or the shipowners, and not the responsibility of the waterside workers. Last week, and again this week, in questions to the Minister, I asked that something be done to end the stalemate that is at present evident in Sydney. The situation in Sydney has affected other ports, because shipping has been held up, and I thought that something would be done. The Minister told us to-day that he has had word that the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, **Mr. Healy,** would put a proposition to a meeting of waterside workers to-morrow, hoping that the trouble would be ended. I hope that this will be so, but I do not know what the proposition is. Let us look for a moment at the bill now before us. The only clauses that will come into effect when the Governor-General gives his assent to the bill are clauses 3 and 6. Clauses 4 and 5 are not to come into operation except by proclamation. Clause 4 provides for a new section 35 to be inserted in the principal act if the High Court rules that the present section is unconstitutional. The same situation obtains with clause 5. Clause 4 deals with the cancellation or suspension of registration of employers, and clause 5 deals with appeals. However, unless the High Court decides that the present sections 35 and 37 are unconstitutional, those two clauses will not come into operation. What have we left in the bill? Clauses1 and 2 are machinery clauses. Clause 3 reads - >Section thirty-three of the Principal Act is amended - > >by omitting from paragraph (a) of subsection (1) the word " and " and insertin in its stead the word "or"; and > >by inserting in paragraph (b) of subsection (t) after the word " shall ", the words ", at all times,". Section 33 deals with employers' obligations, and the relevant part of sub-section (1.) reads - >A registered employer - > >shall not act in a manner whereby the expeditious, safe and efficient performance of stevedoring operations is prejudiced or interfered with; > >shall provide proper supervision of the performance of stevedoring operations by waterside workers engaged by him; and The words " safe and efficient " in paragraph (a) will be altered to read " safe or efficient ", and the words " shall provide proper supervision " in paragraph (b) will be altered to read " shall at all times provide proper supervision ". 1 cannot see that those alterations will effect much improvement in the position. Then clause 6 of the bill provides - >After section thirty-seven of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - " 37a. Where the Authority is satisfied that a waterside worker whose registration has been suspended intends to appeal under the last preceding section against the suspension, the provisions of sub-section (3.) of the last preceding section apply as if the waterside worker had already so appealed. Sub-section (3.) referred to in the new section reads as follows: - >The Authority may postpone the operation of the suspension, pending the determination of the appeal, for such period as it thinks fit and the registration shall not be deemed to have been suspended during the period of the postponement. I have now outlined the effect of the bill that we are discussing. No wonder the honorable member for East Sydney said that we would not oppose it! Only two minor amendments are made. However, if the High Court rules that two sections of the Principal Act are unconstitutional, new sections will be inserted. The present sections refer to " the Court " but the new sections contained in this bill refer to " the Commission ". Only small alterations in the wording are made. However, this bill does nothing to overcome the present difficulties on the waterfront. I am disappointed that this bill,, which I thought might do something to improve conditions on the waterfront, will do practically nothing in that respect. Recently, I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service whether it would not be possible for a conference to be held to get over technicalities that were hindering the settlement of disputes. I do not know what proposals will be put to the waterside workers to-morrow, but as I say, I am disappointed that the bill will do nothing to relieve the present position. We have had stoppages and disputes about sling loads and other matters in the various ports from time to time because of lack of co-operation by the employers. Let me give an instance of that. Recently, quite a big hold-up occurred in Port Adelaide over the placing of a safety net in a certain place. When waterside workers were taken to a ship in Port Adelaide they found that there was no net under the gang plank. They said that they wanted a net to be placed there, and they occupied about an hour in placing it in position. The employers wanted to take the hour off the working time, and when the men would not accept that proposition, the ship was held up. If that is co-operation and an example of efforts by employers to keep loading and unloading in progress, and to get ships away as quickly as possible, it is hard to follow. The employers knew that the net should have been there for reasons of safety. Nevertheless, they said that they would not pay the waterside workers until they had gone over the plank, although the waterside workers had first to make good the neglect of the employers. Surely honorable members opposite can appreciate that men resent such things, and that they lead to trouble. I voiced my opinion of this legislation when it came into operation some years ago. I said then what I thought the position would be and what I thought would occur in the future, and I think that my views have been justified by events. While the present conditions prevail there will never be smooth working on the waterfront. {: #subdebate-46-0-s5 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is surprising that I should be the fourth speaker in succession from the Opposition side during this debate. Yet, this bill deals with a dispute on the waterfront which is likely to tie up every port in Australia. We have not even with us to-night the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** who, in large measure, is personally responsible for the bitterness that has been created on the waterfront because of his provocative speech in the Parliament recently, when he took advantage of parliamentary privilege to malign a person who is not free to come into the Parliament and defend himself against an attack on his character. Worse still, some of the charges which the Minister enumerated against this man related to another person by the name of Krespi, an entirely different identity from the man whom the Minister thought he was accusing. Apart from that, the principal concern of the Waterside Workers Federation is not with whether Krespi is guilty or not- {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- Is the honorable member suggesting that the Minister's statements about Krespi were untrue? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Of course they were untrue. The Minister also exaggerated. For instance, he spoke about Krespi being charged with indecent exposure. What happened was that Krespi went into a back lane, in response to a call of nature, as the Minister probably has done on a number of occasions since he left school, and as no doubt every other member of the Parliament has done; but Krespi was unlucky enough to be caught fey a policeman, who happened to be walking by, and was charged with indecent exposure. The Minister would have been charged similarly if he had been unlucky enough to be caught on the occasions on which he did the same thing. {: .speaker-KZW} ##### Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER <Mr Lawrence: -- Order! What has this to do with the bill? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Minister started it. However, the Waterside Workers Federation is concerned not so much with whether Krespi is guilty or not, as with the necessity for a proper inquiry to be made into the case. Surely that is not asking too much! The federation goes further and says that if it is correct that the law can suspend a waterside worker immediately he is thought guilty, or is suspected of being guilty of an offence, the same law ought to apply to foremen when they are suspected of being guilty of offences. If foremen attack and bodily assault a person in their control, surely they ought to be subject to some inquiry, and while the inquiry is being held surely they ought to be suspended. I suggest that that should be so, if it is correct to suspend a waterside worker while an inquiry is being held into his alleged misdemeanour. Before 1956, the authority had power to deal with employers in exactly the same way as it had power to deal with employees. The report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30th June last deals, at page 34, with the question of the discipline of employers and states - >The provisions of the 1956 Stevedoring Industry Act relating to the discipline of employers are markedly different to those contained in the 1949 legislation. Section 23 of the 1949 Act placed employers in a similar position to waterside workers by giving the Board power to cancel or suspend registration. The conclusions of the Committee of Inquiry on the question of discipline of employers are set out in paragraph 38 of the report of the Committee and are, inter alia: - 38. (b) " It is necessary in this industry in the interests of efficiency that there should be discipline both over employers and employees. . . . I ask the Minister for Air to listen to this. My friend, the Minister for Defence **(Sir Philip McBride),** who is sleeping on the front bench, ought to listen to it too, because he also has a responsibility in this matter. The report continues - . . this discipline should be both prompt and uniform and should be administered by a Statutory Authority. . . ." {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- That is clear enough. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- As the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** says, that is clear enough. Paragraph 38 (d) states - >The exercise of discipline through the Courts is unsuitable for the day-to-day requirements of the waterfront. It involves proceedings which are too cumbersome and not sufficiently prompt to be effective and has been found to be impracticable. . . . The Government has decided that, although it is prepared to accept the recommendation of the authority that proceedings against employees are too cumbersome, proceedings in the courts shall be the only method of dealing with employers. That was not so under the 1949 act, and it was not the procedure which applied right up till 1956. The Opposition wants to know, on behalf of the Waterside Workers Federation, why there has been this change from a system which worked so admirably. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- And which the Government's own commission recommended. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Of course! There is no doubt that that is the crux of the situation. The report goes on to say that. Paragraph 38 (b) of the report of the committee of inquiry states: - >There should be some system of discipline against employers administered by the Statutory Authority , . . But even under the proposals now before the House, there will be no such system of discipline against employers administered by the statutory authority. It will still be necessary to go through the cumbersome machinery of court proceedings before anything can be done against an employer. The report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority states also: - >Under the 1956 act, the Statutory Authority's power to discipline employers was taken away and certain acts by employers are now, by virtue of sections 33 and 34, made offences punishable upon conviction by the Commonwealth Industrial Court - only by that court - by a fine of not less than £100 and not more than £1,000. It is true that, under the terms of this bill, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority has power to initiate proceedings against employers if an employer has been guilty of any one of the three offences enumerated in the existing act, but it still rests with the authority to initiate those proceedings. We want to know why there is a clear line of distinction between the treatment meted out to employees and that accorded to employers. The Waterside Workers Federation of Australia is perfectly correct in saying that if it is right summarily to dismiss a member of the federation for some alleged breach, it ought to be equally right summarily to dismiss an employer. Where, after an employee has been dismissed and discharged, a foreman, with the assistance of another foreman, attacks him and inflicts bodily harm upon him, in our view, the attack upon the employee constitutes an offence under the act, and ought to be dealt with in the same way that an offence by an employee would be dealt with. The foreman ought to be suspended immediately, and a proper inquiry should be held by the authority. It should not be necessary to go through the cumbersome process of court proceedings. We say that if a foreman is found guilty of the offences with which he is charged, he ought to be dealt with in the same way as an employee is dealt with. I warn the Government that no one expects to get peace on the waterfront while the Stevedoring Industry Act, and the administration of the act, are so loaded against the employees, and so loaded in favour of the employers, as they are at present. We can be certain that this trouble will continue while they remain so loaded. Not only will it continue, but also it will become worse. It can be dealt with, and the trouble can be eradicated, only by satisfying the employees that the employers will be dealt with in the same way that employees are dealt with when the award is breached. From what has been said by some people in this Parliament, it might be thought that members of the Waterside Workers Federation are nothing more or less than stooges of the Australian Communist party. The Minister for Labour and National Service suggested that the present trouble was the result of a foul Communist plot initiated by the Australian Communist party in order to tie up the waterfront, and that it was nothing more than that. When the Minister talks such nonsense, and says that every single dispute, including disputes such as this, in which the great majority of waterside workers, who are not Communists, feel that they have cause to be aggrieved, is the result of a Communist plot, all he is doing is bolstering the Communist cause. Nothing suits the Communists better than to have stupid, irresponsible Ministers in this Parliament accusing the persons concerned, whenever there is a justifiable industrial dispute, of being Communists, or of playing the Communist game. While that irresponsible attitude continues, the Government will never satisfy the waterside workers that the Australian Communist party is doing to them what the Government claims it is doing. I