House of Representatives
4 May 1960

23^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS
- Petition
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL 1960
QUESTION
- LAMB EXPORTS
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE SERVICES
QUESTION
- TELEVISION PROGRAMMES
QUESTION
- HOTEL FOR QANTAS EMPIRE AIRWAYS LIMITED
QUESTION
- EMPLOYMENT OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- PORT PIRIE TO BROKEN HILL RAILWAY
QUESTION
- DISPOSALS SALES
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE SERVICES
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION
QUESTION
- ROADS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS
QUESTION
- GUIDED MISSILES
QUESTION
- SYDNEY BUILDING SITE
QUESTION
- GUIDED MISSILES
QUESTION
- TARIFF BOARD
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL LIBRARY
WHALING BILL 1960
QUESTION
- REDFERN MAIL EXCHANGE
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL 1960
- Second Reading
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1960
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
JUDICIARY BILL 1960
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Taxation - Sales Tax - Telephone Services - Employment of Physically Handicapped Persons - The Parliament - Superannuation - Long Bay Rifle Range - Industrial Arbitration
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Australian Airlines
- Pharmaceutical Benefits
- Insurance Legislation - Protection of Policyholders
- Department of Works

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1325

SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS

Petition

Mr. FAILES presented a petition from certain citizens of Australia praying that the House will introduce legislation to ease the means test and increase social service benefits payable to civilian widow pensioners and their dependent children.

Petition received and read.

page 1325

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL 1960

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HigginsTreasurer · LP

– I give notice that at the next sitting I will move -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to approve acceptance by Australia of membership in the International Development Association, and for purposes connected therewith.

I may add, Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of honorable members, that it might be useful if at a later hour of the day, copies of the bill should then be available, I had an opportunity to make a secondreading speech on the measure. This would give more time for consideration of the measure, but at this stage I merely give notice of it.

page 1325

QUESTION

LAMB EXPORTS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry and concerns the branding of export lamb carcasses. Has the Minister been informed of the opinion expressed by the Minister for Customs and Excise in Launceston last week that export lambs should carry the State brand? In view of this statement will the Minister advise me whether it is now proposed to meet the request made by exporters, and supported by the State Department of Agriculture, that the Tasmanian brand should be prominently displayed on lamb exports from Tasmania?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I am sorry that I did not hear the first part of the honorable member’s question, and therefore I shall forward him a reply when I read the full text of it in “Hansard”.

page 1325

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– My question to the PostmasterGeneral relates to telephone rental charges for which pensioners are liable following the introduction of the extended local service area system, known as Elsa. By way of explanation, I should like to point out that in the electorate which I have the honour to represent there are many elderly pensioners who live in sparsely populated hill areas for whom a telephone is essential in case of emergency such as ill health, bush fire, &c. Under Elsa, the rental for a private telephone will be increased from approximately £8 to £14 a year. Will the Minister consider not applying the increased telephone rental to pensioners in scattered areas?

Mr Calwell:

– Say “ Yes “, for once.

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– That would be strange, wouldn’t it? I appreciate very much the interest of the honorable member for La Trobe in this matter which has engaged the attention of the department and of various governments over a considerable number of years, lt has been decided time and time again that it is essential to have some uniform way of determining these charges. In fact, therefore, the department has no authority whatever, under present rules and regulations, to carry out the amendment or provide the amelioration which the honorable member has requested. He stated that in some cases the introduction of the Elsa system has resulted in an increase in telephone rentals in some parts of his electorate from £8 to £14 a year. That would be correct in some areas, but that is counterbalanced by the accessibility to many more subscribers at the local call rate. The advantage which will accrue to the subscribers concerned, will depend, of course, to a certain extent on the degree of usage of the telephone. It will be found, however, that the introduction of Elsa will be of very great advantage to all subscribers in Australia, and its advantage will increase through the years as we continue to develop the automatic dialling system.

page 1325

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Postmaster-General aware of any instances of the standard of television programmes which has> been laid down being violated by commercial stations? Complaints have been made to me that this is occurring. As the PostmasterGeneral knows, the television regulations provide that advertising is to be limited to six minutes each hour, and I should like to know whether television programmes are being monitored to ensure that this regulation and others are properly observed?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I think that the short answer to the honorable member can” be directed to the last ‘portion of his question. The standards which have been set down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board are regularly and properly monitored. The board has1 a number of employees who have the particular task of monitoring programmes, not only on all television stations but also on broadcasting stations, to ensure that the board’s standards are properly observed. It will be realized, I think, that although we have this monitoring system it cannot be of such scope as to apply to every programme which is televised or broadcast. Monitors have to take a crosssection of programmes to ascertain whether the board’s standards are being observed. Occasionally a minor breach of the provisions relating to advertising time is noted, but when any such case has arisen and has been brought to the. attention of stations’ licensee, the proper adjustment has been made.

page 1326

QUESTION

HOTEL FOR QANTAS EMPIRE AIRWAYS LIMITED

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Government has made up its- mind on the proposals advanced by Qantas Empire Airways Limited to build a hotel in Sydney under the auspices of the Commonwealth Government. In this connexion, is. the right honorable gentleman aware of the movements lately in the City of Sydney to provide adequate hotel accommodation by free enterprise, and also the announcement made on Friday last that private entrepreneurs propose to erect” a modern hotel in Bridge-street in close proximity to the premises of Qantas Empire Airways Limited? If he is aware of these facts, would it not be to the purpose for the Government to confine its activities to the functions of go vernment’” rather- than”: become involved in a chancy commercial venture costing millions of pounds, which could be devoted more profitably to the general benefit of the people?

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

– The position is substantially the same as it was last year when the honorable member, I think, asked me a similar question’.

Mr Calwell:

– On behalf of the same interests.

Mr McEWEN:

– No, I am sure that it is a completely bona fide question. The point is that the Australian Government recognizes that the’ great Qantas international airline, of which all Australians are justifiably very proud indeed, must have available to it facilities which are ancillary to its actual operations, that is, an ability to book, whether at home” or abroad, hotel accommodation for its flying passengers, as is done by other great airlines. On the other hand, the Government takes the- view that if Qantas can have access- to accommodation, on terms that are appropriate to its requirements in the matter that I have just described, without Government’ funds being involved, that would represent Government policy and desire. This view ‘has been conveyed to the directors- of Qantas with an intimation that they should study whether there exists, or is likely in the near future to exist, hotel accommodation of a kind appropriate to the requirements and prestige of Qantas as an airline and its passengers, and. where it can book people in with confidence. The Government invited Qantas to state its conclusions on this proposition but to the best of my knowledge the airline has not yet reached a conclusive decision.

Qantas and the country are aware of. the Government’s view on this matter. It is quite clear that the Government would prefer - and I think it would be in the Australian interest - that the resources of government should be devoted to the functions of government and not used extraneously unless there is a compelling reason why they should be extraneously used.

page 1326

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Acting Prime Minister by reminding him of a recent statement by the Prime Minister in which he expressed interest’ in the cause of the physically handicapped and indicated that rehabilitation centres and the Commonwealth Employment Service would be made available to them. I now ask the right honorable gentleman to make a more effective contribution to the employment of the physically handicapped by the employment in the Commonwealth Government service of a greater number of disabled persons. Will the Acting Prime Minister confer with his ministerial colleagues and the Public Service Board so that positive steps may be taken to provide employment by easing the stringent health requirements which prevent many disabled workers from obtaining employment in the Public Service? Has the Government given consideration to the introduction of legislation similar to that in force in the United Kingdom, which compels all employers, including the government, to employ a fair percentage of physically handicapped persons in their work forces?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I do not carry in my mind the information which would enable me to reply in specific terms to the latter part of the honorable member’s question. However, the Government’s policy and practice– have- been completely in conformity with the recent statement made by the Prime Minister in which he. expressed a sympathetic understanding of the problems of the people suffering from, physical disabilities. He also expressed a spirited encouragement for those who work to aid the. people who are so handicapped. A section of the department administered by my colleague, the Minister for Social Services, is devoted to the rehabilitation of the physically disabled. I am sure that there are thousands of Australians who would readily testify to the efficacy of the activities of that rehabilitation section. In addition, I know that my colleague, the Minister for Labour, and National. Service, interests himself, through his department, in the placing of these people in employment. There may be further opportunities to place people suffering from physical disabilities in the service of the Commonwealth, and I undertake to discuss that matter with my colleagues. The Minister for Labour and

National.’ Service helps- me by reminding me that this matter is at present actively under review.

page 1327

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr FAILES:
LAWSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Treasurer expressed the opinion, attributed to him in some places, that the rise in the price of wool from 48d. to 59d. per lb. is inflationary and will need correction?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I gather from correspondence which has reached me from various. quarters that a report has appeared of a statement that I made in the House at the time of the Address-in-Reply debate. Those honorable gentlemen who did themselves the service of listening to me at that time- may recall that, far from deploring a rise in the price of wool, I welcomed it, but I said that it was a development which, at the -time of the framing of the Budget, could not have been estimated on the scale on which it occurred. When we framed the Budget and tried to produce sufficient buoyancy in the economy to absorb the additions to the work force that we could see -ahead of us, and to take up some of the idle- capacity, small though it might have been, at that time, we made an estimate of the price of wool. We did not take the average price which had obtained in the previous wool season; we took the closing price in that season. We thought it was a realistic approach to assume that that closing price. would be- the price paid in the selling season this year.

Mr Pollard:

– You ought to have had better hopes than that:

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I am a poor optimist; I grant the honorable gentleman that. However, Treasurers cannot afford to be too optimistic. If they were, the finances of the country would get into some sort of a mess.

Mr Calwell:

– Are they not that way now?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– The honorable member refers to a scheme which I first announced in this House about two years ago, I think. This is nothing new. I remember announcing that the PostmasterGeneral’s Department as a matter of policy had decided that the installation of private automatic branch exchange equipment, which we describe as P.A.B.X. equipment, and which, I think, is the subject of the honorable member’s question, would no longer be undertaken by the department. Because of the great number of demands by business people for this kind of equipment, which is very expensive, and because it was desired to extend the money available to the department for capital works over as many telephone installations for ordinary subscribers as possible, arrangements were made to enable those firms which wanted P.A.B.X. installations to obtain the necessary equipment from properly accredited manufacturers. Under an arrangement with the department, those manufacturers were to install the equipment, which was to be monitored and maintained by the department. Under these arrangements, a reduced rental is charged for the service. I am not sure how many manufacturers in Australia are accredited by the department now, but a year or two ago there were four.

I put it to honorable members that this procedure, which the Postmaster-General’s Department has chosen in order to try to ensure that the very heavy demands of our expanding industry and the requirements of these large firms do not to any great extent hinder the provision of telephone services for ordinary subscribers in suburban areas, is working very well indeed. It does not entail any great reduction of the staff employed in the department. In fact, the maintenance and caretaking of the P.A.B.X. equipment installed by the manufacturers often provide work for retired employees of the department who have technical experience and who can still take on a lighter job of that kind to the benefit, not only of themselves, but also of the firms which have the installations made on their premises.

page 1329

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION

Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question without notice. Can the honorable gentleman say what is the present position in relation to the stoppage of work on the Australian wharfs, and can he say whether the members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia intend to provide labour for the wharfs to-morrow?