remind the House that the report from which I have quoted is, not a report of the Australian Labour party, but the official report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30th June, 1957. The report goes on to state a number of cases in which the waterside workers had every justification for complaint. In some instances, although, on the admission of the authority itself, the waterside workers had every justification for complaint, those who actually complained were dismissed because they had complained. The report mentions an incident involving the vessel " Nimaris ". which occurred on 10th September, 1956, at Port Kembla. The master of the vessel had been instructed to do certain things in order to ensure safety. On 21st September, nothing had been done by the master to attend to the matters that had been complained of. The report states that the master objected to the repairs that had been sought being done, and that it was not until 26th September that they were made. It points out that, on the midnight shift of that day, a number of waterside workers had been instructed to shift hatch boards in the tween decks, but had refused to do so on the ground that the boards were unsafe. The waterside workers were dismissed. I put it to honorable members that, if there are cases in which the Stevedoring Industry Authority, in its official report, admits that conditions were unsafe, and in which men who refuse to endanger their life and limb are dismissed for their refusal, it is of no use for the Minister to state in this Parliament that all this waterside trouble is the result of some foul Communist plot, because he and other Government supporters, while they talk that kind of nonsense, and accuse the waterside workers of allowing themselves to be made the victims of a Communist plot, succeed only in making the waterside workers give them the horse laugh. Indeed, even in cases in which charges made by the Government may be true, the waterside workers will laugh at its charges, remembering previous occasions, and disbelieving the charges levelled by the Government against the Australian Communist party. The report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority mentions another incident, which occurred at Fremantle, on 10th November, 1956, involving the vessel " Koolinda ". Three crates of asbestos sheeting, slung with two rope slings, were being loaded into the vessel, when the slings carried away. The crates fell into the hold, where six men were working, but, fortunately, no one was injured. The crates were unmarked as to weight, but a navigation inspector who was called ruled that the weight of the lift was far in excess of the safe working load of the gear that had been supplied. This was yet another case in which the waterside workers were merely taking action to protect their life and limb against the unsafe working procedures in which the shipping companies were engaging. Because the employees did these things, Government supporters in this Parliament say that they are a pack of " Corns ", and that they are only carrying out the dictates of Communist Healy and Communist Roach. The fact is that the Australian waterfront is one of the worst in the world - not from the stand-point of the attitude of the employees, but from the stand-point of the attitude of the employers. No worse example of bad management is to be found anywhere in the world than on the Australian waterfront. Yet, time after time, Government supporters blame the Waterside Workers Federation and its members for the trouble that occurs on the waterfront, although the true culprits are the stevedoring companies and the shipping companies. The report that I am quoting mentions a further incident - I will not quote any more cases, but there are plenty of them in the report - which occurred on 13th November, 1956, involving the vessel " Taranaki ", at Newcastle. Referring to a dispute that occurred as to the safety of certain slab hatches, the report states - >Later investigation revealed that at this hatch neither the shelter deck nor 'tween deck beams had bolts securing them, and the top deck beam had a pin through one side and a bolt half way through the other side with no securing nut. At another hatch, a 'tween deck beam was secured only by a piece of bent steel rod. ls it any wonder that in this particular case the waterside workers took action themselves, disregarding, technically speaking, the law of the land? They took action to protect their own lives and limbs against the danger they knew existed in handling a ship that was being prepared in this manner. There are plenty of other instances of unfair discharges. The report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority refers also to an incident which occurred in Newcastle on 16th November, 1956. It states - >On the 1 6th November, 1956, at Newcastle, a gang of five waterside workers discharging timber from the vessel " Exmoor " was dismissed at 7.45 p.m. for alleged insufficient effort. The vessel was idle for the remainder of the shift. At a subsequent inquiry into the dismissal, the Local Representative of the Authority found that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the charge of insufficient effort. This is another example of men being sacked for allegedly not working hard enough, but after proper inquiry it was found that the dismissal was not fully justified. The report continues - >The failure of the Authority to discipline employers has been the subject of repeated criticism by the Waterside Workers Federation. However, when it is remembered that employers were subject to direct discipline by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board in the seven years preceding the 1956 Act, the criticism by the Waterside Workers Federation is understandable. In the opinion of honorable members on this side of the House the criticism of the federation with regard to the working of this act since the Government amended it in 1956 is understandable. Until the Government understands fully the viewpoint of the Waterside Workers Federation, it will never get peace on the waterfront, and until peace is obtained on the waterfront, based on equity and common sense, it is no use the Government going on blaming the Communists every time there is a dispute in the industry. If the Government blames itself, the shipping companies, and the stevedoring companies it will be nearer the truth. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: The bill. {: #subdebate-46-0-s6 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- I do not propose to address the committee at great length, but I feel that I must say a few words about this measure in order to remove misapprehensions that may have crept into the minds of honorable members as a consequence of statements that have been made about the Waterside Workers Federation during the last week in connexion with, the dispute now taking place in Sydney. {: #subdebate-46-0-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I cannot allow the honorable member to pursue that line at the committee stage. He must confine himself to the provisions of the bill. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- I appreciate your ruling, **Mr. Chairman,** but I think that certain aspects of the history of the federation should be related. I propose to take the opportunity to refer, briefly, to a part of its history, and to outline the reasons why this legislation is very essential. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I cannot allow the honorable member to make a second-reading speech at the committee stage. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- This bill proposes to bring about alterations in the existing legislation, in anticipation of a decision by the High Court of Australia. If this legislation is passed, in the event of certain things happening, there will be new provisions for dealing with men who are suspended as a result of a decision of the Stevedoring Industry Authority. The necessity for some protection for the men arises from the fact that they are seasonal workers. They are engaged in an industry that is regarded the world over as turbulent. When disciplinary action is taken in respect of persons who come under the control of the Authority, legislation and machinery should be made available to enable the grievances of the men concerned to be dealt with. One of the great problems involved in trying to bring about the necessary degree of discipline required by the Stevedoring Industry Authority, for which it was given the power of suspension, is the difficul Ey that confronts waterside workers themselves in carrying out their duties. They are frequently in conflict with the employers as a result of decisions made by the employers. Tn most industries, where a change in the nature of the work performed is proposed, it is usual for the matter to be first discussed by the employers and the union concerned, in order to prevent friction on the job. That procedure is not carried out on the waterfront, and consequently men are suspended when they take action to protect themselves. Reference has been made to the matter of slings and gangs. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I cannot allow the honorable member to continue along that line. The question before the committee is the provision of an appeal, and the matter of a suspension. The honorable member should have made those remarks during the second-reading debate. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- I have heard Ministers make second-reading speeches when they have been dealing with bills in committee. Usually, when a bill is taken as a whole, honorable members have an opportunity to deal with the principles, as well as the particular clauses of the measure. Had I known that you proposed ruling in this way, I certainly would have exercised my right to speak previously. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I think the honorable member knows that second-reading speeches are not permitted at the committee stage. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- I shall refer to particular clauses of the bill. I want to point out that the clause that deals with the question of improving the act so that action can be taken against the employers is a very necessary and essential one. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the defect that has now been found in the act was overlooked when the 1956 legislation was enacted. Obviously, if three different and distinct breaches must occur before a person can be dealt with, one section of the industry has a great advantage over the other sections. This bill at least endeavours to correct an anomaly that has caused a good deal of dissatisfaction and discontent. All I am trying to point out is that a good deal of discontent and dissatisfaction has been caused on the waterfront because the act is so worded that an employer has to be found guilty on three separate charges before any action can be taken. Obviously the only thing that can be done in those circumstances is so to amend the act that any one of the three things which, at the present time must be taken together to obtain a prosecution, can be regarded as a cause of action. The only other suggestion I wish to make is that this bill could be improved by adding a provision that not only the waterside worker but also the foreman stevedore shall be registered. If that provision were made much of the trouble which is now taking place would not occur. I believe that the measure is necessary. In view of the proceedings before the High Court, if it is passed, it will ensure that those who are suspended before the decision of the court is given will have some protection. For that reason I support it. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2875 {:#debate-47} ### DIESEL FUEL TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-47-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 2825). {: #subdebate-47-0-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports -- These measures arise out of a matter that was mentioned in the Budget. They deal with the imposition of a tax on diesel fuel and refer to users of diesel fuel who are exempt from this tax. The act provides that the Minister, in certain circumstances, may issue a certificate exempting certain people from the payment of the tax if the fuel is used for purposes other than travelling on public roads. The Labour party has agreed that there is no logical reason why people who use diesel.propelled vehicles as against petrolpropelled vehicles should be free from any tax on their fuel. This legislation endeavours to cover persons who are using diesel fuel for primary production purposes and not on the roads. I understand that the legislation has had to be drawn in its present form for technical reasons, and the Opposition offers no objection to it. We endorse the principle that owners of vehicles who u,e the roads should pay some tax towards the cost of upkeep of the roads. My colleague the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Bird)** has frequently dealt with this subject. I pay tribute to him for raising this question and, I think, it is in no small degree due to his consistent representations in this place that the Government has realized the need for legislation of this kind. He has clearly shown that it is illogical that merely because vehicles use one form of fuel rather than another, the owners should be exempt from the payment of tax for the upkeep of roads. We differ among ourselves, according to the States we represent, as to how these amounts, when collected, should ultimately be shared among the various States; but we do not object to the principle of the tax. I think it is recognized by all honorable members that when diesel fuel is used for internal work on farms there is a good case for exemption from the tax. These measures cover that position. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported. Message recommending appropriation reported. In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral's message): Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** agreed to - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act relating to taxation imposed on certain diesel fuel. Resolution reported and adopted. In committee: Consideration resumed. The bill. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1957. Second Reading. Debate resumed (vide page 2826). Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2876 {:#debate-48} ### DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1957 {:#subdebate-48-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 2826). Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2876 {:#debate-49} ### AIR FORCE (CANTEENS) BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 2841). {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne .- The Opposition does not offer any objection to the passage of this bill, but it draws attention to the fact admitted by the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** in his secondreading speech that there is some laxity in the Attorney-General's Department, because of which this piece of legislation is necessary. It is all very well for the Minister to put his excuses in this form - >Owing to the frequent occasions on which regulations were omitted to be tabled, the AttorneyGeneral's Department undertook the responsibility for tabling, and this is the first time since then that an omission has occurred. Obviously, it should not have occurred. But mistakes will happen, and in this case somebody blundered. The administrative procedure for tabling, according to the Minister, has been further strengthened and it is highly unlikely that a similar occasion will occur in future. How has the administrative procedure been further strengthened? The Minister has not told us. I think that we are asked to hope that in future the mistake will not occur again. As a matter of fact the Minister expressed that in another way. He said - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . it is highly unlikely that a similar omission will occur in the future. After all the experience that this Parliament has had in considering regulations over the years, and after all the experience that various departments have had in preparing and tabling regulations as required under the appropriate acts, surely a mistake of this sort should not have occurred at all. A failure to table a regulation can be very serious. In this case the effects could not have been as bad as they might have been in some other instances. I should like to say a few words on the question of regulations. The tendency throughout the democratic world to-day is to pass legislation of a broad nature and to leave part of the work of legislating to the Executive Council. That can be dangerous. Ministers can make regulations which have the effect of lav/ and which, properly, should be the subject of discussion by the whole Parliament before they secure the approval of the Governor-General in Council. All governments are at fault in this regard. {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale: -- I remember making speeches about your Government on the same subject. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- Of course; and I can remember when, before this Parliament was fated to know the honorable member for Parramatta **(Mr. Beale),** the gentleman whom he is to succeed as Ambassador in Washington moved in this Parliament to disallow a very important regulation in the early war period. There are regulations and regulations. The Opposition feels that some attempt should be made to have the regulatory power confined to matters of minor importance and matters about which the Parliament has given a decided opinion. Regulations should not be drafted which really are minor pieces of legislation. Of course, every Opposition will oppose the regulation-making power; but every government feels that it has to have that power. We do not deny that governments have a right to such a power. Since the depression period, the Senate has had a special committee which looks at every regulation that is promulgated. Perhaps we might do something of the sort in this chamber. Perhaps we might establish a committee which would examine every regulation. We could provide that no regulation should have the power of law unless the appropriate committee, established to review regulations, had had an opportunity to examine it if the Parliament was sitting. If the Parliament was not sitting, regulations could be reviewed within a certain number of days after the Parliament had resumed. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- The South Australian Parliament has a special committee to do that. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- Perhaps we might have a similar body in this chamber. The tendency throughout the democratic world is towards centralization of authority. We see the greatest example of that trend in the United States of America, where the exercise of power is becoming more and more the prerogative of one man, the President. In this country the power is becoming more and more the prerogative of the Executive. That may not be a good thing for democracy. {: #subdebate-49-0-s1 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports -- I would like to join the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** in referring to this very important matter which is broadly known as delegated legislation - the ability of departments, in certain circumstances, to make regulations which, for all practical purposes, have the force of law itself. It seems difficult to understand why, in the past, departments have avoided taking the necessary steps to gazette regulations in the proper way. Power to make regulations is conferred by statute in the first place. The fact that the AttorneyGeneral's Department has had to assume responsibility which primarily belonged to the departments administering each act is difficult to understand. The position is governed by section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-50. That act prescribes a certain course to be followed by a department when making a regulation. I should like to ask the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** how the administrative procedure for tabling regulations has been further strengthened. It is hard to understand what further strengthening is needed than the provisions contained in section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act, which appear to be obligatory. lt seems that certain officials who feel a regulation is necessary simply pass the regulation in contempt of the Parliament itself, not realizing that while theoretically they have the power to make regulations, those regulations ultimately must receive the approval of the Parliament. This matter has received wide consideration in other countries. I believe that in Great Britain recently a committee has deliberated upon this subject. I think it may have been referred to as the Franks Committee. It went deeply into the question of delegated legislation, and also the suggestion that in some circumstances special administrative tribunals should be set up, so that persons affected by the operation of statutes and regulations might have some facilities available to them to protect rights that they feel may have been infringed. I suggest that the time may have arrived when we in this country should give more careful consideration to this matter than we have done in the past. As my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** pointed out, there is in existence a Senate committee known as the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. This is one example - I do not say it is the only example - of a useful function that the Senate has taken upon itself to perform, as distinct from functions conferred upon it under the Constitution. The committee produces reports from time to time, many of which are very valuable. It has recently given a considerable amount of scrutiny to a most important matter that affects the economic life of individuals in the community. I refer to import regulations. Quite a significant power to make regulations is provided in customs legislation, giving the official or the public servant almost life-and-death control over certain people engaged in commerce. The Senate has expressed considerable dissatisfaction with these regulations and the manner of their application. The committee has claimed - I think rightly - that many matters provided for by regulations should properly be embodied in statutes passed by both Houses of the Parliament. However, that is a wider question than the one before us, which has to do with the fact that a duty imposed by a statute was neglected, and, apparently, between the lines emerges the suggestion that similar occurrences took place in the past, although the Attorney-General's Department, as the overall scrutinizing department, prevented other legislative provisions from getting as far as this one has gone. This provision has slipped through the net, and we simply ask what are the additional strengthening steps that have been taken and have been referred to in this House. If either the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** or the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** can advise me, I am sure that we on this side of the House would be glad to hear what the Government has done to strengthen a procedure which, in our view, should not have needed strengthening, because it merely constitutes the carrying out of an injunction contained in the various enabling statutes. {: #subdebate-49-0-s2 .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava .-Some years ago an Air Force regulation which provided for the making of deductions from the pay of members of the Air Force in respect of losses of public money or property was disallowed by the Senate. That regulation enabled the Air Board, by an administrative act, to make these deductions. The Senate committee took the view that for various reasons, including the fact that there was no opportunity for appeal by the member deprived of his pay, and that before any such deprivation there was no provision for him to be heard thereon by, for instance, a court-martial, this regulation contained an injustice, and therefore it was rejected. Included in the regulations which the House is now asked to validate is regulation 19, around which discussion has centred, some of the discussion being to the effect that it is a similar regulation to that which was previously rejected by the Senate. It is because of this fact that I desire to make a few remarks on this occasion. Actually, regulation 19 does not revive in any sense at all the former regulation. It provides for what may be done after a decision is given by a court-martial providing for payment of damages by a member of the Air Force. Under the British Air Force Act, which is adopted into our legislation, there is provision for a courtmartial to make an award ordering a member of the Air Force to pay damages. Regulation 19 provides that where such an award has been made by a court-martial, the Air Board may then allow a certain period of time for payment. In other words, an additional benefit is provided for the person against whom the order is made. That benefit is something that he is given in addition to rights that he previously had. He is not being deprived of anything by this regulation, but is being given something in addition to what he previously had. Sitting suspended from 11.30 p.m. to 12 midnight. Thursday, 5 December 1957 {: #subdebate-49-0-s3 .speaker-KDY} ##### Mr JOSKE: -- Regulation 19 provides for moneys to be paid to the Air Board instead of into Consolidated Revenue for the purpose of enabling the board to give terms to the person who has to pay. I emphasize that this power is reposed in the Air Board only after the finding of a courtmartial which involves a hearing and the decision, under recent legislation passed by the Parliament, is subject to appeal. The whole position under regulation 19, therefore, is entirely different from that which obtained under the regulation which was previously disallowed by the Senate. Under those circumstances this House need not be troubled by feeling that it is doing the wrong thing in accepting regulation 19. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: The bill. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- Is the Minister now in a position to answer the question I raised in my second-reading speech with respect to the tabling of regulations? {: #subdebate-49-0-s4 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP -- The matter mentioned by the honorable member is something that would happen once in ten years, but by having in the department another set of entries - what might be called administrative memory ticklers - a repetition is now unlikely to occur. This was a human error such as creeps into everybody's life. The honorable member may be assured that the administrative machinery that has now been set up will obviate any laxity in this respect in the future. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. [Quorum formed.] Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2879 {:#debate-50} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-50-0} #### PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY BULL 1957 Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 2840). {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr WEBB:
Stirling .- This measure, which is for the purpose of encouraging the search for oil in Australia, provides for an expenditure of £396,800 this year and £500,000 for each full financial year until 1961 on stratigraphic drilling which aims at obtaining information in respect of formations and structures at depths at which reliable deductions cannot be made from surface and geographical surveys. As has already been pointed out by the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** this is not the kind of drilling normally carried out by exploration companies because, being deep drilling, it is more costly and the shareholders like their companies to concentrate on areas that are more easily exploited. Consequently, there is a lot of haphazard drilling and many areas, so far as this deep drilling is concerned, are neglected. It is admitted that it is difficult to get companies to do this basic work and the Government, therefore, proposes to expend £500,000 per annum on subsidizing private companies to the extent of half the cost of drilling each hole, the remainder of the cost being, of course, borne by the company concerned. The cost incurred will include preparation of the site, construction of access roads or strips and all the other ancillary works connected with the drilling of this type of bore. The Opposition strongly objects to this proposalbecause private companies are being subsidized to do the deep drilling that they are not prepared to carry out by themselves, and the shareholders in the companies will reap all the profits. We say that if the Government meets half the cost of this type of drilling, it should at least receive an equal share of the profits that would result from the finding of oil. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- Should the Government also bear half the losses? {: .