Mr MCMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I understand that 24-hour stoppages were begun by the waterside workers this morning, and I think that, in all the capital cities throughout the Commonwealth, the waterside workers carried somewhat different resolutions. I have personally given this problem consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that it is wise for me to take action under section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to notify the Presidential Member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission who is responsible for the waterfront jurisdiction that a dispute exists. This section gives that Presidential Member the right, on his own initiative and at his own discretion, to conciliate if he thinks that is desirable, or to take arbitration action if he thinks that is necessary. I personally think that the time has come when we needa cooling-off period in this dispute, and I think that this is a time when wise counsels should prevail. I hope that when the action that I have mentioned is taken it will lead at least to discussion of the problems involved, and I have hopes, too, of a more common-sense approach on the part of at least one party than has hitherto been adopted.

page 1330

QUESTION

ROADS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I ask the right honorable gentleman whether he recently expressed his personal and official interest in improving roads in the Channel country? At the same time, is he aware that final payments will be made this financial year under the States Grants (Encouragement of Meat Production) Act which the Chifley Government introduced? Will the right honorable gentleman demonstrate his interest in this matter by sponsoring fresh legislation to permit further Commonwealth grants to Queensland to improve those roads and thus encourage Australian meat production?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

-I have evidenced my interest in this matter by going to the Channel country myself over the weekend, accompanied by the PostmasterGeneral and a number of members of this House from both Government parties. I am aware that this Government, over a period, has provided moneys which have been spent in accordance with a plan initiated by the Chifley Government and confirmed in spirit in a treaty which I negotiated with the United Kingdom Government in relation to the long-term meat agreement under which something more than £1,000,000 has been spent over ten years inQueensland in the provision of some roads in the Channel country. I am not aware from my observations that any money was spent on roads in the Channel country in all the years that Queensland had a Labour government.

I explained to the local pastoralists I met that when this Government came to office and had the administration of the Budget introduced by the Chifley Government, the Queensland Government received £1,700,000 in total for road construc tion from federal aid funds; but I also pointed out that during the ten years of this Government’sadministration, that assistance had been progressively lifted to£2,500,000 in the first year of our administration and to £7,400,000 last year. That is a total of £29,200,000 provided to the Queensland Government for road construction in the past five years of this Government’s administration.

I was then able to point out that last year, the Commonwealth Government feeling that it was imperative that the States, and importantly Queensland, should have additional resources for road construction, had offered to the States an additional amount. This will mean that Queensland will be provided with £45,600,000 for road construction over the next five years, including the current year. This is incomparably the most liberal approach that any Commonwealth Government has ever dreamed of in assisting State governments in road construction. I was able to say to the pastoralists in Queensland, and tothe Premier of Queensland, that by providing this £45,600,000 - to which must be added the carry-over of £400,000 last year, making the total £46,000,000 over five years - the Commonwealth Government has already placed the Queensland Government in a position where it can engage in the construction of these highly essential roads in the Channel country.

I was delighted to read that the Queensland Minister responsible for roads had been able to announce that his Government would go it alone if necessary and construct these roads. I was able to point out to the pastoralists that if the Queensland Government goes it alone and constructs these roads without any further aid from the Commonwealth it will be going it alone with Commonwealth money.

page 1330

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Mr BARNES:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the profit of approximately £2,000,000 made by the Commonwealth Railways, and of the prospect that further freight will be attracted from motor transport, will the Minister for Shipping and Transport consider assisting industry by reducing railway freight charges?

Mr OPPERMAN:
LP

– I think it is to the credit of the Commonwealth Railways that freights have not been increased since 19S2. Rising costs during that period have been absorbed because of improved methods of handling and modern haulage methods.

Mr E James Harrison:

– What about the employees?

Mr OPPERMAN:

– Yes. I will pay a tribute to the very high morale and good service given by the employees of the Commonwealth Railways. But future freight costs will be governed by wage increases such as the margins award made recently. The Commonwealth Railways authorities are quite conscious of the necessity to meet the competition from road transport, which, incidentally, has raised its charges by 5 per cent, recently. Considering recent increases in costs, it is not surprising that I have had no communication from the acting Commonwealth Railways Commissioner concerning a reduction in freight rates.

page 1331

QUESTION

GUIDED MISSILES

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Supply whether the Blue Streak missile was of any importance to Australian defence planning. Before work on the missile was abandoned, was the Minister consulted by the British Government? If so, what form did the consultation take? How much has Australia’s participation in the project cost so far?

Mr HULME:
LP

– There are one or two questions on the notice-paper in relation to this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If this question is exactly the same as any on the noticepaper it will be out of order.

Mr HULME:

– It is not exactly the same.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Provided the Minister’s answer is not applicable to any question on the notice-paper, he will be in order in replying.

Mr HULME:

– It looks as if I cannot anticipate my answers. I would say, in the first place, that the Woomera range is a joint project of the United Kingdom. Provision is made for the testing on the range of United Kingdom weapons. The preliminary arrangements in connexion with the

Blue Streak have been conducted accordingly. As the Minister for Defence indicated a week or so ago, there was consultation between the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government as to the actual cost. I think that a question concerning costs is on the notice-paper and it will be answered in due course.

page 1331

QUESTION

SYDNEY BUILDING SITE

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question concerning land near the middle of Sydney, between Blighstreet and Elizabeth-street, owned by Qantas Empire Airways. Can the right honorable gentleman say when the use pf this land, which is now used only for the parking of cars, and the annual rental value of which is many tens of thousands of pounds, will be decided?

– I rise to order. I desire to know whether, Mr. Speaker, once you have given the call to a member it is in order for the member to be interrupted in asking his question merely because the Acting Prime Minister asks that further questions be put on the notice-paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The decision on when the time for questions without notice shall end is in the hands of the Acting Prime Minister.

page 1333

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL LIBRARY

Mr McEWEN:
Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– I ask for leave to make a statement relating to the Commonwealth National Library.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Opposition Members. - No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 1333

WHALING BILL 1960

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1333

QUESTION

REDFERN MAIL EXCHANGE

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).I have received a letter from the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Cope) proposing that a definite matter of urgent public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely -

The failure of the Government to provide or finance alternative accommodation for the residents of the homes which it proposes to demolish to make way for a mail-sorting exchange at Redfern, New South Wales.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) -

Mr COPE:
Watson

.- This proposal for a discussion on a matter of urgent public importance is designed as a means of appealing to the Government to make a special allocation of repayable loan money to the New South Wales Government for the purpose of providing alternative accommodation for the 300 people whose homes will shortly be demolished to make way for the proposed mail-sorting branch in Redfern. I referred to this matter during the last Budget session and again on 9th March this year, and the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) stated in reply that there was a very urgent and pressing need for the mailsorting exchange. That is not disputed by the 300 people involved. They realize, as does any other person, that progress is essential in the interests of the nation. But I contend that these people are justifiably concerned as to their welfare. The thought uppermost in their minds to-day is: Are we eventually going to be evicted on to the streets with our belongings, with little or no prospect of finding other accommodation?

Let us trace the history of this case since its inception. The Chifley Government approved the site and the project. I should like to point out, however, and emphasize, that the Chifley Government’s negotiations with the McGirr Government in New South Wales at that particular time postulated arrangements made by the Commonwealth to provide alternative accommodation for the people affected. The authenticity of that statement can be checked by the Permanent Head of the Department of the Interior.

The Postmaster-General has argued that the tenants have had nine years in which to find other accommodation. Some of them have been fortunate in finding other accommodation, but the great majority of them have had very little or no success in that respect. I should like to point out, too, that not one tenant received a written notice to vacate the premises until just prior to last Christmas, when the tenants were issued with notices that they must vacate their homes by 28th February this year.

Now let us examine the housing position in New South Wales and the usual procedure followed when people apply for housing commission homes. At present there are more than 28,000 applicants waiting for New South Wales Housing Commission homes, and the commission is receiving new applications at the rate of 250 a week. As all honorable members know, in 1956 the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement introduced by this Government abolished the rental rebate system, which applied to pensioners particularly, with the result that there is no provision made now with the State housing authorities to house pensioners. The New South Wales Government has, without one penny of assistance from this Government, embarked on a programme of building homes for pensioners. It is building single units for pensioners, for renting at £1 a week, and double units for renting at 30s. a week. The money used to finance this programme is derived from the poker machine tax, the entire proceeds of which are used for the project.

I point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the pensioners of this country are the distinct responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. It is the Commonwealth’s responsibility to look after the pensioners instead of leaving to the State governments assistance to pensioners in respect of housing.

When a person applies to the New South Wales Housing Commission for a home, and has filled in the necessary forms, an officer of the commission interviews the applicant. The officer sees the accommodation. If the applicant has a roof over his head he has very little chance of getting accommodation from the housing commission because there are many thousands of urgent cases awaiting immediate attention.

It is rather interesting to note that on 9th March the Postmaster-General, when replying to my speech on the motion to adjourn the House, would have led one to believe that he was disclosing a conspiracy by the New South Wales Government. He said -

I state quite definitely that since then we have learnt that the people who were considering getting out were warned by certain State authorities not to get out, and that a letter advising at least one person to that effect has been seen by officers of my department.

Those people were warned not to get out and were told that unless they defied or contested their eviction notices they would be ineligible for re housing. Do not forget that that letter has been seen and I rejoice at the opportunity to make it public.

That is normal practice with every State housing authority in Australia. You can imagine what a racket there would be if a tenant could say to his landlord, “ Please give me an eviction notice so that I can get a housing commission home “. The Housing Commission will not regard any one as being eligible for a home until he is evicted on to the street. Otherwise, instead of there being 28,000 applicants in New South Wales, there would be 128,000.

Unlike a citizen or a private company, the Commonwealth is not obliged to provide alternative accommodation. Let me give an illustration of what would happen if this property were being- resumed by a private company. The Chevron Hotel interests recently decided to buy some properties in King’s Cross. It had first to get permission from the Sydney City Council for the erection of the proposed building. Permission was given on the understanding that the tenants of the properties which were to be resumed would be provided with alternative accommodation. That principle does not apply to the Commonwealth, but I believe that the Commonwealth has a moral obligation to provide alternative accommodation for the people in Redfern. It would not be creating a precedent because we saw what happened when the complete township of Adaminaby was moved because the site was to be submerged by Lake Eucumbene. About 400 people lost their homes when the old township was flooded, but the Commonwealth provided alternative accommodation for them. This position is similar in principle to the position in Redfern. I repeat that the Commonwealth would not be creating a precedent by providing alternative accommodation for the people in Redfern.

The tenants of the homes involved in this resumption have elected a tenants’ committee. They have been supported in their case by various newspapers, by radio and television commentators, by the Trades and Labour Council of New South Wales, by numerous religious bodies and, strange as it may seem, I have had conversations with officials of the postal workers union in New South Wales who have supported me in my contention that the Commonwealth should be forced to provide alternative accommodation for the tenants who will lose thenhomes. Let me read now a letter which indicates what various religious bodies think about this project. This letter appeared in the Sydney “ Daily Telegraph “, of Thursday, 24th December, 1959, under the heading, “ Government Evictions “. It reads -

We, the undersigned Churchmen, are deeply concerned at the likely social implications of the evictions being undertaken at Redfern by the P.M.G.