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr WEBB: -- In effect, we bear all the losses because if a company strikes oil the Government gets nothing out of it. It is not even recouped the amount of money it spends. Since the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** announced in his Budget speech on 3rd September last that this stratigraphic drilling will take place and will be subsidized by the Commonwealth Government, eleven applications for assistance in this respect have been received by the Department of National Development and, as admitted by the Minister only a short time ago, other applications are expected. That is good as far as it goes, but the Opposition wants to know why these companies, in the event of striking oil, will keep all the profits to themselves despite the fact that the Commonwealth has subsidized half the cost of the drilling. Of course the companies will pay the normal tax in the same way as any other industry, but at the same time we think that the Commonwealth should receive some return for the amount that it will expend. In the opinion of the Opposition, the Commonwealth should have a half interest in the companies that are being subsidized and should retain its share of the profits in the interests of the people of Australia. There is no logical argument against that. After having discovered oil, a company apparently will receive all the profits and the Government will get nothing at all, not even the return of its investment. In other countries where assistance has been given by the government and oil has been discovered, large sums of money have been received by the government in the form of royalties. Some similar system should be adopted in Australia. Alternatively, the Government should undertake this work of stratigraphic drilling and retain any profits therefrom. I know that that suggestion will not be acceptable to the Government because any industry carried on by the Government that has made a profit has been disposed of to private enterprise. This bill provides for an amount of *£500,000* to be paid as a subsidy. However, when we consider what is involved in drilling for oil, that amount is infinitesimal compared with the amount that should be expended by the Government on oil exploration. It is only a stab in the dark. The number of holes drilled in the search for oil in Australia is very small indeed compared with what is necessary. The amount provided by the Government will achieve very little, unless we are very lucky and strike oil in the first few holes. The Minister mentioned that approximately 400 holes had been drilled in Australia and its territories since we have been searching for oil. Of this number, 123 are only shallow holes put down in the Lakes Entrance area. When we examine the efforts made in other countries, we find that 2,000 holes were drilled in the Sahara Desert and over 3,000 holes were drilled in the Alberta oilfields before oil was discovered in payable quantities. We will be lucky if the £500,000 the Government is allocating will sink three holes; with the amount that will be provided by private enterprise, possibly six holes will be drilled. That is not enough if we really intend to get down to the job of looking for oil in Australia. Oil exploration is being played with in this country. If the Government were genuine in its approach to this question, it would be making an all-out drive to find oil. We are spending about £120,000,000 per annum on the importation of petroleum and petroleum products. Our consumption is increasing each year. In the last five years, the average rate of increase has been about 10 per cent, per annum. These figures were given by the Minister and, when analysed, they are astounding. The increase in the consumption of oil is really impressive. The change-over from the use of coal to oil in industry has been tremendous. We have a striking example of this changeover in rail transport. The railways are disposing of many steam locomotives and are using diesel-electric locomotives, which are oil-consuming, but we are only on the fringe of the change-over at present. Our increased consumption of oil indicates how vulnerable we would be if we were engaged in a war and our oil supplies were cut off. Production would be stopped and transport would be at a standstill in a very short time. That is why we should not be playing with the search for oil but should be devoting much more money to the search. We should be going flat out looking for oil! We should not forget that the expenditure on the importation of oil is having a drastic effect on our overseas financial resources. The £500,000 allocated in this bill is only a small amount when we consider the amounts that are being expended throughout the world in the search for oil. We have spent approximately £50,000,000 in Australia and the territories during the past 50 years, and of that amount £33,000,000 has been spent in the last four years. An impetus as given to our efforts to find oil by the discovery of it in Western Australia in November, 1953. It was most unfortunate that oil was discovered in Western Australia at that time. The discovery of oil with a first boring is most unusual, and in Western Australia many people burned their fingers as a result. There was a temporary boom and oil shares worth ls. 6d. rose in value to about £7. Those who sold shares made money, but many people who bought those shares burned their fingers. The most intensive search for oil is in Western Australia. It has already been discovered there and, if it can be found in sufficient quantities, it will be of tremendous benefit to that State. Indeed, if oil were discovered in the quantities that we would like, Western Australia would cease to be a claimant State. Governmental revenue would increase but initially the Commonwealth would stand to gain much more than the State. That is why the Commonwealth should be prepared to devote much more money to this venture. However, we should not think that the discovery of oil in the north-west or in the Northern Territory would make a great deal of difference to those areas. It would certainly make some difference, but the problems of the north are problems of the pastoral, agricultural and metal industries, and we must remember that those industries need developing. Unfortunately, this Government has no real policy for their development. The discovery of oil would not necessarily mean a big increase in our northern population. Undoubtedly, the population in the areas concerned would increase but not to the extent that many of us might expect. The discovery of oil would certainly have a psychological effect. Industries would be expanded, population would be attracted to the States concerned, factories would spring up and food production would increase, but the overall effect would not be as great as many people believe it would be. This bill is a step in the right direction. Though we support the measure, we say that the amount provided is far too small and that the Commonwealth should protect itself by ensuring that any money expended will be repaid if oil is discovered. Nothing in this legislation suggests that the Commonwealth is protected. Will the Commonwealth get its money back if it subsidizes a company to the extent of 50 per cent, of the cost of the drilling? The return of the amount of the subsidy should be the minimum requirement. In addition, the Government should ensure that it would share in any profits that would result if the search for oil were successful. {: #subdebate-50-0-s1 .speaker-KWE} ##### Mr TIMSON:
Higinbotham -- I rise to express my pleasure with this bill which, as has been explained by the honorable member for Stirling **(Mr. Webb),** proposes to give financial assistance in the drilling of deep stratigraphic holes in the great sedimentary basins of this country. I am always - and in this respect I feel that I have considerable support in this House - much in favour of any measure which gives encouragement to the search for oil in Australia and in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. This drilling of stratigraphic holes has been needed very urgently in Australia for quite a number of years. On this continent there are sedimentary basins which have never been deeply drilled, and it is essential that we have these deep stratigraphic holes to provide us with geological information, at depth, which will act as a yard-stick or a measuring rod for the companies already operating in these areas, and for those which intend to operate in them. The honorable member for Stirling suggested that the discovery of oil in the Northern Territory, or in the north-west of Western Australia would make very little difference to the activities in those areas, and that their condition would remain very much unchanged. I had the opportunity to have a look at Calgary, in Alberta, some three and a half years ago, not very long after oil had been discovered there. I can assure honorable members that the change in the tenor of everything that went on in that State, and, indeed, in the whole of Canada, as the result of the discovery of oil. was quite astounding. Instead of importing oil from the United States, the Canadians are now major exporters of oil to the United States. Pipe-lines have been laid over the Rockies to Vancouver, and they are now taking oil through to Ottawa and the eastern seaboard. The discovery of oil there has given a tremendous impetus to the whole economy of Canada, particularly that of Alberta. There has been, too, a great increase in the volume of industrial activity and in the business of transport by land, sea and air. The conditions under which this assistance is to be given were very clearly explained in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale),** who represents in this place the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner),** and I shall not seek to elaborate the details that he gave, nor should it be necessary, of course, for me to discuss the great desirability of discovering in Australia oil in marketable quantities. I invite the attention of the House, as did the honorable member for Stirling, to the statement of the Minister that our imports of petroleum and petroleum products, despite the enhanced refining capacity of this country, are worth about £120,000,000 per annum. I think that the Minister said that that was the average over the last five years, and that imports were increasing at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum. The conditions which at present obtain in the Middle East, and possible developments in that area, must fill with foreboding anybody who studies the world oil situation and the prospects of the future supply of oil to the free world. Australia draws the major part of its requirements of oil from Indonesia. I shall not endeavour at this late hour to paint the picture of the world oil situation; indeed, I am scarcely qualified to do so. But there is every reason why the search for oil in Australia should be promoted and why all possible encouragement should be given to it by State and Federal Governments alike, apart altogether from the domestic reasons, which are very strong in themselves, for giving impetus to the search. Whilst not wishing in any way to detract from the merits of this bill, which proposes a subsidy on certain kinds of drilling in approved places and circumstances, I should like to commend to the Government another way in which oil search could be greatly aided and encouraged. Without going into too much detail. I point out that the present taxation laws provide assistance to oil exploration to the extent that one-third of all moneys paid by shareholders to companies engaged in the search for oil are deductible for taxation purposes. The taxation legislation provides further that, after discovery of oil in commercial quantities, companies will not be subject to taxation until such time as expenditure on exploration, capital expenditure on treatment plant and other equipment, and general pre-production expenses have been recouped. These provisions are very generous, but they assist companies only after oil has been discovered. I have no doubt that these concessions have proved very attractive to the great overseas oil companies which have interested themselves in the search for oil in Australia, but it is very doubtful whether, in the main, they are providing real encouragement to the general run of persons and companies who have undertaken, or who wish to undertake, the financially hazardous work of oil exploration. In view of the fact that no benefit can be obtained, under the present provisions of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act, until oil has been discovered, it is doubtful whether these provisions do much to assist in the general search for oil. Admittedly, section 78(l.)(b) of the act affords some assistance in the raising of capital in Australia, but the allowable deduction is limited to one-third of calls paid. I strongly commend to the Government that this concession be extended to cover the full amount of calls paid by shareholders. It is interesting to note that it has long been the policy of the Commonwealth Government to aid and assist the search for oil by way of income tax deductions in respect of calls from shareholders, by way of subsidies of various kinds, and by other concessions. I refer the House to the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1923, the Petroleum Prospecting Act of 1926, the Petroleum Oil Search Act of 1936, and the various amendments of these acts over the years. I wish to stress, however, that a full deduction of all share calls was allowed until 1940. In 1941, a rebate system was introduced, but when it was abolished in 1950, the deduction was restored, not at the former full rate, but at only one-third of the amount of calls, and it has remained on this basis ever since. 1 know that the Taxation Branch feels that, by making all calls deductible for taxation purposes, and by allowing generous concessions in the event of oil 'being discovered, oil exploration companies would be getting, as it were, a bit each way. I think that the taxation people are of the opinion that the oil exploration companies cannot have taxation advantages both before and after discovery. With this attitude, I can find no sympathy or agreement at all. I most certainly would not interfere with the post-discovery concessions, which seem to me to be absolutely necessary if we are to attract the essential capital from overseas to carry out this work which we cannot do ourselves, but it is equally essential that investment in oil exploration companies in Australia be kept at the desired level. We have seen the Australian component in the great Australian Petroleum Company in Papua dwindle from 25 per cent, to 20 per cent, and then to 10 per cent., as it is now, because the Australian investing public could not, or would not, give the necessary support to Oil Search Ltd- Other examples, including the major one in Western Australia, could be given. It is obvious that once oil is discovered in commercial quantities finance becomes a relatively small and simple problem. Just imagine the tremendous revenue which this country would derive from a flourishing oil industry! The really difficult period for oil companies is during the long, arduous and expensive processes of finding oil. If we really want to find oil in this country, let us adopt the measure existing and applying so successfully in the United States of America and Canada, whereby all moneys invested in the search for oil are deductible for taxation purposes. It is late, but I should like to inform the House, if I may, of the activities in respect of oil of the Government members' mining committee. It is over two years since that committee interested itself deeply in this problem of assisting and giving impetus to the search for oil in Australia. We gathered speed as the Suez crisis developed and as events in other parts of the world indicated that our supplies of oil might be jeopardized. The committee sought from some 25 of the major oil exploration companies in Australia their views on how the Commonwealth Government could best assist them and give their activities impetus and encouragement. From almost all of them we received some extraordinarily interesting and reasonable suggestions. The committee collectively, in small parties and sometimes just individually, has visited nearly all of the oil exploration sites throughout Australia and Papua. I feel that it has informed itself as thoroughly as it has been able to do. The committee agreed unanimously that this matter of exempting all calls paid by shareholders was of major importance in giving encouragement and impetus to the search for oil in all its aspects. I congratulate the Government on this measure, which is a jolly good step. We have not done much for the oil exploration industry for some time, and I most strongly commend for the Government's consideration the further action that I have outlined. {: #subdebate-50-0-s2 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie -- This bill is to authorize the spending of £500,000 a year on a series of lotteries in a search for flow oil. That, perhaps, may be justified in the light of the circumstances that face Australia at the present time, when our consumption of oil, petrol and all other petroleum products is increasing. The Government claims that it is entitled to proceed along the lines indicated in this bill, but I submit to the House that that is not enough. More should be done. I think that the Opposition is justified in drawing attention to a few anomalies in the proposal now before the House. The first anomaly is that referred to by the honorable member for Stirling **(Mr. Webb)** - that if oil is found, the nation will have no equity in it. It is true that a strike of flow oil would be of inestimable value to the whole of Australia. No one would deny that for a moment. It would be, as it were, transfusion of blood to the Australian economy. It would fill a gap in the economy which now exists. The Government must be taken to task for depending so completely on the importation of oil. In other days there was at Glen Davis the basis of an oil industry for this country. At Glen Davis the richest oil-bearing shale in the world was being retorted and oil was being produced for use by the people of Australia. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- What was the yearly loss? {: .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI: -- The honorable member for Mallee refers to the loss that was incurred. It is true that losses were incurred at Glen Davis, but the Commonwealth Government, without any guarantee at all of finding oil, is prepared now to vote for oil exploration £500,000 of the taxpayers' money each year. No promise has been made that oil will be found. In the meantime, the Government allows the nation to depend exclusively on the importation of oil. One would imagine that a government which has spent so much money - almost £200,000,000 a year for the last six years - on defence would also have done something to ensure that we would not have to depend upon lotteries such as these, nor upon imports, for the provision of the oil which is so necessary to us in peace and war. Further, I think that the Government has a responsibility to establish its own oil search organization. In other days, the Labour government set up an organization under the Department of National Development, with **Dr. Raggatt** in charge, and ordered the drilling equipment which is necessary in the search for flow oil. I heartily approved of that idea. It is most desirable that we should take every opportunity to find flow oil. The search should be directed by the nation for the nation, on behalf of the people. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Did we not have the equipment? {: .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI: -- The equipment had been landed on the wharfs but had not been used. What became of that equipment subsequently is another story, which I do not intend to tell at this hour. I believe that the Commonwealth has a responsibility to enter this field and to remove from it those financial interests which are engaged on wild-cat ventures and are concerned with paying themselves handsome sums for the flotation of companies, rather than with delving deeply into Australia's terrain in search of oil. {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale: -- What rot you talk! {: .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI: -- The Minister for Supply is aware of the many wild-cat ventures which have started in this country. Capital has been raised from the Australian investing public to finance many companies which have purchased jigs and begun to sink holes, but, after a short time, have ceased operations, leaving other mushroom organizations to proceed in exactly the same way. The provisions of this legislation do not satisfy me that the public's money will be satisfactorily safeguarded. It is true that certain provisions are made and certain safeguards proposed, but, in my opinion, they are not adequate. The mere fact, as stated by the Minister, that eleven companies have already indicated their interest in drilling for oil is no indication that those eleven companies are comprised of genuine people who will pursue this work to its logical end. The very fact that the nation will provide half the money required for drilling for oil in Australia will encourage " Get-rich-quick Wallingfords " to come forward with wildcat schemes. I can only hope that the taxpayers' money will be adequately safeguarded and that people of this doubtful type will not be given an opportunity to lay their hands on it. I should like to see a balanced programme. By all means let private enterprise search for oil. Indeed, it should be encouraged to search for oil. However, at the same time, the Government, on behalf of the people, should proceed with its own plans for oil searches, so that no chance of safeguarding the nation's interests will be lost. It is necessary for us to produce oil from the latent wealth lying in our rich oil shales, which are among the richest in the world, and from our vast coal resources. It is only logical that, if we are to face the future with any confidence, we must make ourselves independent of overseas supplies of oil. So far as I can see at this juncture, the only way to make ourselves really independent of overseas supplies is to get to work and exploit our own latent mineral wealth by producing oil, petrol, and other fuels, from coal and shale in order to meet the needs of the nation. I remind the House of the achievements of Germany, which kept its war machine going in World War II. almost exclusively on synthetic oils produced in Germany by various means, and on other substitute fuels. At the present time, Finland is producing oil from shale, and is pumping gas to Russia. The United States of America, which has vast supplies of flow oil, is investigating the production of oil from shale, and from other sources of latent oil wealth. Scotland has produced fuel in a similar way in the past. If other countries can do it, Australia ought to be doing it. We should undertake a balanced programme for the development of our national resources by the production of the oils and fuels that Australia needs, and the Government should submit to the Parliament proposals for such a programme. This Government has failed lamentably in this regard, and I am somewhat disappointed that, in the closing stages of this sessional period, it has brought forward a proposal such as this for the allocation of £396,000 in the current financial year, and £500.000 in a full year, for oil search surveys and exploratory drilling for flow oil, without providing the necessary safeguards. The case made out by the Minister for Supply is not at all convincing. The Opposition does not intend to oppose this measure, but it does criticize it, as it is entitled to do. The Minister, who is also Minister for Defence Production, has been so long associated with doubtful ventures that he is not particularly concerned about safeguarding the people's interests in the way that I suggest. He has not taken any great interest in this matter. Oil and oil products are being used increasingly by this Government, which has allowed things to drift, and has failed to take positive action to find supplies of oil in Australia. The Department of the Interior is not exploiting our latent wealth in coal by using coal as a source of power in Canberra. Instead, it is using oil imported from overseas. The Government has something to answer for in this matter, and in many other matters with which I do not wish to deal at the present time. The fifty-third number of " Australia in Facts and Figures " indicates how fuel oil prices have increased. At page 15, it states - >An increase of £1 12s. 6d. early in February brought the price of fuel oil to £16 14s. 6d. per ton delivered to industrial establishments in Sydney and Melbourne, and £16 7s. in Adelaide. > >The amount of coal, equivalent in heating value to a ton of fuel oil, would, on average, cost £7 9s. delivered in Sydney, £11 16s. delivered in Melbourne, and £10 14s. delivered in Adelaide. > >Thus, on a comparison with the list price of fuel oil, it was then twice the cost of small coal in Sydney, and 50 per cent, higher than the delivered cost of New South Wales coal in Melbourne and Adelaide. I think that those figures axe convincing. They indicate clearly that the Government has no regard for the nation's needs. It has not made an economic survey of the nation's requirements of fuel in peace and in war. These things ought to be done. The Government should seek to obtain a full appreciation of what Australia as a nation can do to meet its requirements from its own latent wealth, either by using coal as a fuel, or by producing oil from coal and shale. This is a reasonable proposition. Australia could, in addition, go forward in the search for flow oil, remembering that, if a strike was made, our economy would undoubtedly receive a great boost, and our wealth would be considerably increased. In addition, our national debt situation would be improved, and our balance of payments problem would be partly solved. I warn the Government that we cannot hope to continue in the future as we have been content to continue in the past, thinking that we shall have bountiful seasons and wonderful wool clips for which we shall receive the highest prices, and that we shall have vast quantities of wheat available for export. We know that, in our present circumstances, we shall not have these advantages. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- We have never heard of those things before. {: .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI: -- Of course, there is a good deal of complacency, particularly among Government supporters - more especially one or two members of the Australian Country party who are not prepared to face these problems. I suggest, in conclusion, that the Australian Labour party is entitled to be critical of this measure, which does not adequately meet the needs of our present situation. In the immediate future, a more comprehensive proposal ought to be presented to the Parliament. The Government should develop a full appreciation of the nation's requirements, and it should set about meeting those requirements. {: #subdebate-50-0-s3 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- One is at least glad that the Opposition supports this bill, although some of the comments and criticisms made by Opposition members about it are captious, and perhaps a little confused. For myself, I find that this bill is good. I regret only that it does not go far enough in the desired direction. The world supply position for oil could become very critical. Of course, we have in view ample supplies for the immediate future, but I remind the House that the sources of those supplies will not necessarily be under our control, and it may be that, before very long, we shall be glad of alternative supplies from local sources. Therefore, I feel that it is urgently necessary, and incumbent upon the Government, to encourage the search for oil by every means in its power. It is for that reason that I differ from my friends of the Opposition in criticizing, not what the Government is doing, but rather its failure to do certain things. The position in Australia is that little drilling for oil or other purposes has been done. It is, beyond everything, essential that we should increase the amount of drilling being done, and the stratigraphic holes which are envisaged in this measure are a prime need. Perhaps we in this House do not realize how little is known of Australia's geology. With only one or two exceptions, the main sedimentary basins have not, in point of fact, been deeply explored. The Sydney basin itself, which extends beyond Newcastle to Gunnedah and down to the Clyde River, with its centre at Sydney, is inadequately known. We know nothing of the deep measures underneath the City of Sydney itself. They probably will not contain oil, but they are a possible oil source and a reasonably probable gas *source. 