We realize the need for the development of public services, but insist that this should go hand in hand with just and humane treatment of the people and families involved.

This we believe has not been demonstrated by the Commonwealth Government department responsible for the ejection of those tenants.

There are 226 adults and 71 children involved.

To indicate the possible tragic results of this action we refer to a study done in Melbourne by two leading social welfare agencies, the Brotherhood of Saint Laurence and the Citizens’ Welfare Service.

They followed up eleven families evicted by the Victorian Housing Commission for rental arrears.

Fifty-seven children were involved. The children were reasonably well cared for and would never have become wards of the State in the normal course of events.

Due to the desperate shortage of rental accommodation (and we might add the situation is far more desperate in Sydney), all those families moved into inadequate accommodation and eventually broke up.

The cost in emotional damage to those children and parents cannot be reckoned.

Now we see the inhumanity and utter foolishness of the policy of the Commonwealth Government in refusing to take any responsibility for the rehousing of those Redfern people.

They are not legally responsible, but we say that the Commonwealth has an inescapable moral responsibility.

Certainly the people concerned have had eight years to find other accommodation, but by the same token the Commonwealth has had eight years to prepare to meet this situation.

An overburdened State Housing Commission, with a waiting list of 30,000, cannot undertake the task alone.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to justify its often voiced concern for families and the aged by speedily making a special grant to enable New South Wales Housing Commission to build sufficient home units, in addition to the Commission’s normal building programme, to re-house those whom it evicts.

That letter was signed by the Reverend Douglas Cole, superintendent of Presbyterian social services; the Reverend J. Bishop of the Presbyterian Group Mission; the Reverend Gordon Powell of Saint Stephen’s; the Reverend T. H. Hanna of the East Sydney Methodist Mission; the Reverend Alan Walker of the Central Methodist Mission; the Reverend J. H. Downing of the Congregational Metropolitan Mission, Redfern; the Venerable H. M. Arrowsmith, Archdeacon of the city; the Reverend K. Childs of Saint Paul’s, Redfern; Monsignor J. McCosker of the Catholic Welfare Bureau, and the Reverend J. O’Connor of Saint Vincent’s, Redfern.

In the few minutes remaining at my disposal, let me now read to the House a statement which was made by - I emphasize this - the leader of the Liberal Party of Australia in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. He said -

It now seems that there is a stalemate between the Commonwealth and State Governments as to who is responsible for rehousing them. Housing is primarily a State Government matter, but where such a large number of houses and people are affected I think the Commonwealth Government might reasonably be expected to co-operate with the State Government in finding a satisfactory solution.

There seems to be no dearth of funds to meet the requirements of the tall poppies in Australia. As an illustration, over the past few years £900,000 has been spent by the Commonwealth on the purchase of two aircraft to provide comfortable travel for V.I.P.’s. There was no limit on expenditure to remodel and refurnish Kirribilli House in Sydney. It has been estimated that the new mail exchange building will cost nearly £5,000,000, and that the installation of airconditioning will cost nearly £500,000. I want to make it quite clear “that I am not complaining about that because 1 have visited the G.P.O. in Sydney and have seen the conditions under which the employees work there. They deserve new premises and the provision of air-conditioning because of the dust hazard which obtains in their calling. But if the Commonwealth is prepared to spend nearly £5,000,000 on this project, surely it can lend - I emphasize the word “ lend “ because the State Government is asking only for a special allocation of repayable loan money - some funds to the New South Wales State Government to provide additional accommodation for the people who will be evicted. The Commonwealth will not be one penny out of pocket by lending this money to the State Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

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

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

.- Mr. Deputy Speaker, frankly I welcome this opportunity provided by the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Cope) to do a little debunking of the claims of the New South Wales Government that, in some way, the Federal Government is not standing up to its proper obligations in the matter of the Redfern Mail Exchange. At the commencement of his remarks the honorable member said, “ I appeal to the Government and to the Postmaster-General that even at this stage some special allocation of finance be made to enable housing to be provided for those tenants who will be dispossessed “. I will match that by an appeal to the New South Wales Government for its co-operation. The Federal Government is prepared to give its co-operation, and the Church leaders, just referred to by the honorable member for Watson have called for cooperation in the matter. But, so far, the New South Wales Government has not given its co-operation.

This is a project which, in addition to being of very great value to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and to all the services which the Post Office provides in New South Wales, will be of very material advantage to the State, and particularly to the City of Sydney because it will provide extra employment, relieve transport problems and enable the expeditious handling of mails.

The honorable member for Watson asked, “ Are the present tenants to be evicted on to the streets?” I will answer that question quite bluntly and say, “ No, they are not unless” - and this is the important part of my denial - “ the New South Wales Government refuses to face up to its own State obligations to house its own people and continues to use the present position, not for moral or social reasons, but in an attempt to force the Federal Government to provide more money for housing”. Let it be fully realized that the New South Wales Government wants money over and above the amounts which have been agreed upon at conferences between all the States and the Federal Government in the determination of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. But we just simply do not hand out money to one State. All States are involved and the amounts agreed upon are the result of discussions and agreement between all the States and the Commonwealth, not just one State and the Commonwealth Government. I have not yet heard of the New South Wales Government approaching the other States in this matter.

Let it be realized, in respect of the plea of the honorable member for Watson at the commencement of his address and the request for more money, that since this property was acquired - and the House knows how long ago that was - the amount made available to the New South Government for housing purposes under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreements has been £117,000,000. Of that sum £47,000,000 has been made available since 1956. Is it not apparent that the State Government, with all the advice and foreknowledge which it has had of what would be required when we commenced this work, has had ample money available to prepare for the housing of the people who would be dispossessed?

I was interested to note that the honorable member for Watson, in his remarks, introduced no new feature into the debate. As honorable members know, this subject has been raised on several occasions, either by way of question and answer or as a matter of urgency. Therefore, I feel that there is nothing to be gained by a reiteration of matters and statements which have been made in this House. For example, I could remind honorable members that the decision to acquire this property was made, as the honorable member admitted, by the former Labour government. But there is no point in discussing that point now.

I simply content myself with reminding the House that since 1947 there have been warnings that this site would be required. Discussions have taken place from time to time either between departmental officials or at the ministerial level between the two governments. The State Government was advised quite a long time ago that the Federal Government would not depart from its policy of requiring the States to provide the actual housing while it provided the money. I could also reiterate that throughout these discussions the Federal

Government has invited co-operation from the New South Wales Government. Finally, honorable members will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated in this House during the last debate on this subject that he had advised the Premier of New South Wales that no extra money would be available for this project, for reasons which were quite clearly set out.

But we are not dealing with the past any more. The present position is under consideration. I want to tell honorable members and many people outside of Parliament just how far we are prepared to go in cooperating with the State Government and to show that the State Government is not prepared to co-operate. Certain new developments have taken place. Statements have been made in the New South Wales Parliament and press but there has not been a proper presentation of the way in which the Federal Government is prepared to meet this problem. Actually, up to this point, the Commonwealth has been treating this matter as confidential between the Prime Minister and the Premier. But since statements have been made in the State House and published in the press, presenting only one side of the question, including telephone communications between the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) and the State Minister for Housing, I consider that I am entitled to give the House details of the recent negotiations which, I think, will be of very great interest.

Just now I had outlined the developments up to the stage where the Prime Minister had informed the Premier that the Federal Government was not prepared to make additional moneys available. Now I will take the matter a step further. In reply to his communication, the Prime Minister received a letter from the Premier of New South Wales dated 4th March, 1960, in which he expressed disappointment - naturally - with the Commonwealth’s decision. He said, “ We are very disappointed that you are not giving the States more money “. Honorable members are aware of the Commonwealth and State Agreement. The Premier went on, “ I did not expect that “. Of course, he is entitled to say that, too. Then he went on - and I make no apology for quoting his letter because it has been read in the State House and published in the New South Wales press - to say -

The immediate problem, however,-

And I direct particular attention to the next statement - irrespective of whether the Commonwealth will contribute in some way to the eventual provision of permanent homes for the persons affected, arises from the fact that the limited number of units of emergency accommodation becoming available for allocation each week makes it quite impossible to provide in any short period for those who are unable to obtain any other accommodation and who are eligible for and are prepared to accept accommodation at the community housing centres. To provide accommodation at these centres for such families and persons for whom the Housing Commission of New South Wales may be able to cater will be practicable-

I emphasize that phrase “ will be practicable “- only if vacant possession of the properties to bo demolished is obtained progressively over a lengthy period and on a predetermined basis.

That was the first ray of common sense that I saw in this matter. We immediately discussed this statement and said, “ of course we can meet such a requirement “. In other words we could make arrangements with the State Government whereby there would be orderly and planned evacuation consistent with the State’s capacity to provide housing for the tenants as they were dispossessed. Therefore, in reply to that letter of 4th March, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier on 8th March -

T note with pleasure that you submit in this letter a proposal based on co-operation between our two Governments under which your capacity to provide accommodation, temporary or permanent, for those persons who must be evacuated from the area will be co-ordinated with the detailed planning of the Postmaster-General’s Department for the establishment of the Mail Exchange.

The letter went on -

I have discussed your proposal with my Minister for National Development and the PostmasterGeneral. We agree that a satisfactory solution can be achieved along the sensible lines you suggest subject to the following qualifications.

One of the qualifications was that the Commonwealth, in order to protect itself, would proceed with action to obtain eviction orders. The letter stated -

It will be understood, however, that in the event of agreement between us, action to evict will not be taken except in accordance with our mutually planned programme.

Swallow that one -

. action to evict will not be taken except in accordance with our mutually planned programme.

Now we were getting places - or so we thought! To our amazement, back came a letter from the Premier saying, “I did not mean that at all.” The Prime Minister said in his letter to the Premier, “ Let us have another conference between my Minister for National Development, your Minister for Housing and the Housing Commission, and we will hammer out on a departmental basis a plan, which we are prepared to extend over a considerable period, to accord with the requirements of the Housing Commission. Let us have this conference and hammer out these matters.” To our very great disappointment, we got a reply which said, “ I did not mean what I said.”

How on earth those words which I have read could be interpreted in any other way, I do not know. At any rate, we got a reply saying. “ No, there is nothing doing.” When the Minister for National Development rang the New South Wales Minister for Housing about this second proposal for a conference, the Minister for Housing said, “ There is no point in having a conference like that unless you are prepared to give us a lot of money.” There is the touchstone of the matter. That makes everything clear. It is a case of money, and that is all. Never mind about the moral or social responsibilities of the State Government. They do not matter very much! When we put a proposal which meant that responsibility could be shared by both Governments, the State Government said, “We are only interested in money “.

The method we have suggested will provide a solution of this problem. Despite the refusal of the State Government to fall in with this sensible plan, the Government and the department are proceeding to put it in train. I received to-day - I do not propose to table now - a reasonably developed plan under which we can carry out this orderly evacuation over a period. I believe that, after discussions with the State Government, this plan will enable the necessary accommodation to be provided by the New South Wales Housing Commission in a way which will not strain its finances. The plan will not involve putting people out on the street, and will enable the whole matter to be properly adjusted if we have reasonable co-operation. In order to test the sincerity of the State Government, we intend, within a day or two, to forward to it this plan for orderly evacuation and to say, “We are still prepared to play ball in this matter. We hope you will agree to this plan. If you do not agree to it, we will still proceed on the basis of orderly evacuation.” We still hope for that reasonable co-operation which seemed to be offered in the first letter from the Premier, but which was afterwards withdrawn. If that co-operation is not given, we will go on with our plan for orderly evacuation. If there is any hitch, if any people are put out on the street, the responsibility for that will rest on the shoulders of the State Government, not the Federal Government.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- We often hear members of the Government affirming their great consideration for the problems of the ordinary people, but every time they are faced with a position in which they might be of some assistance, they conveniently find some excuse for doing nothing at all. Whether the Commonwealth Government or the State Government is right may be a matter of academic interest to the members of this Parliament, but in my opinion the main consideration from the humanitarian point of view is that approximately 300 people, including age and invalid pensioners, widows and 71 children, are to be evicted from their homes because this Government has decided that the work of establishing a mail sorting depot at Redfern must proceed.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) has said that at first the New South Wales Government was ready to co-operate and that then it withdrew its offer of cooperation. I am taking only the PostmasterGeneral’s statement. Instead of reading the whole of the Premier’s letter, he read only one or two extracts from it, which undoubtedly were to the advantage of his own case. He says that unless the New South Wales Government is prepared to co-operate - and by “ co-operate “ he means to carry out the wishes of the Commonwealth Government - the Commonwealth Government intends to proceed with its plan of evacuation. It is not an evacuation. These people are to be evicted. They are to be thrown out of their homes. They are to be thrown out because the Government says that this mail sorting depot is required.

We believe it is required. We agree with the union concerned that this depot is necessary, but if the Government regards the depot as such an urgent project, why is it not prepared to offer some co-operation to the New South Wales Government by providing the miserable amount of £300,000? That is all the New South Wales Government asks for. It is not asking for the money as a gift. The New South Wales Government wants an advance from the Commonwealth. Everybody knows that the only government in Australia to-day that is able to provide finance for this type of project is the Commonwealth Government, because it is in charge of the purse strings of the nation. The Postmaster-General is entirely misrepresenting the position of the New South Wales Government.

He seems to make a great feature of the fact that both the New South Wales Government and the unfortunate people in these homes have received what he describes as adequate notice. What does “ adequate notice “ mean? If one was told eight years ago that one’s residence was to be acquired by the Commonwealth because it was situated on land required for the erection of a mail sorting depot, and if, in the intervening period, there had been an acute shortage of housing and one was unable to find alternative accommodation, what would it matter whether the notice given was one week or eight years? The point is that these people are prepared to get out if they can get suitable alternative accommodation, but that accommodation is not available to them.

Let me turn for a moment to the question of the co-ordination which the PostmasterGeneral said he hoped would be established with the New South Wales Government. Everybody knows that there a housing shortage in Australia. The shortage is no less acute in New South Wales, particularly in the metropolitan area, than it is in any other parts of Australia. The Postmaster-General seems to think it is an easy matter to provide emergency accommodation. If the New South Wales Government had been able: to get the £300,000 which it is seeking, it would have provided that emergency accommodation. The money was required for” emergency accommodation. A sum of £300,000 would not be sufficient to provide anything else. In addition to the 28,000 people to whom the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Cope) referred as waiting for permanent housing, there are some thousands of people waiting for emergency accommodation. Let me tell honorable members - they can get this information from the New South Wales Housing Commission if they care to ask for it - that there are some people who made application to the New South Wales Housing Commission for housing as far back as ten years ago and who are still waiting for suitable accommodation.

What would be the position of the New South Wales Government if, out of its present allocation of money for the provision of homes, it were to give preference to the unfortunate people in question here? What would people say who have been waiting for eight, nine and ten years? Their housing problem is probably no less urgent than that of the people who are to be evicted from the Redfern premises. In my opinion, there would be a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst those people. Therefore, the New South Wales Government rightly says, “ Let us deal with this as a special matter “. It is a special matter. The Commonwealth Government is responsible for the threatened eviction of these people, and it is the Commonwealth Government’s responsibility to see that they are properly accommodated.

I was waiting for the Postmaster-General to discover that one of the people threatened with eviction was a Communist, for then he would be able to say that this was another Communist plot, designed merely to embarrass the Commonwealth Government. But in this case we find that all elements in the community have united to support these unfortunate people. Not one member of the Liberal Party in this House who comes from New South Wales has supported the Postmaster-General in this matter. The Postmaster-General represents a Queensland electorate. New South Wales members on the Government side know that every section of the community in New South Wales is behind these unfortunate people. As the honorable member for Watson said, radio announcers, television announcers, clergy of all denominations, and the trade union movement have come in to aid these people.

What will be the position with this planned evacuation? At one stage the Government intended to throw out all these people holus-bolus - the whole 300 of them - but it recognized that that would probably attract too much attention to what was happening. So now the Postmaster-General callously says that the Government intends to have a planned evacuation. That means that a few tenants will be given notice from time to time and will be emptied out by force, if they cannot be removed by any other means. Let me tell the PostmasterGeneral that there is rather a contradiction in what he has said. As the honorable member for Watson said, he previously referred to a letter that had been sent by the New South Wales Housing Commission to these people warning them not to vacate their accommodation. There is nothing remarkable about that. The practice is well known in New South Wales. The Housing Commission, because of the urgency of the situation, has advised people threatened with eviction that they must wait even for emergency accommodation. The position is so bad that the commission cannot consider an application for even emergency accommodation until the people are actually evicted and out on the street. If the Redfern tenants were to vacate their accommodation voluntarily, they would become ineligible for consideration for emergency accommodation for the very reason stated by the honorable member for Watson. So, there was nothing unusual about the information conveyed to the tenants in the letter to which the PostmasterGeneral has referred.

If the Government cannot get cooperation from the New South Wales Labour Government in this planned evacuation, how does it expect to get these people out of their accommodation so that the premises can be demolished? Let me issue a little warning to the Postmaster-General: The trade unions, as usual, have combined to assist people in distress. We find that every building trade union likely to be involved in the demolition of these premises has declared the premises black. No trade union labour will be available to demolish them. Further than that, I am of the opinion - and this is reinforced by what the Postmaster-General has said - that the New South Wales police will not be available to protect those who evict these unfortunate people from their residences. I hope that the general community will join in efforts to protect these people. Every day we hear in this Parliament about distress in various parts of the world. We have a Colombo Plan which costs us millions and millions of pounds and through it we hope to improve the living standards of people in other countries. Let us do a little for our own people. The tenants concerned in this matter have no means. They need rented premises.If they were people of means, they would no doubt be able to buy premises in a reasonable time, but they must look for rented premises and such premises are unprocurable. These people are workers, many of whom are dependent on social services. They must look for suitable accommodation at a rental that is reasonable and within their means. That is the only type of accommodation that they can afford.

I warn the Government that if it proceeds with this plan to throw these people out on the streets, it will face the united opposition of the Labour Party, the trade union movement and many other sections of the community. I hope that whatever is needed will be provided to assist these people to retain possession of their premises until such time as they can be suitably accommodated elsewhere.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bowden:

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

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

– We have been treated in this debate to two familiar procedures. The first is the usual incitement to violence by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), to which we are becoming very accustomed. The second is– (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr FREETH:

– Honorable members opposite can dish it out, but apparently they do not like being told a few truths. They would like a little bit of information about this situation, no doubt.

Mr Curtin:

– We won’t get it from you!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! Honorable members will remain silent.

Mr FREETH:

– That may be so, but surely something should have been done by the New South Wales Government if this is as urgent a human problem as the honorable member for Watson and other Opposition members have made out. I suggest that their arguments have amounted to sheer political blackmail and that the New South Wales Government has had opportunities to provide accommodation for the people who are to be displaced.

This is just another case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of Labour trying to cash in politically on what it describes as human suffering and distress. What is the real position? Not one person has yet been evicted. We intend to do everything humanly possible to avoid that. We do not propose that a single person shall be evicted. As the Postmaster-General has said, we are exploring all the possible methods of preventing evictions. But the honorable member for Watson knows, because he himself told the Public Works Committee, that you have to go through the forms and procedures of obtaining eviction orders against tenants before they are even eligible for accommodation in New South Wales emergency housing centres. Therefore, the Commonwealth has to go through the procedure of issuing summonses and having eviction orders made. Those are the procedures that we are going through at the moment, and that is what Opposition members are making such a song and dance about.

The Opposition’s tactics are the usual Labour tactics of trying to cash in on human distress and human difficulties for sheer political expediency for its own benefit. Opposition members know full well that accommodation can be found for the displaced people if the New South Wales .Government wishes to .accommodate them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) and the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth), who are the two Ministers responsible for the demolition and evictions which we are discussing, have been completely negative and evasive in their approach. This eviction is the largest which any landlord has carried out in one operation in Australia’s history.

Mr Hamilton:

– How big is it?

Mr WHITLAM:

– There are 300 persons involved. They are members of 70 families, and 27 of the tenants among those 70 families are age pensioners.

The Commonwealth requires a new mail exchange in Sydney. There is no question about that. It is known to us, and everybody has known it for a long time. The project will cost £4,000,000. The New South Wales Government has offered to house the 300 people who will be evicted from the dwellings which have to be demolished in order to make way for this mail exchange. The State Government will house these people if the Commonwealth grants it £170,000 and loans it a further £115,000.

In Australia only governments - Commonwealth or States-are immune from the State landlord and tenancy legislation. Any landlord other than a government has to find alternative accommodation before he can evict an inoffensive tenant - =that is, a tenant who has not committed a nuisance or fallen behind in his rent.

Mr Freeth:

– But not sub-tenants.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Alternative accommodation ,has to be provided for the persons occupying the dwelling concerned. If the sub-tenants are .there with the landlord’s permission, he has to provide alternative accommodation for them as well. It is true that in some circumstances a private landlord may evict a tenant without finding alternative accommodation for him, but that right is granted by a court only after con sideration of the relative hardships of the landlord and the tenant.

Governments do not have to rely on the discretion of a court. They have a right to put a tenant out without establishing any hardship on their own part, or without providing any alternative accommodation for the tenant. No State government, however, has ever evicted tenants under those conditions. State governments have always found alternative accommodation. The Minister for the Interior instanced the demolition of houses near the mail exchange site in order to make way for new flats - slum reclamation, as he described it. But the tenants evicted to make way for that demolition and reconstruction work are given priority in occupying the new flats constructed. In the case which we are discussing, the Commonwealth is demolishing houses and constructing its own building without making any alternative accommodation available.