1 give the* Sydney basin as an illustration. I have taken the trouble to consult the geologists who are most versed in this question of the Sydney basin; and I emphasize that I use that basin only as an example. The geologists themselves admit that they know very little of the deeper parts of the basin and they cannot know anything for certain without a vastly increased drilling programme. Tt is one of the mysteries of history that in Sydney itself and in the neighbourhood round Sydney we have no deep holes and we know nothing of the behaviour of the measures at depth. If that is true of the Sydney basin, it is also true of a number of other basins in Australia. The Queensland basins, for example, are surely deserving of very much greater exploration than has been accorded them hitherto. The Thallon basin, which stretches from Queensland to the northern parts of New South Wales, the great artesian basin itself, the unknown country out towards the corner of New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, are all bits of Australia where there are oil prospects. Nobody can say that there is oil for certain in those places until an attempt is made to find it, but there are enough surface indications to merit a greatly increased amount of drilling compared with what has taken place hitherto. The whole of the Bowen syncline and its associated marine sediment are quite inadequately known. In Western Australia, the Perth basin is unknown. Something is known about the northern basin, but it would be very unwise to think that the amount known is more than the veriest outline. In those conditions, it is incumbent on the Government to increase the tempo of the search for oil, and when one examines this bill one is led to suggest that certain Other things be done in addition. First, clause 11 of the bill, as honorable members will see, does make provision for the publication of the results of exploration. I should think that this provision is inadequate. Not contained in the bill, but announced by the Minister in connexion with it, there is a limitation of £500,000 a year on the subsidy. This is equivalent to a total gross expenditure of something like £1,000,000 a year on these stratigraphic holes. That is quite inadequate for the two factors I have mentioned - the unexplored possibilities of oil supplies in Australia and the need for getting alternative oil supplies in view of the international position. One matter which is not dealt with in this bill and which I think should be regarded as of urgent importance is the question of oil storage. Over the short term, one of the most effective things we could do would be to subsidize the storage of crude oil in Australia so that if there should be any international cut-off of our oil supplies we should be less vulnerable to the extent of the amount that we had in storage. In place of the few weeks' supply which we have at the moment, a year's supply in storage would immensely increase Australia's security. This could be done not at negligible cost, but at a comparatively small cost. The amount of money necessary to store a ton of oil is quite small in comparison with the total outlay for oil in a year. Here again I feel that the Government should be taking much more vigorous steps. I am sorry that, for Australian capital, there is not some provision in the bill to make calls on oil shares and subscriptions to oil shares deductions for income tax purposes. Such a provision would give a great fillip to the subscriptions to oil ventures by Australian capital. It is all very well for the honorable member for Macquarie, who preceded me, to talk about wild cat schemes and protecting investors; in point of fact, we cannot protect the investor when we are talking about a speculative thing like the search for oil. It is risk capital par excellence. Most people who put their money in oil will lose it. The few who are fortunate enough to strike an oil field are entitled to a big return on their capital because of the risk they take and because anybody who invests his money in the search for oil does so thinking that it may be gone, that there is a good chance of getting no return at all but, if the oil is there, the return will be big. This is a venture in which risk capital is called for. I repeat that the Commonwealth's own activities in the search for oil, in the expansion of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, in mapping and other work, should be much more vigorous. There should be more reasonable help given to private industry, and, in particular, where private industry needs aerial photographs, maps, magnatomic work, or something of that character, there should be much more generous provision from the Commonwealth. I am suggesting that the Bureau of Mineral Resources should be given more funds for this purpose, reiterating as I do, first, that there are in Australia surface indications of the promise, not the certainty of oil, and secondly, that Australia's need for oil is very great. The honorable member for Macquarie mentioned shale. I am afraid our shale resources do not provide very much hope for satisfying any reasonable or substantial proportion of our fuel requirements. As the honorable member for Macquarie knows, our shales are contained in very narrow ledges and they are quite different from the shale resources he mentioned in Finland, Scotland and the other places where they are being worked. It may be that the shale has a value for certain chemicals that can be got from it, but I do not think it can be considered a substantial supplier of fuel in relation to the quantities of fuel which are needed for Australia's economy. I do think, however, that we might be considering our coal resources much more critically. Hydrogenation, the Fischer Tropsch process and things of that character are not economic in themselves, but there is one avenue which does justify more pressing exploration. I refer to low temperature carbonization in conjunction with existing power plants. This has been explored, as the House, may know, in America by the Pittsburgh Consolidated Coal Company. The idea is that when coal is to be put into a power house for the generation of electricity it should be given a preliminary treatment whereby a comparatively small proportion of the volatiles is removed and used for the production of oil of various grades. If that is done, we do not get a big addition to our oil supplies but we do get a quite reasonable, sometimes an even substantial addition. While I do not think that this is something that is entirely established, it is worth further exploration. I do not want to weary the House at this late hour by further pursuing the subject. I support the bill. I am very happy that it has been introduced. My only regret is that it does not go further. I hope that the Government will take further action in the not too distant future along the lines I have suggested. {: #subdebate-50-0-s4 .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS:
Griffith .- I think all honorable members will agree that the need for pursuing the investigation into the drilling for oil is a most essential requirement in this country. Oil fuel is the basis of our transport industry, and the necessity for importing all our fuel requirements from overseas is placing an intolerable burden on the national economy and increasing transport costs in this country. Transportation charges are absorbing about 35 per cent, of the national income, contributed to largely by the excessive cost of petroleum products in this country. Anything that can be done to assist the finding of oil in commercial quantities in Australia will be well worthwhile, because if it is found the national economy will be greatly improved. Our living standard will be raised considerably if we cease to be dependent on other nations for our oil supplies. We are spending £120,000,000 a year on the importation of crude and refined petroleum products into Australia. The figure is increasing by 10 per cent, each year. That, surely, is a fantastically large amount. The proposal before the House is to authorize the Government to subsidize stratigraphic drilling to the tune of £500,000 a year. The aim is to obtain information concerning geological formation and construction at great depths, such information being unobtainable by geological surveys. It has been said that all mining is a gamble. The history of drilling for oil has certainly proved that it is a very great gamble. When we realize, as the Minister said, that in Alberta some 3,000 holes were drilled before oil was struck, we see just how big a gamble it is. Of course, when the 3,000th hole was drilled and oil was struck the whole economy of Canada was changed. In the Sahara desert, ruined by man over the centuries, the French, after sinking 2,000 bores, have discovered oil. Doubtless, thai discovery will add to the economy of the area. A lot of money has been spent in drilling for oil in Australia. During this century some £50,000,000 has been spent on the sinking of bores in the search for oil. There is a rather sorry history associated with the exploration for oil. A lot of wildcatting and go-getting has been experienced by the Australian people. Investors, true to our national characteristic, have been good gamblers. Wherever there has been any indication of oil, the investing public has come in and thrown more and more milions down the bore. The history of the search for oil, particularly in Queensland, is a most unfortunate one. I think that the first area prospected in Australia - certainly in Queensland - was the Roma area in the 90's of the last century. There was quite a boom when oil was discovered at Roma in the Hospital Hill area. In the 1920's boring exploration was resumed in that area and oil was discovered, although not altogether in commercial quantities. I remember the spectacle of motor cars in Brisbane running on oil produced at Roma, thus proving that oil was there and that it was of sufficiently high quality to provide the power necessary to propel motor vehicles. With the discovery of oil, the wild-catters immediately came in and floated companies on every paddock for which they could get a lease. The general public poured money into the Roma oil project. But the boom collapsed. The wild-catters got very rich, and the general public was mulct to the tune of several millions of pounds in Queensland alone. Now we have the position in Western Australia. I understand that a lot of money was invested by outside companies in oil exploration in Western Australia, where oil was discovered in 1953. There was an immediate boom, and the Australian public invested large amounts in oil ventures. I have no doubt that the overseas companies that invested money in oil exploration in the boom of 1953 amply recouped their investment from the sale of shares to the Australian public. I would say that in all cases where overseas companies have invested capital in times of boom in Australia, they have received an adequate return for their investment as a result of the sale of shares during the boom. Now there seems to be some hiatus in the search for oil. The Shell Company of Australia Limited has prospected in the Springsure district of Queensland, where it spent millions of pounds. But is has now removed its plant and abandoned the area. Reports have not been altogether encouraging, although, as I have stated, oil has been discovered in Roma, and at Rough Range in Western Australia, but not in commercial quantities. The search for oil should not be abandoned. We should persist, in the hope that eventually oil will be discovered in commercial quantities so that we may be relieved of the terrific drain on our overseas credits. A good deal of development has taken place in the refining of oil, so that if we are fortunate enough to discover oil in Australia, we will already have gone a fair way in the refining side of the industry. I agree with the contention of the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti)** that whilst the Government is spending a considerable sum of money in subsidizing drilling, something should also be done to investigate what can be done to develop the oU-from-coal industry. In Queensland, the survey in relation to coal has shown that that State possesses fantastic coa! reserves. The development of the oil-from-coal industry alongside the investigation of oil exploration could, I feel, pay dividends to the nation. I do not abandon hope of finding oil in payable quantities in Australia, but there is a school of thought that suggests that oil will not be found in favorable quantities south of the Equator. In looking at the map of the world, we see that up to now that has been true. If such be the case, the prospect of finding oil in Australia is somewhat remote, but I do not believe that we should abandon the search. Investigations should also be made to determine what can be done to produce oil from coal in commercial quantities, because it is essential that we examine that aspect of national production. Already we are expending £120,000,000 each year on the importation of fuel, and the expenditure is being increased each year. I hope that the efforts of the Government, which are somewhat overdue, will be used to advantage by the oil companies, and that the gamble will pay off and return a handsome dividend to the Australian people. {: #subdebate-50-0-s5 .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs .- I wish to make a very brief contribution to the debate on this bill, which is designed to encourage the search for petroleum in Australia by subsidizing stratigraphic drilling. Previous speakers have explained what the bill is designed to do, so I do not propose to traverse that field again. I support those who suggested that the Government should be congratulated on what it has already done in making the proposed amount of £500,000 available for stratigraphic drilling, but that it might consider going a little further to assist the exploration for oil. The difficulties that confront oil prospectors were explained by the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** in his second-reading speech. He said that about 2,000 holes were drilled before oil was discovered in commercial quantities in the Sahara, and that 3,000 holes were drilled over a period of 30 years before the great oil fields of Alberta were tapped. In Australia, about 400 holes have been drilled and nothing substantial in the way of oil deposits has been revealed. Since oil was discovered in Australia about four years ago, about 40 dry holes, one oil well and one gas well have been drilled. The drilling of the holes was planned with very great care and the work was backed by an enormous amount of geological data. The financial cost was very great. I doubt whether many honorable members appreciate fully the immense amount of detail that has to be collected and collated before the drilling of a hole commences. The data and the information gained by companies searching for oil and during the drilling of holes are not wasted because, although their efforts have not been successful, they have been building up a library of geological information. That is why *thi* Government should be congratulated on encouraging exploration and further drilling by making available the amount of £500,000 for which provision is made in this bill. Experts have admitted that much more data about the rock formations of Australia will have to be collected before a commercial oil field is discovered. Of course, the unexpected can always happen, and what might be expected to be a dry hole might very well turn out to be a gusher. That is the possibility which attracts a certain type of investor. It is a good thing for Australia that we have investors who are prepared to gamble on a possibility. However, I do not think that our support for oil exploration should rest on the discovery of oil by some lucky chance. We should go much further and support the long-term exploration that has been suggested by the honorable members for Higinbotham **(Mr. Timson)** and Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth).** To do that, we have to look for ways and means by which we may encourage sustained interest in Australian exploration and not merely hopes that we might find an oil gusher almost overnight. In the past, we have encouraged investment in oil exploration by allowing as an income tax concession one-third of the calls paid to companies engaged in such activity. Now the Government proposes to make available £500,000 towards drilling operations approved by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. This assistance will be of con siderable value, particularly to oil drillers, but it will not stimulate or sustain enthusiasm among stockholders and induce them to provide additional capital for further exploration. I believe that the only way to stimulate and retain the interest of stockholders is to provide extra tax concessions. If we are not prepared to do that, it is quite possible that the search for oil will pass completely out of the hands of Australians into the hands of overseas companies. Alternatively, it is possible that overseas organizations will lose interest in the exploration for oil in Australia because Australian investors fail to support such exploration themselves. If such a calamity came about - and it would be a calamity - I believe that almost overnight oil exploration would pass to wild-cat shows and fly-by-night operators, as honorable members opposite have suggested. These operators would merely dabble in oil exploration, and their activities would not be on the high level that we have seen in the past three or four years. The Government is encouraging those who are interested in the exploration for oil and, as a result, much geological data will be gathered which will be very valuable to Australia. I believe, however, that we should not only provide £500,000 but also go further and help those who are interested in oil exploration with tax concessions along the lines that have been suggested to-night. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Third Reading Motion (by **Mr. Beale)** - by leave - proposed - >That the bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-50-0-s6 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports -- I wish to direct attention to the fact that this bill originated in the Senate and purports to be, according to its title, a measure to provide a petroleum search subsidy. It is described as a bill to encourage the search for petroleum, but virtually the only encouragement that is proposed is of a financial character. I ask the Government whether, in future, bills such as this will originate in the Senate. Whatever may be the protections provided in clause 5, it seems to me that essentially this measure is a law appropriating revenue. It is a right of the House of Representatives alone, under section S3 of the Constitution, to originate financial measures. Otherwise, the Senate has the same rights as the House of Representatives. This is primarily a constitutional point, and I suggest to the Leader of the House **(Mr. Harold Holt)** that he might discuss this matter with the AttorneyGeneral **(Senator O'sullivan).** Just as the Senate this week exercised its rights, so, equally, should the House or Representatives always be zealous to exercise its constitutional rights and privilges. {: #subdebate-50-0-s7 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP -- in reply - I think I can answer, briefly, the point raised by the honorable member by saying that this bill does not appropriate money. The provision for the money is made in the Estimates. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2890 {:#debate-51} ### NATIVE MEMBERS OF THE FORCES BENEFITS BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-51-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 2845). Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: The bill. {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr BARNARD:
Bass .-I regret that important legislation of this nature is being dealt with by the Parliament in the dying stages of the session. I have no doubt that it will affect considerable numbers of natives not only in Papua and New Guinea but also in certain islands in Torres Strait and in the Pacific Ocean. I congratulate the Government on taking appropriate action to legislate for the payment of benefits to the natives concerned. I recognize that up till now payments have been of an ex gratia nature, but under this bill they will be given legal force. But there are some very important points that ought to be considered by honorable members. First of all, under this legislation no indication is given as to the amount that will be payable to the natives for incapacity arising from war disabilities. I understand that the rates are to be fixed by the Minister for Territories and the Minister for Repatriation and that they will be made by regulation after this bill has been passed. I consider that far too much of the legislation of this Parliament is now being implemented by way of regulation after Parliament has gone into recess. In a matter such as this, the most important point to be considered is the rates that will be made available to the natives. Another point that ought to be considered is how these pension rates will be assessed. If it is decided that a native has been permanently incapacitated as a result of his service in one of the forces during the last war, some indication should be given to honorable members of how the rates of payment will be determined. At this late stage it may be extremely difficult to prove that a native's disability is due to war service unless that native is accorded the same consideration that would be given to any other ex-serviceman under the repatriation legislation. The Minister should have been more explicit on that point when he introduced this bill. I say again that the most important point that can be considered in this matter is the rates that will be applicable to the natives who will qualify for benefit under this bill. I concede at once that the opportunity will be given to natives to qualify for gratuity payments. In that respect, under the bill, the rates will be determined according to the social and economic conditions which apply to the natives in the areas in which they happen to reside. But in my opinion, if a native is incapacitated as a result of his service in one of the units of the forces during the last war, his incapacity should bc judged on the same basis as that of any other repatriation pensioner in this country. Surely we are not prepared to concede that his disability shall be judged, for the purposes of financial assessment at least, upon the district in which he happens to live! The position could arise in which one native pensioner might be receiving considerably less than another pensioner living only a few miles distant. But according to this measure the rate of payment will be governed by the economic circumstances of the village in which each resides. These points ought to have been carefully explained by the Minister at the secondreading stage. I suggest that to leave the question of rates, which is the most important feature of the bill, to be fixed by regulation is certainly not the type of consideration that ought to be given to a matter of this kind. For that reason I voice my protest against this provision. I am prepared to concede that certain adjustments are to be made, and I congratulate the Government on that. However, I believe that the Minister has left a great deal, to the imagination in this respect. Although certain natives in Papua and New Guinea, the Torres Strait Islands and. some of the Pacific Ocean islands will benefit under this bill, it must be pointed out that no explanation is made in the bill as to how these benefits will be determined. Who will decide whether a native is able to qualify for benefits as a result of his incapacity arising out of service during the 1939-45 war? I should like the Minister to explain who will decide the eligibility of a native for benefits under this bill. Is a native to be given the same consideration as any other ex-serviceman who applies for a pension under the Repatriation Act? Will he be treated as an ex-serviceman who applies for a pension to-day is treated? Will he be entitled' to the benefit of having his application considered by a repatriation board and will he be entitled to an appeal to an independent tribunal if his application fails- before that body? These are questions that ought to be explained' by the Minister, because they are extremely important to the applicant. I make these points because,, as I. said at the commencement of my remarks, the legislation- is extremely important. It lays down the basis upon which pension rates will be decided for natives concerned, in the islands mentioned in the bill. Seeing it lays down that basis, I believe that we ought to get these points straight now. The Minister should give a full explanation to the committee in. relation to, first, the basis upon which these points will be made and, secondly, the rates that will be applicable te* a member who is partially or totally incapacitated as a result of his; service during the last war. I leave the matter there. I hope the Minister will be prepared to offer that explanation. R.-r111 {: #subdebate-51-0-s1 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- There is an agreed scale according to which payments will be made. The rates applicable' are equal to about 50 per cent, of the corresponding rates under the Repatriation Act. What is being done is in accordance with the recommendations of the original committee, and the whole procedure is along the lines of what has already been done by the previous government and. this Government. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment;, report adopted. Bill - by leave1 - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2891 {:#debate-52} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF (INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION) BILL 1957 Second- Reading. Debate resumed (vide page 2829). {: #debate-52-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports -- I ask the Minister for Air **(Mr. Osborne)** why measures of this kind arealways introduced at such a late stage in the session. When I obtained a copy of the principal act which this measure seeks to amend, I was interested to note that on 15th November, 1956, amendments of the act were- approved, but I do not think that prior to that time amendments' had been made since.- 1936. As I recall the situation1, a similar measure that was introduced last yeal was passed with similar haste. I do not think, it is fair to either the Opposition, or the community at large that legislation of this kind should be dealt with in that way. The purpose of this- amending bill is- to protect the goods of third countries against what is regarded as being unfair competition or dumping. I ask the House to contrast the machinery that is envisaged in this measure with the machinery that is in operation for the protection of Australian industry generally, in relation to which the Government relies on the advice of the Tariff Board'. Section 4 of the principal act commences with; the following words;*- >If the- Minister is satisfied, after inquiry and1 report, by the: Tariff Board . . .. That section- defines" the machinery that is to" be used' to' advise tire- Government in cases' where Australian industry needs protection. But the appropriate amendment now before us, which is designed, I repeat, and as the Minister stated in his second-reading speech, to protect third countries against unfair competition, reads - >If the Minister is satisfied that goods which are produced or manufactured . . . I ask the Minister what machinery has been established or it is proposed to establish to enable the Minister for Customs and Excise to determine the kind of goods that are referred to. Reference is made in clause 7 to goods that may be imported from other countries which subsidize freight charges or allow the goods through at ballast rates or freight free. Where will the Minister obtain the information on the basis of which the third countries are to be protected? I do not think the Minister for Air indicated that in his second-reading speech. Quite a number of questions have been asked in this House recently about trade with Japan in particular; but I do not know whether the amendments now before us envisage the protection of the United Kingdom, as our main customer, against what might be regarded as being unfair competition from Japan. Our own manufacturers are alarmed at the prospects, and apparently United Kingdom manufacturers also are a bit disturbed about what may happen. Although the Government does not always act upon the advice of the Tariff Board, our own manufacturers have the advantage of submitting their case to the board. {: #debate-52-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Freeth -- Order! The honorable member for Melbourne Ports is not being assisted by his colleagues on the left. There is far too much audible conversation. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- What about his colleagues on the right? {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- I appreciate assistance from both the left and the right in this matter. I simply ask the Minister to indicate what machinery it is proposed to set up to enable the Minister for Customs and Excise to determine where the information that is needed can be found early enough for the legislation to be of any value. {: #debate-52-s2 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP -- in reply - I shall reply briefly to the points that have been raised by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean).** This bill is not designed specifically for the protection of the United Kingdom industries, but, as I pointed out when introducing the measure, it arises directly from discussions during the negotiation of the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement. The Tariff Board is not the appropriate body to make investigations of the kind that are necessary in this instance. The Tariff Board functions in the interests of Australian industry, but the amendments now before us do not concern Australian industry. The investigations would be departmental investigations, and no doubt would be initiated by representations made by the government of the country that seeks protection under the act. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2892 {:#debate-53} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-53-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 2837). 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 2892 {:#debate-54} ### EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-54-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 2837). 