Up to .this stage, Sir, the .Commonwealth has never evicted tenants without finding accommodation for them. The honorable member for Watson (Mr. Cope) mentioned the significant case of the Adaminaby township, which the Commonwealth resumed and flooded, and which it reconstructed elsewhere. The Commonwealth did not have to do that; it chose to do it. I am to be followed in this debate by the honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton), a Western Australian member. There is not a single New South Wales member of the Liberal Party or the Australian Country Party in the House at the moment, and I shall be .glad if the honorable member for Canning will explain why the Commonwealth differentiates between people in Adaminaby and people in Redfern.

The Commonwealth, like the State governments, has never exercsed its exemptions under the ‘landlord and tenant legislation. Under .that legislation, governments have another right. It .is legal for them, but not for private .landlords, to pay premiums to tenants in order to induce them to vacate premises. That means that the Commonwealth may, perfectly legally, pay a premium to any of its tenants in order to help them to obtain alternative accommodation for rent or for purchase.

Mr Turnbull:

-The honorable member said that there .was not one New South

Wales member of the Liberal Party or the Australian Country Party present. I suggest that he look around the chamber again.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honorable member for Gwydir was not in the chamber when I made that remark, and the Minister for Social Services was asleep.

The tenants of the Redfern premises which we are discussing are persons who must always be tenants. Twenty-seven of the 70 are pensioners. Where are they to obtain alternative tenancies? How are they to purchase homes? There are fewer premises available for rental in Australia now than there have been at any time during this century. Surely it cannot be expected that pensioners, in view of their means and their age, will purchase premises? Most of the other people concerned have only modest means. Some have lived there for many years. They cannot be expected to purchase premises elsewhere. The Government is not giving them the wherewithal to do so, as it could. Where are they to find alternative rental accommodation?

The most that the Ministers can say is that the State Government could give them emergency accommodation. In effect, they are saying that the New South Wales Government should put these tenants ahead of 70 other families who are already waiting for emergency accommodation and who have been told by the courts that they must vacate the premises they occupy because their own landlords are suffering greater hardship than they themselves. This Government is saying, “ Forget the people who have been waiting and give our tenants some priority “.

The Commonwealth Government’s attitude throughout has been that expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in a letter to the Premier of New South Wales protesting that, insofar as it is a government’s responsibility to house these tenants, it is essentially the State’s responsibility in the matter. Before 1945, no State government undertook the responsibility of housing in Australia. State governments undertook the responsibility of housing only when the Commonwealth Government found the money to enable them to do so. The Minister for the Interior referred to the money that had been made available by the Commonwealth to the States for housing in recent years. The honorable member for Watson by interjection quickly made the Minister admit that the sums he quoted were not relevant and not accurate, because 35 per cent, of the amount which each State is receiving from the Commonwealth Government for housing purposes this year and last year was not provided for housing commission or housing trust dwellings; it was not provided for houses into which Commonwealth tenants could be placed or in which other tenants could be housed by the States. For the previous two years, 25 per cent, of the amounts of money mentioned by the Minister were diverted to other purposes.

The simple fact is that, in the last financial year, the States received fewer pounds for erecting housing commission houses than they had received in any previous year during the administration of the Menzies Government. Naturally, therefore, fewer houses were made available. Tenancies are available now only from State housing commissions. Premises are available for purchase on a small deposit from State housing commissions alone. The number of houses which are being made available for people on modest incomes is constantly declining.

The excuse constantly is, “ Of course, this is New South Wales “. The plain fact is that in all three of the most highly industrialized States - South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales - every year the housing commissions or trusts receive three times as many applications for accommodation as they are able to satisfy. The housing commissions enter on the year with a bad backlog of people requiring accommodation. During the year, they receive three times as many applications as they can meet.

The Commonwealth Government can house people. South Australia and Victoria would find it as difficult to house these 70 families as New South Wales finds it. It can house its own employees - civilian or military. It can house returned servicemen. It does so through the War Service Homes Division, and many of the tenants we are discussing are ex-servicemen. It can house immigrants, and it does so through Commonwealth Hostels Limited. It can house tenants, as it has at Adaminaby Dam. It can house aged persons, and it assists to do so under the Aged Persons Homes Act. Where there is a will, there’s a way. The Commonwealth Government could make an additional grant to the States to erect houses, lt did so in respect of the Olympic Village at Heidelberg. The Commonwealth has no objection to the States building houses on its behalf, because every year it lends money to the States to build service dwellings for serving members of the Forces.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Ian Allan:

– I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Ian Allan:

– Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated, during his speech, that there were then no New South Wales members of the Australian Country Party or the Liberal Party in the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman has not spoken in the debate, so he could not have been misrepresented.

Mr Ian Allan:

– I was present in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke.

Mr HAMILTON:
Canning

.- Before I engage in the many matters associated with this debate, I wish to correct a wrong impression that was given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) when he said that there were no Liberal Party or Australian Country Party members from New South Wales in the House. He said that after he had mentioned that they were not addressing themselves to this debate. At that very moment, the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) and the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Ian Allan) were sitting exactly where they are now sitting. I do not wish to say anything further on that matter, but I direct attention to the speech of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). If ever a member of this Parliament weakened a case he was submitting on behalf of the people, the honorable member did so with his outrageous outburst. He endeavoured to incite people into doing all sorts of stupid things to upset their own living conditions.

I turn now to the subject-matter of this debate. The members of the Australian Labour Party who addressed themselves to this matter know very well that they are putting up a great old skirmish in an endeavour to induce the Government to make money available to New South Wales for this purpose. One of them is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and should know something about finance. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the honorable member for East Sydney, who himself has been a Minister, know that before the Commonwealth can do that, it has to obtain permission from the other States who are members of the Australian Loan Council.

Mr Ward:

– That is not so.

Mr HAMILTON:

– You know very well that it is so. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition misrepresented the position when he said that the Commonwealth Government made £2,000,000 available to the State Government of Victoria to build the Olympic Village. It was the Loan Council which decided to make that money available to Victoria ahead of its normal allocation so that the Olympic Village could be built in Melbourne in 1954 for the Olympic Games which were subsequently held there. The advance was made on the condition that Victoria would start to pay the amount off a couple of years later when its allocation became due, and that was done.

Members of the Opposition find themselves in quite a jam because they know the unsatisfactory conditions under which their colleagues are working in the Sydney Mail Exchange. They know the traffic hazards that are created day by day in Pitt-street when a vehicle is passing through the narrow opening at the Post Office every few minutes. They are trying to do something in one direction and to stop people from doing something in another. They are playing on the emotions of the people involved in this matter, which is definitely a responsibility of the New South Wales Government. As the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth) has said, the New South Wales Government has cut down on iti emergency housing over the past couple of years of its own volition. 1 put this point to the members of the Opposition who claim to be putting up a fight on the basis of the human element involved: The honorable member for Watson (Mr. Cope) said there Were already 28,000 approved applicants waiting for homes and the present rate of applications was 250 a week or 13,000 a year. The honorable member for East Sydney said some of these people had been waiting for ten years. So honorable members on the Opposition side actually are trying to create a preference for some people who are in unfortunate circumstances, contrary to the needs of others who have been waiting for houses for ten years.

The New South Wales Government’s own legislation is so much out of date that the honorable member for Watson said before the Public Works Committee that before these people could be given any emergency accommodation, they must be evicted from their homes. A court order must be obtained to fret them out.

Mr Brimblecombe:

– Who said that?

Mr HAMILTON:

– The honorable member for Watson said it to the Public Works Committee. The New South Wales Labour Government is hoping and praying every day that the Commonwealth Government will go on with the business and enforce these eviction orders so that it can put into effect the stupid act which operates in that State.

As the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) and the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth) have said, the State Government knew that this position would arise eventually. lt has known that for eleven years during which period it has received £1 17,000,000 for housing. During the last few years, while this event has been coming closer, it has received about £45,000,000 for housing. Yet, it has not been prepared to spend £280.000 to arrange accommodation for these people! Over four years only £70.000 a vear would have been required. Not only did the State Government make no provision for these people from loan moneys but it reduced its emergency housing provisions although it knew that this position would arise. When the Common wealth proposed a plati under which it would be necessary for the State to provide accommodation for only a section of these unfortunate people at a time, the State Government shut the door in the face of the Commonwealth Government and would not talk turkey on the subject.

I should like to know what the other States would think if the Commonwealth Government were to fall for the suggestion that is being put forward by members of the Labour Party in this House? Have they not a right to some say in the expenditure of moneys made available for housing? They are all signatories to the Commonwealth and States Housing Agreement and they are all members of the Australian Loan Council. Opposition members know full well that their fight should be with their own State administration - the Labour Government of New South Wales. They know the machinery that has to be used in order to get money under circumstances such as these. Yet they come here and put on a sham fight! What for? For the simple reason that, once again, they have found themselves in a jam.

They are in a jam because, on the one hand, the people whom they claim to represent and who work in the mail exchange are working under difficulties and in unsatisfactory circumstances and, on the other hand, the State Labour Government is not making a very good job of slum clearance. They do not know where to go. They have been playing on the emotions of the people in this matter. They know full well that if they would use their good offices by talking to their opposite numbers in the State Parliament a lot could probably be achieved. But no! They are prepared to support the ducks and drakes strategy of some Ministers in New South Wales and shut the door on the solution which has been proposed to this problem.

I do not think that they have made out a case for extra finance. They know full well that the problem cannot be solved in this way. Therefore I think that the whole of their case falls down. Their case was weakened and a very sad note was brought into the whole affair when the honorable member for East Sydnev (Mr. Ward) scid what he would do if this Government did not toe the line in accordance with his wishes. We have heard that kind of talk before in the Parliament. We heard it in 1950 when this Government first occupied the treasury bench. Fortunately, the bulk of the people outside do not pay much heed to such talk.

Mr Ward:

– Is that why your Government is not game to proceed?

Mr HAMILTON:

– The Government is proceeding along the road on which it started. It has not deviated one bit. I hope that the Government will stick to its plan and force into the daylight, as the Postmaster-General has endeavoured to do to-day by reading some official correspondence, the tactics which are being employed by members of the New South Wales Government and which also receive all the support that can possibly be given to them by some members of this Parliament. This is disgraceful when they know full well the situation that exists.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bowden:

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

Question (by Mr. Pearce) put -

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

AYES: 59

NOES: 36

Majority . . 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1347

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL 1960

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to approve acceptance by Australia of membership in the International Development Association, and for purposes connected therewith.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Trea surer · Higgins · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the present bill is to authorize the Government to take the action necessary to enable Australia to become a foundation member of the proposed International Development Association which is to be set up as a new affiliate of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It is the current fashion to describe international agencies by the initial letters of the words used in their official titles; and this proposed new member of the family is already widely known as Ida.

It may perhaps be asked why, when we already have an International Monetary Fund, an International Bank and an International Finance Corporation, yet another international financial institution should be thought to be necessary. The answer is that Ida will meet a need which cannot be met by any of the other three institutions, extremely useful though they have proved to be in the respective fields in which they operate. The International Monetary Fund is limited to providing short-term finance to its members to assist them in overcoming temporary balance of payments difficulties.

The charter of the International Bank enables it to extend long-term loans for economic development; but it can make such loans only if repayment and fulfilment of other terms and conditions are guaranteed by the Government of the recipient country. Moreover, the bank’s continued operations depend on preserving the confidence of the private investors who, through their subscriptions to the bonds issued by the bank on the world’s capital markets, provide the bulk of the bank’s lendable funds. For that reason, the bank must itself charge interest on its loans at a rate sufficiently high not only to cover its own borrowing and administrative costs but also to build up adequate reserves. Because there has been a general upward trend in interest rates in the world’s capital markets in recent years, the bank has been obliged to raise its own charges. The current rate for International Bank loans is 6 per cent. Nevertheless, within the terms of its charter, the bank has been playing an increasingly important role in mobilizing capital resources in the older, industrial countries for the purpose of financing development in the less-developed areas of the free world. It is currently lending at an annual rate of rather more than 700,000,000 dollars.

The third of the existing international financial institutions - the International Finance Corporation - operates on a much more modest scale. Its total resources amount to only about 100,000,000 dollars and its function is to promote the growth of private productive enterprise in member countries, particularly in the lessdeveloped areas. In association with private investors, the International Finance Corporation assists in financing the establishment, improvement and expansion of private productive enterprises which would contribute to the development of member countries, without guarantee of repayment by the member government concerned. Under its charter, the corporation can invest its funds only in cases where sufficient private capital is not available on reasonable terms. The importance of the Inter national Finance Corporation is not so much in the amounts it provides from its own resources but in the part it plays in bringing together investment opportunities, domestic and foreign private capital, and experienced management. The Finance Corporation has been operating, as an affiliate of the International Bank, only since 1956 but it has made a promising start in its operations in the special field assigned to it.

From this outline of the scope of the three existing institutions, it will be plain that none of them is equipped to meet the long-term capital needs of those underdeveloped countries whose economic and financial situation is such that they are not able to pay the interest charges or undertake the repayment obligations of International Banks loans. This applies not only to countries which have never been able to obtain finance from the International Bank, but also to those countries which have borrowed extensively from the International Bank and other sources in the past and have reached a position where the burden of interest and capital repayments is already so heavy that they cannot safely assume new commitments.

There have been proposals in a good many quarters in recent years for some new institution which could fill this gap. The Ida proposal as it now stands may, however, be directly traced to a plan put forward by a United States Senator - - Senator Monroney. This plan contemplated a new international agency which would make loans to underdeveloped countries which they could repay in their own local currencies; and it also envisaged that such an agency might have transferred to it for use in its lending operations some of the United States Government’s holdings of local currencies generated as counterpart funds from surplus commodity deals.

Senator Monroney’s proposals were subsequently adopted by the United States Administration in a somewhat modified form. After some preliminary canvassing by the United States of the attitudes of other friendly governments, a resolution was introduced at the 1959 Annual Meeting in Washington of the Board of Governors of the International Bank by the United States Governor proposing the setting up of an International Development

Association as an affiliate of the International Bank and calling on Executive Directors of the bank to formulate draft Articles of Agreement for submission to member governments of the bank. The Executive Directors had a difficult task in drawing up a charter for the new organization which would have reasonable prospects of gaining the approval of most, if not all, of the 68 member countries of the International Bank. The task was, however, completed in January last. The Articles of Agreement, as they have emerged, are given in the schedule to the bill before the House and the Report of the Executive Directors accompanying it has been printed and circulated separately to honorable members. The Articles of Agreement are necessarily somewhat complicated and it may be of some assistance to the House if I summarize the key provisions.

The initial resources proposed for Ida are one billion dollars, which will be obtained if all members of the International Bank join and thereby accept the subscriptions assigned to them. Ida subscriptions are to be roughly proportionate to subscriptions to the bank. The United States would be the largest shareholder - 320,290,000 dollars - and the United Kingdom the second largest - 131,140,000 dollars. The subscription assigned to Australia is 20,180,000 dollars. A full schedule of assigned subscriptions is given in Annex A to the Articles of Agreement in the schedule to the bill.

Members are divided into two groups for subscription purposes. Subscriptions will be payable over a five-year period, and the countries in both groups will subscribe 10 per cent, of their initial subscriptions in gold or convertible currencies. “ Part I. “ countres - that is to say, the “ more industrialized “ countries - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the Union of South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States - whose total subscriptions amount to 763,000,000 dollars, will pay the remaining 90 per cent, in five equal instalments in gold or convertible currencies. “ Part II. “ countries - the 51 “less-developed” members - will pay their 90 per cent, in their national currencies which Ida will not be free to convert into other currencies or to use to finance exports from the country concerned without its consent.

The draft articles limit membership to countries that are members of the Inter national Bank. Bank membership now embraces most of the countries of the free world.

The purposes of the Ida are defined as being - to promote economic development, increase productivity and thus raise standards of living in the less developed areas of the world included within the Association’s membership, in particular by providing finance to meet their important developmental requirements on terms which are more flexible and bear less heavily on the balance of payments than those of conventional loans, thereby furthering the developmental objectives of the International Bank . . . and supplementing its activities.

The expression, “ less-developed areas of the world included within the Association’s membership “, is designed to cover not only the “ less-developed “ member countries but also dependent and associated territories of the “ more industrialized “ members. This is an aspect of considerable importance, of course, to Commonwealth countries.

Financing extended by Ida is to be for purposes which “ are of high developmental priority in the light of the needs of the area or areas concerned and, except in special circumstances . . . for specific projects “. Projects which are not in themselves revenue-producing or directly productive, such as water supply and sanitation, would be eligible, although it is expected that most projects financed by Ida would be similar in type to those financed by the International Bank. Ida will not provide financing if it is available from private sources on reasonable terms, or could be provided by loans of the type made by the bank. Countries which have reached the limits of borrowing in terms of their capacity to repay interest and capital on conventional loans will, however, be able to look to Ida for assistance.

Ida will not be able to make outright grants, at least from the initial resources subscribed to it. Assistance must be given in the form of loans; but the form and terms of such loans may be such as Ida “ may deem appropriate “. This leaves the way open for the provision of finance in any of a number of ways, for example, by providing for lenient terms of repayment - such as loans repayable in foreign exchange, with long maturities or long periods of grace before repayment begins, or both, or loans repayable wholly or partly in local currency - by lending free of interest, or at a low rate of interest, or by some combination of these.

Ida may provide finance to a member government, to the government of a territory included within Ida’s membership, to a political sub-division, to a public or private entity in the territories of a member, or to a public international or regional organization. It may lend with or without government guarantees. It is, however, precluded from providing finance for any project if the member in whose territories the project is located objects.

A provision has been included requiring Ida in its operations to pay “ due attention to considerations of economy, efficiency and competitive international trade “. This is designed to ensure that any use of inconvertible local currencies does not have the effect of distorting normal trade patterns. Voting rights in Ida will be roughly proportionate to subscriptions. It is laid down that the 90 per cent, component of the initial subscriptions of all “ Part 1.” .countries, that is the “ more industrialized “ countries, is to be used by Ida, over reasonable periods of time, on an approximately pro rata basis.

Ida may enter into arrangements to receive from any member, in addition to its own subscription, supplementary resources in the currency of another country provided that the member whose currency is involved does not object. This provision is designed to preserve the original conception in the Senator Monroney plan for transferring to an international institution part of the local currency funds arising from United States surplus commodity deals.

Because Ida will be making loans on noncommercial terms and will not itself be able to raise loans on the world’s capital markets in the manner of the International Bank, it is envisaged that its funds will require periodic replenishment. In formulating the provisions dealing with the procedures for replenishment, the bank’s executive directors considered that, as in the case of initial subscriptions, any general increases in subscriptions should normally be designed to provide Ida with funds for a fiveyear period. In any such replenishment exercise Ida is required to give each member an opportunity to subscribe an amount enabling it to maintain its relative voting power. This provision permits Ida .either to give each member an option to subscribe all or part of the amount authorized for it or nothing at all.

Ida is to have a board of governors, executive directors, and a president, all of whom will be the holders of those positions in the International Bank, serving ex officio in Ida. Officers and staff of the bank are to be appointed, to the extent practicable, to serve as such in Ida, which accordingly will have no separate officers or staff, at least initially. The provisions dealing with the status, privileges and immunities of Ida follow exactly the corresponding provisions in the Articles of Agreement of the International Bank. The International Development Association Agreement is to enter into force at any time on or after 15th September, 1960, when it has been signed on behalf of governments whose subscriptions aggregate at least 650,000,000 dollars.

There is every indication that the draft articles of agreement, which inevitably represent in many respects a compromise between divergent views held by member governments of the International Bank, will receive sufficiently widespread acceptance to ensure the successful foundation of the new institution. Legislation authorizing membership has already been introduced in the United States Congress and the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr Uren:

– What will be the rates of interest on the loans?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I have already pointed out that they can vary according to the decision of the institution itself. There may be deferred payment and repayment. There could be any one of a combination of arrangements which, as I have already said, are set out in the bill, and I invite the honorable member’s scrutiny of what has been set out there.

The Australian Government has expressed its sympathy with, and support for, the objectives of the Ida proposal from its inception. There are, however, some features of the charter of the new organization which we would have wished to have seen otherwise, and we made our position on these points clear while the proposals were still in the formative stage. For example, I pointed out, when the proposal was under discussion at the annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Bank last year, that the proposal recognized only two categories of countries; industrialized countries which would be called upon to provide the bulk of Ida’s usable capital and would not themselves be eligible to obtain finance from Ida; and less-developed countries whose subscriptions would be largely in inconvertible currencies but which would be able to look to the institution for assistance. It is taking, I suggest, a grossly oversimplified view of matters to suppose that all the prospective member countries can be neatly classified into two such categories. A country like Australia, with pressing needs for overseas capital to assist in carrying out its own substantial immigration and development programmes, is in an altogether different position from the maturer industrial countries which are the traditional exporters of both capital and capital goods. At the same time, Australia is also in quite a different (Situation from the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The extremely low per capita incomes in those countries make it difficult to generate adequate domestic savings to provide capital for development internally; and their capacity to borrow abroad on ordinary commercial terms or to attract private investment from other countries is limited. Australia clearly stands in -an intermediate position between the two groups; and there are a number of other countries similarly situated. We regret that the Ida charter fails to recognize the position of “ intermediate “ countries and that the scale of contributions of the countries who will be making the whole of their subscriptions in convertible currencies is simply based on the International Bank scale. I do not wish to make invidious comparisons with other individual countries; but an inspection of the assigned subscriptions of “Part I.” countries in annex A to the schedule of the bill will, I think, reveal Ho honorable members that the relative scale of contributions is hardly what one might have expected from an objective examination of the capacity of the respective countries to contribute. The difficulty the executive directors were confronted with, of course, was that, if the International Bank scale had been departed from, it would have been virtually impossible to secure general agreement to the adoption of any other criteria for determining the scale of contributions.