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 2893 {:#debate-55} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-55-0} #### ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER Procedure Debate resumed from 9th October (vide page 1174), on motion by **Mr. Menzies** - >That the House approves that, in lieu of the presentation of Supplementary Estimates and the introduction of Supplementary Appropriation Bills, the following procedure be adopted: - > >That there be presented to the House after the end of each financial year a Statement prepared by the Treasurer showing the Heads of Expenditure and the Amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1957. > >That the Statement be referred for the consideration of the Committee of the whole House. > >That a Resolution of the Committee be reported to the House for its adoption. {: #subdebate-55-0-s0 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- This motion was moved by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** as a result of consideration of the Supplementary Estimates procedure. The matter has been considered by the Public Accounts Committee for some time. I think that the Public Accounts Committee of 1931 first took up the question of whether it was necessary to bring in Supplementary Estimates and have an appropriation made. The Supplementary Estimates, of course, really cover moneys that have been provided by the Treasurer's Advance. It was contended that, legally appropriations had been made in the Treasurer's Advance and that it was not necessary to make a further appropriation by bringing in Supplementary Estimates. After a lot of discussion with the Treasury and officials of the Attorney-General's Department the present Public Accounts Committee finally decided to recommend the procedure which is the subject of this motion. This is to the effect that a report should be made to Parliament in connexion with the amount that had been spent from the Treasurer's Advance. I should like to point out that the method by which this should be dealt with so that Parliament would still have control of the moneys affected was of considerable moment to the committee. We noted that the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** had spent from his advance account up to £16,000,000 which had been appropriated by Parliament as Advance to the Treasurer. In the past, such expenditure has come before the Parliament in the year subsequent to that in which it was spent and has been dealt with in the same way as the ordinary Estimates. If that practice were to be discontinued, the result would be that money would be spent by the Treasurer on various items which had not been approved by Parliament. It would be possible for the Parliament to make a block vote of £16,000,000 to the Treasurer's Advance account and that no appropriation would be made in respect of the items on which that money was spent. The Government has accepted the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee to adopt the procedure now under consideration. It agrees that a motion for the approval of expenditure from the Treasurer's Advance should be put to the committee of the whole House. The passing of the resolution now before the committee will make it incumbent on the Treasurer to handle these matters in that manner and the House will have the opportunity of discussing them if it so desires. I support the resolution. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2893 {:#debate-56} ### ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1956-57 {:#subdebate-56-0} #### Statement of Expenditure In committee: Statement - by leave - taken as a whole. {: #subdebate-56-0-s0 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- The committee has already had an opportunity, when dealing with the ordinary Estimates, to consider anything in this statement. The Public Accounts Committee has been completely through it and it has been presented in this chamber. I do not know that there is anything in it which requires to be discussed. Statement agreed to. Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) agreed to - >That the following resolution be reported to the House: - > >That the committee agrees with the statement for the year 1956-57 of Heads of Expenditure and the Amounts charged thereto pursuant to Section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1957. Resolution reported; report adopted. {: .page-start } page 2894 {:#debate-57} ### FLAX FIBRE BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1957 Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. House .adjourned .at 1.49 a.m. (Thursday). {: .page-start } page 2894 {:#debate-58} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-58-0} #### Australian Defence {: #subdebate-58-0-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he announce on 4th October, 1956, that the ideas underlying defence policy would be revised from top to bottom in conferences then taking place? 1. What were the reasons for this revision? 2. Is this revision now completed? 3. In what way has the size, organization and supply of the Defence Forces been changed as a result of this revision? {: #subdebate-58-0-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The reasons for the revision were indicated in the statement on Australian defence made by me on 4th April. 2. Yes. 3. Apart from the variations to which I referred in my further statement of 19th September, there has been substantial progress towards the achievement of our defence objectives. {:#subdebate-58-1} #### St. Mary's Filling Factory {: #subdebate-58-1-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he referred to the contractual arrangements for the construction of the St. Mary's ammunition filling factory as being novel and unusual? 1. If so, in what respects are the arrangements novel and unusual? 2. Why were normal practices departed from? {: #subdebate-58-1-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 1st October and 15th October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {:#subdebate-58-2} #### Taxation Refunds {: #subdebate-58-2-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >Will he endeavour to have the despatch of all taxation refund cheques expedited so that the recipients will receive them prior to Christmas? {: #subdebate-58-2-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- -Every endeavour is made by the Taxation Office to issue refund cheques to salary and wage earners as expeditiously as possible. From 1st July, 1957, to 30th November, 1957, the number of .refund cheques issued was 2,440,000 and it is estimated that a further 126,000 cheques will be issued -before Christmas. Some salary and wage earners have not yet lodged their returns. It is expected that 95 per cent, of the refunds in respect of returns already lodged will be issued before Christmas. For various reasons, such as the need to obtain additional information from taxpayers, the returns in the remaining 5 per cent, of cases cannot yet be assessed. {:#subdebate-58-3} #### Unemployment {: #subdebate-58-3-s0 .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES k asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - >What is the number of persons registered as unemployed in the following towns in the electoral division of Darling: - Broken Hill, Coonamble, Bourke, Brewarrina, Cobar, Nyngan, Warren, Condobolin, Wentworth and Wilcannia? {: #subdebate-58-3-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >The department does not have readily available figures relating to these particular towns. However, the numbers of persons registered for employment wilh the Commonwealth Employment Service at 1st November within the district office areas of Broken Hill, Dubbo and Parkes, which include these towns, were - > >These figures relate to persons who claimed when registering with the Commonwealth Employment Service that they were not employed and who were recorded as unplaced at that date. They include persons referred to employment but whose placement was not then confirmed and those who may have secured employment without notifying the Commonwealth Employment Service. They also include those receiving unemployment benefit, who -numbered 84 in the Broken Hill area, 30 in the Dubbo area and .28 in the -Parkes area. {:#subdebate-58-4} #### Wheat {: #subdebate-58-4-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister acting for the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is best quality Queensland wheat at present being exported to Japan? 1. Are intending purchasers of this wheat in New South Wales, in an endeavour to meet existing local shortages, offering a higher price than that being paid by Japan, without being able to obtain supplies? 2. If so, what action does the Government propose to take to ensure that higher quality wheat, before it is made available for export, is available in sufficient supply to meet the requirements of the Australian market? {: #subdebate-58-4-s1 .speaker-KOL} ##### Sir Philip McBride:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. Premium wheat from Queensland and New South Wales has not been available for export in 1957. 1. Local users generally offer more than export parity for the portion of premium wheat supplies that they want. All premium wheat from the coming crop is being reserved for seed and for local millers. Shipment of Queensland wheat to New South Wales is not contemplated. 2. The Wheat Board always ensures local needs for premium wheat before any is offered for export. {:#subdebate-58-5} #### St. Mary's Filling Factory {: #subdebate-58-5-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP n asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many employees, including high executive officers of the parent American body, of Utah (Australia) Limited were brought to this country in connexion with the St. Mary's filling factory project? 1. Was the cost of transport of these personnel and their families, including the transport of their personal effects, charged against the cost of the undertaking? 2. Is it a fact that, in some instances, the cost of visits back to the United States by these people or their families .was also charged against this project? 3. Will he .furnish a statement showing the total expenditure on this transport? {: #subdebate-58-5-s1 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many staff cottages were provided for in the plans for the construction of the St. Mary's filling factory? 1. What was the (a) estimated and (b) actual cost of construction? 2. Will he obtain and supply information as to the quantities of the various building materials and household fittings released from store for the erection of these cottages? {: #subdebate-58-5-s3 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s4 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the total expenditure to date for the hiring of equipment required in the construction of the St. Mary's filling factory? 1. Of this amount, how much was paid to the contractors? {: #subdebate-58-5-s5 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23 rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s6 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that an amount of £950,000 for contingencies and a further sum of £1,000,000 to meet any probable increase in labour or material costs were provided in the contract with Utah (Australia) Limited and Concrete Constructions Limited for the construction of an ammunition filling factory at St. Mary's? 1. If so, was this financial provision designed to take care of any increased expenditure arising from these causes for a period of two years? 2. Did the revised estimate of cost of £26,346,000 made at the end of 1955 contain a further sum of £910,000 also specified as being for contingencies and an anticipated increased cost of labour and materials? 3. If so, and if the original provision in the contract made in 1955 was to meet the position for a period of two years, what was the reason for the additional expenditure of £910,000? {: #subdebate-58-5-s7 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s8 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Who was the person, or who were the persons or firms, appointed by the architects, Messrs. Stephenson and Turner, as the Control Authority at the commencement of the St. Mary's ammunition filling factory project? 1. What was the reason for the resignation of the Control Authority on 31st May, 1956? 2. What is the structure of the new Control Authority appointed to act from 1st June, 19567 {: #subdebate-58-5-s9 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s10 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many tenders were received from builders in respect of the St. Mary's ammunition filling factory? 1. Was the fixed fee quoted by Utah (Australia) Limited and Concrete Constructions Limited the lowest of those received? {: #subdebate-58-5-s11 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s12 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was the costing system initially adopted by the architects and contractors for the St. Mary's ammunition filling factory subsequently abandoned? 1. If so, what were the defects in this system which caused its abandonment? 2. What changes were effected by the introduction of the new system which was subsequently adopted? 3. When did the new system become effective? {: #subdebate-58-5-s13 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s14 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What constructional work associated with the St. Mary's ammunition filling factory project has been deferred? 1. Of the work originally planned, what sections have been abandoned? {: #subdebate-58-5-s15 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s16 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - >Will he furnish for the information of honorable members the reports of the cost accountants in his department who have been engaged in the work of checking the administrative practices of the contractors and the architects associated with the building of the St. Mary's ammunition filling factory? {: #subdebate-58-5-s17 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s18 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he furnish examples of inadequate supervision and of administrative weaknesses in the control of the construction of the St. Mary's ammunition filling factory to which the AuditorGeneral referred in his annual report? 1. Has he admitted the accuracy of the statement in the report? {: #subdebate-58-5-s19 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions. {: #subdebate-58-5-s20 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it now impossible, as a result of a change made in the cost accounting methods employed in connexion with the work of constructing the St. Mary's ammunition filling factory, to determine the separate cost of any of the hundreds of buildings included in the project? 1. Did the Auditor-General in his annual report state that the ultimate value of the individual assets will have to be determined at the completion of the project by an allocation of final expenditure on the basis of arbitrary assessments? 2. Did the change in the original costing system occur shortly after it was disclosed that an estimate for the construction of ten staff cottages had been exceeded by approximately £50,000? 3. If so, was the disclosure in any way related to the decision to change the costing system? 4. If this was not so, why was the costing system altered? {: #subdebate-58-5-s21 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- I refer the honorable member to statements made by me to the House on 15th October and 23rd October. I have nothing further to add to what I said on those occasions.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 December 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1957/19571204_reps_22_hor17/>.