Another point I made at the bank annual meeting was that Ida should be able to lend to dependent territories of member countries which would not be eligible for membership in their own right. This proposal won general acceptance and is provided for in the articles. The point is of great importance because the dependent territories of the ‘Various prospective members of Ida represent a substantial .proportion of the under-developed areas of the free world. Australia’s own dependent territories would be eligible for assistance from Ida; but it is necessary to bear in mind that Ida will have many demands .upon its limited resources and that Ida loans cannot be made available for projects ;that could be financed by loans of the type extended by the International Bank. As I have :already pointed out, loans could be extended by Ida to provide entities without a government guarantee; but no such loans could be made in Australian territories if, for any reason, the Commonwealth Government saw objection to them.

The third point I raised at the bank annual meeting was that the “ local currency “ aspects of the proposal could cause difficulty and seemed out of keeping with the times. With the important progress that had been made recently towards full convertibility of currencies, it seemed incongruous to contemplate setting up a new international institution, one of the consequences of which would be the creation of new holdings of inconvertible local currencies. Attempts to make use of such currencies could, in certain circumstances, damage the economies of the countries concerned and could lead to distortion of normal trade patterns. I said I did not believe it to be beyond the ingenuity of the bank’s executive directors to devise means of avoiding the creation of new holdings of local currencies. However, the Americans attach importance to retaining the local currency provisions which were an integral part of the original proposals of Senator Monroney.

As the articles stand, Ida may acquire local currencies in three ways. In the first place, 90 per cent, of the subscriptions of the less-developed member countries will be paid in inconvertible local currencies - although the executive directors in their report express the hope that some of them may voluntarily offer to make some part of these subscriptions convertible. Then it is open to Ida, if it chooses, to make loans in dollars or other convertible currencies which will be repayable in inconvertible local currencies. And, finally, Ida may accept supplementary contributions from any member in the currency of another member provided that member does not object. For example, if India agrees, the United States could transfer to Ida some of its Indian rupee holdings acquired through the sale to India for rupees of surplus commodities. [Quorum formed.] Partly as a result of Australian representations, some safeguards have been written into the Ida charter against the use of local currencies in ways which could be damaging either to the countries whose currencies are concerned or to other member countries. I must say quite frankly that it does not seem to us to make much sense to ask the less-developed countries to make subscriptions to Ida in their own national currencies and then borrow those funds back again to finance development within their own territories. Nor would it make sense to ask a country, whose balance of payments position is such that it cannot accept any additional external loans on commercial terms, to allow Ida to lend its currency to another Ida member to finance purchases from it. Here, at least, partly as a result of our efforts the articles are so drafted that such operations could not take place without the consent of the country whose currency was involved.

There is also, as I have already pointed out, a provision requiring that Ida must, in its operations, pay “ due attention to considerations of economy, efficiency and competitive international trade “. Given our experience over the years of the competence of the management of the International Bank, which will also provide the management of Ida, I think we can reasonably rely on that provision to ensure that our interests, and those of other Ida members, are not unduly damaged by trade distortions arising from attempts to make unjustified use of local currencies. 1 might say, however, that the Australian Government would have preferred to see the local currency provisions dropped altogether. If an under-developed country is in such a position that it cannot afford to repay loans in convertible currencies, however low .he interest rate or however long the period of repayment, it would in our view be far more appropriate for Ida to make aid available in the form of outright grants. This proposal was not, however, acceptable to the United States: and we have to recognize that the United States will be the largest contributor to Ida. In any event, the articles of agreement as they now stand are no longer open to further amendment, and the decision the Government had to make was whether any objections it might feel to particular aspects of the charter of Ida were such as to warrant Australia standing aloof from the new organization.

Faced with this alternative, the conclusion of the Government, which I believe will be confirmed by the House, was that Australia should support Ida and become a foundation member. Whatever imperfections the Ida charter may contain, it represents an important new international initiative directed towards helping to solve what is perhaps the most important and most challenging issue of our time, namely, that of finding the means to finance the development of the under-developed countries. Obviously, with the limited resources likely to be available to it, it cannot in itself provide the answer to that problem. Even if all the 68 members of/ the International Bank join Ida, its capital will amount to only 1,000,000,000 dollars, of which only about 785,000,000 dollars would be in readily usable currencies. Spread over five years this would provide an annual average lending rate of about 150,000,000 dollars. This may be compared with the current annual lending rate of the International Bank of about 700,000,000 dollars. Nevertheless, Ida will provide a useful supplement to the aid already being given by other international agencies and under schemes such as the Colombo Plan. Australia is, in relation to its resources and its own pressing developmental needs, already making a substantial contribution to the economic development of the underdeveloped countries as well as to the development of its own dependent territories. But, as one of the principal recipients ourselves of development capital from the International Bank, we would, I believe, be falling below the level of our responsibilities in the world if we were, because of dissatisfaction with the scale of our assigned subscription or with other particular aspects of the articles, to decline to join this new and important affiliate of the bank.

In conclusion, I should like to deal briefly with the clauses of the bill. Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 are self-explanatory. Clauses 5 and 6 provide authority to make the payments Australia will be required to make to Ida to make its membership effective.

As I have already said, Australia’s assigned subscription is 20,180,000 dollars. Ten per cent, of that amount is payable in gold or convertible currencies. Half of that 10 per cent. - about 1,000,000 dollars or £450,000 will be payable within 30 days of the commencement of Ida’s operations. The other half of the 10 per cent, will be payable in equal annual instalments of li per cent, each over the next four years.

The remaining 90 per cent, of Australia’s subscription is payable, also in gold or convertible currencies, in five equal annual instalments of 18 per cent, each, the first instalment falling due within 30 days of commencement of Ida’s operations. These annual instalments will amount to 3,600,000 dollars or about £1,600,000 a year. In the case of these so-called 90 per cent, subscriptions, however, it is open to members to meet their obligations initially, and until such time as the funds are required by Ida for use in its lending operations, by lodgment of a non-interest-bearing nonnegotiable demand note. Power to issue such notes is contained in clause 6 of the bill. Taking the 10 per cent, portion and the 90 per cent, portion together, Australia’s commitment will be about £2,000,000 in the first year and about £1,700,000 in each of the succeeding four years.

Clause 7 of the bill empowers the GovernorGeneral to make regulations for the carrying out of Article VIII. of the agreement relating to the status, privileges and immunities of Ida. The provisions of that article follow exactly the corresponding provisions of the Articles of Agreement of the International Bank. This is appropriate, particularly since the officers of Ida will, initially at least, all be also officers of the International Bank.

The Government welcomes this new addition to the international institutions concerned with financing economic development in the less-developed areas of the world. Through its representation on the Board of Governors and the Executive Board it will continue to follow closely, and to play its part in, the administration of Ida when it becomes operative. It sincerely trusts that this new institution will fulfil the high hopes entertained for it. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 1353

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1960

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3rd May (vide page 1322), on motion by Sir Garfield Barwick -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
Blaxland

– The purpose of this measure is to increase the number of judges who may be appointed to the Commonwealth Industrial Court, and in this particular case to enlarge that number by one. I realize that the scope of debate on this bill may be somewhat restricted because in point of fact the measure merely provides for the number of judges of the court to be increased from two to three, in addition to the chief judge.

However, I hope to range further afield. I should like to direct attention to the comments of the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) in the final part of his second-reading speech. He said -

F might mention before I close that for some time I have had under consideration the question of what further jurisdiction of a general as distinct from an industrial character could conveniently and appropriately be added to the jurisdiction now vested in the court, lt and when any such jurisdiction is added the question of the number of judges necessary to perform the court’s work as thus enlarged can be reconsidered.

To me it is rather unfortunate that the Attorney-General, before introducing a bill of this character, did not give full consideration to the other duties of judges already appointed to this court and take the opportunity, on the retirement of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to review those duties and the number of judges necessary to perform the type of work that has been carried out by the Commonwealth Industrial Court since the Boilermakers’ case.

This bill raises a question of whether the addition of another judge to this court at present is a wise course having regard to the impact of decisions which he will have to make. Members of the Opposition do not agree that it is in the best interests of Canberra that the judge of the Supreme Court of the Territory should sit in other jurisdictions. For fifteen years Mr. Justice Simpson has filled his position on the Supreme Court bench in the Australian Capital Territory with high honour to himself and with distinction to the position he held. But we consider that his position should not have been dove-tailed in with a casual position on the Commonwealth Industrial Court.I say that because I believe the Industrial Court needs to give clear attention to the principles upon which it should function in future.

I have never been happy about the creation of the Industrial Court and to me it was rather distasteful to find the AttorneyGeneral, the legal authority in this Government, bringing down legislation of a purely legal character to enable industrial matters to be determined on the highest judicial plane.

From the outset this Industrial Court has been saddled with a responsibility the discharge of which has not promoted better relations between employer and employee in Australia. On this very day there is an industrial matter which is causing the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) grave concern. As a result of a decision made by the Commonwealth Industrial Court serious industrial trouble is prevailing in Australia to-day. It may be argued that the new judge will not be required to determine disputes of that character. It could well be that he would go to Canberra. That is not for me to say and the Attorney-General has been silent about what is intended. However, there could be a rotation between the Industrial Court and the Supreme Court in Canberra, and that would be an unhealthy position.

Let me examine the duties to be performed by this new judge, acting as a single judge in the Industrial Court. He will be required to preside over proceeding involving offences under section 5 of the act. Section 5 relates to injury caused to an employee or an employer by industrial action. That is a very wide field for any single judge to cover. His second function relates to a matter which has worried me, as I know it has worried the Minister’s predecessor. I refer to the interpretation of awards. I do not know of anything so unreal as to require a legal man to interpret awards made by a commission with which he is not connected in any way. It could well be that during the first six months of his appointment he would act as a Supreme Court judge in Canberra, and that in his first case in Melbourne he would be required to interpret awards which he had never seen previously, which he had had no part in making, and which he had never had the opportunity of discussing. He would, in that event, have no knowledge of the understanding arrived at between the parties when the award was made. I do not know of anything more calculated to create industrial misunderstanding.

Further, acting as a single judge, he will be empowered to determine the eligibility of persons to become or remain members of a registered organization. If any good is to come from trade unionism in a free country, it is essential that there be complete understanding between members and their unions. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that trade unions do play a tremendously important part in the functioning and development of any worthwhile nation.

Mr McMahon:

– The dichotomy, or division of jurisdiction, is made necessary by the Boilermakers’ case.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:

– I am not disputing that. I am merely emphasizing that we are getting so much legalism in the internal affairs of trade unions and in industrial arbitration that we are fast reaching the point at which trade unions will completely lose faith in arbitration. Next, the single judge will have to examine requirements as to rules and be in a position to direct with respect to rules. He will also be required to hear and determine disputes between an organization and its members. Under section 150, he will be required to go so far as to make determinations relating to termination of membership and admittance to membership of an organization.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:

I want to finish on the note on which I began, Mr. Speaker. This bill is circumscribed. It is rather a pity that the Minister could not allow us to have a fullblooded debate on this issue, because what has happened in Australia to-day owing to the Government’s existing arbitration legislation is important at the industrial level. This bill, which is to be dovetailed in with the existing legislation, will only make that legislation worse in my opinion, because at some stage there will be a. rotation of judges, between the Commonwealth Industrial Court and the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister said that he was going to look for some other jobs for the judges of the Industrial Court. So they are to be trained in every field except that of industrial- arbitration - a field in which they should understand thoroughly the human relations between employer and employee. Apparently, human relations are to be completely divorced from the deliberations of this authority. I said before - and I repeat: When you divorce the consideration of human relations and human understanding from the determination of workers’ wages and conditions by the award-making authorities, you destroy completely the workers’ confidence in those authorities.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- Mr. Speaker, this bill is not the simple measure that the Government represents it to be. One would imagine, after hearing the second-reading speech made by the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick), that all that the Government proposed to do was to increase by one the number of judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court. First, I propose to criticize this bill from the standpoint of whether an additional judge is warranted, even considering the alleged accumulation of work before the court. On 10th November last, the Attorney-General answered a question about the work of this court which I had asked. It appears to me, judging by the number of days on which the members of the court have been obliged to sit, that this jurisdiction cannot be regarded as an over-worked one. The Attorney-General tried, when he answered my question, to make it appear that the judges were fully employed. He said that there were no records of the number of days on which they were engaged in chambers in dealing with certain matters. The judges sat on 98 days in the year ended 13th August, 1957. In the following year, they sat on 66 days, and in the year after that they sat on 69 days. The Minister then stated, as- 1 have said, that no statistics were kept of the exercise of jurisdiction in chambers.. So, if we judge the matter on the number of days on which the court sits, it quite evidently is not over-worked.

Furthermore, if these judges had a fulltime occupation, how could they be released from time to time in order to undertake duties in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, for which court also they hold commissions? The judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court have undertaken work in other Commonwealth Territories also. The Territory of Norfolk Island is one illustration. So it is quite evident that the Attorney-General was unable to answer effectively the suggestion that the members of the Commonwealth Industrial Court are under-worked but very well paid. The Chief Judge receives £6,500 and the other judges receive £5,500 a year. Tn addition, they receive the usual perks, such as travelling and expense allowance, and they enjoy very liberal pension provisions. This is not an inexpensive court.

The Government says that Mr. Justice Simpson is retiring from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and that it proposes to use one of the judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court in the Australian Capital Territory court. But the Government has not said that it proposes to keep the post of Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory permanently vacant and to use in that court the Industrial Court judges, who are now commissioned to act in that sphere. The Government says, also, that one of the Industrial Court judges is going on extended leave. I do not know whether it is essential, even taking into account those considerations, to have a fourth judge appointed to the Industrial Court.

Why does the Government propose to appoint a fourth judge? Has it some old party hack whom it wants to reward by putting him on this bench? Have we not seen that sort of thing done in the past? T well recollect the rumour that was current in New South Wales when the appointment of Dr. Evatt as Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court was under consideration. One rumour which was in circulation suggested that one of the judges of the State Supreme Court would not work under Dr. Evatt and that it was believed that an assurance had been given by the Commonwealth Government that a position on a Federal bench would be found for him.

Mr McMahon:

– Never!

Mr WARD:

– Well, the point is that a rumour freely circulated in Sydney at the time. I think it is important to know who will get this additional appointment if the Parliament passes this bill.

I think that the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison), who immediately preceded me in this debate, has made quite clear the importance of the Commonwealth Industrial Court. It seems to me that the Government was looking for trouble when, on the constitution of this court after the decision in what was known as the Boilermakers’ case, the Government decided to appoint to the post of Chief Judge of the court a gentleman who was at the time a member of the Senate and a representative there of one of the Government parties. From that office, he was transferred to the post of Chief Judge of what is probably the most important court in this country in terms of the preservation of industrial peace. Whatever else may be said, we can say at least that that gentleman would be suspect in the trade union movement of this country, because trade unionists would not feel satisfied that they would get from him the proper consideration of matters brought before the Industrial Court that would have resulted if the person appointed to the post of Chief Judge of the court had not been directly associated with a political party.

I know that supporters of the Government will refer to certain appointments and say. “ Does it not apply in the opposite direction? “ Whatever may be said about other jurisdictions, there is one court in this country that should be kept completely clear of any such suspicion, and that is the Commonwealth Industrial Court. It is not free of that suspicion. Therefore, it is important to ask the Government who it has in mind to appoint to this vacancy for a fourth judge on the bench if this legislation is passed.

I agree entirely with my colleagues who have said that they would like to see this court disappear completely. I think it would be a good thing for Australia if the court disappeared because the whole approach to conciliation and arbitration by the anti-Labour interests (has completely changed. When conciliation and arbitration were first established in Australia, the idea was that two contending parties in industry would sit under an impartial chairman and try to reach agreement on industrial problems.

Mr Thompson:

– By conciliation.

Mr WARD:

– Yes; but we find that the Commonwealth Industrial Court is merely a court to discipline the industrial workers in the interests of the employers, and nothing else. It is not a court of justice as can be proved by what has happened up to date. The further section of the question to which I have referred and which was directed to the Attorney-General related to fines imposed by the court. The Minister’s reply shows’ that fines imposed on the employers in the year ended 13th August, 1957, were nil. In the corresponding period for 1957-58, fines on the employers totalled £100 and in the following year, £350. On the other hand, fines imposed on employees and their trade union organizations in the year ended August, 1957, totalled £1,025; in the following year they amounted to £230 and in 1959, £2,745.

Let mc make a comparison between the penalties imposed by the court, not merely in relation to the magnitude of the fines imposed but in other ways also. Great organizations of the employers have had miserable penalties imposed on them by the court, in many cases for very serious offences. What were the offences of the trade unionists for which savage penalties were imposed? We must think about these matters in the trade union movement and in the Australian Labour Party so that we can close our ranks and create a defensive force to protect our liberties. We must act quickly to prevent the complete destruction of the trade union movement, for we could have what Mr. Ben Chifley warned the Labour Party about not long before his death when he referred to the danger and the threat of what are called “ tame cat unions “ which would obey the court and meet the wishes of the employer on all occasions.

Who are the people who keep running back to this Commonwealth Industrial Court seeking disciplinary action against the trade unions? They are the employers themselves who find in the court an instrument to force the workers who strike to go back under conditions they do not approve, or to deter them from striking for fear that savage financial penalties will be imposed on the trade unions. Let us examine some of these matters because it is very easy to offend the Commonwealth Industrial Court and be subject to a savage penalty. Certainly, the law also mentions the employers’ organizations; they are put in for full measure, but they rarely suffer the penalties of the court which are directed mostly against the trade unions. If a union refuses to carry out an order of the court, it is guilty of contempt, and the penalty is a fine up to a maximum of £500 in the case of an organization and £200 in the case of an official of a union. Every striking member of a trade union may be fined £50 for refusing to carry out an order of the court. The contempt is not a continuing one in the sense that those who are penalized suffer only one penalty so long as a strike lasts; if the court wishes, every day the strike continues, a fresh Contempt is committed and a fine may be imposed.

So if this Government wants to smash a trade union, all it has to do is to declare that a union has committed contempt every day and it becomes subject to a fine of £500. Tt is not merely a question of the fine either. That has been illustrated by what has happened in many cases. The other day, when the shipowners approached the Commonwealth Industrial Court, the penalty imposed on the Seamen’s Union was £300, but an order for costs was also given -against the union, and it was obliged in addition to pay the shipowners’ costs. The shipowners had employed two Queen’s Counsel because it pays them to boost costs when they know the court will give an order for costs against the union. Honorable members can see what a serious matter that is for the trade union movement.

Let us look at some of the penalties that 1have been imposed on trade unionists. I remember in one case where proceedings for contempt were taken against a trade unionist because he criticized a decision of the court. Tt was determined that his criticism had gone further and had been directed against the judge who brought down the judgment.

That particular unionist had a severe penalty imposed on him. Even members of Parliament are not wholly free from criticism. If people disagree with our decisions and statements they can publicly condemn us. In a democracy, they should be allowed to do that. Why should not a trade unionist who feels aggrieved by a decision be in a position to criticize the person who makes the decision just as he is able to criticize a government if he disagrees with any legislation that it passes. What the Government is attempting to do is obvious. I regret that it is succeeding to some extent because, as the result of the establishment of this court, the idea is spreading that the workers must surrender the right to strike.

Mr Wight:

As a result, the Commissioner for Railways - not the railway workers - decided that there would be no week-end rail transport. Some of those waterside workers who live as far as 30 miles away from the city could not get to their work, and the only suggestion the shipowners could make to them was that they ought to engage taxis to get themselves to the city in order to offer for work. That would mean that a waterside worker in such a case would have been practically working for nothing after paying the cost of taxi transport. So the waterside workers in Victoria said to the shipowners, “If you want us to work at the week-ends you will have to arrange adequate transport to get us to work “. But what the shipowners wanted-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that the honorable member is again drifting pretty wide of the bill.

Mr WARD:

– I just wanted to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that the Industrial Court to which we are asked to appoint an additional judge is acting in a manner which is going to lead to a great deal of industrial trouble in this country. I return to the point I mentioned earlier: We would like to know whom the Government has in mind to All this additional judgeship on the court, because if we are to take a line from what the Government has already done in regard to the appointment of a president to the first industrial court, we can expect that the Government has some party hack, who has now outlived his usefulness politically, whom it wants to appoint to the court. The workers of this country are not going to accept the decisions of this tribunal unless they are satisfied that it is an impartial tribunal and unless they are satisfied that its decisions are just decisions based on the evidence. And we believe, and so do the trade unions, that you will not get impartial and just decisions from tribunals presided over by former members of the Liberal Party.

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP

– I think this debate, as it has developed, can be split into two sections. There is, first, the approach taken by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). He dealt with the functions, or suggested functions, of the Industrial Court. He made certain suggestions to this House, and particularly to the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick), as to the functions that should be vested in that extended jurisdiction. Some of these suggestions deserve the most close consideration, and I am certain that my colleague, the Attorney-General, will give them the consideration they deserve. There were other suggestions, as, for example, giving the court the right of what might be termed “ administrative jurisdiction “ - for example, giving to the court the right to overrule determinations of the DirectorGeneral of Social Services on matters that come within his jurisdiction. I do not think that any one with experience of government would agree to the suggestion that the court have the right to apply its mind to an administrative problem and overrule a decision of the Director-General of Social Services on something that is within the jurisdiction of the Director-General. As one with at least some knowledge of this particular portfolio - though of course with less than the knowledge of the present Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) - I state positively that the proposal would be politically impossible and impossible in practice.

Having mentioned what has been suggested by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - and I say that many of the suggestions he made are well worthy of consideration and will receive consideration - I now pass on to the second part of the argument. I believe that, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) and, certainly in the initial part of his speech, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), tried to keep within the text of the long title of this bill. They tried valiantly, but what emerged from everything they said was that they believed that the Industrial Court should be abolished, and that industrial penalties should be abolished with it. I think that the Opposition’s attitude can be well summed up in the words of the honorable member for Blaxland, who said, in effect, “ If we get back to the old procedure of arbitration when an employer could lock out his employees or when the employees could withdraw their labour we would find a quick way of bringing sanity back to the trade union movement and reducing the power of the Communists in Australia “. So sanity has to be brought back to the trade union movement by the methods suggested by the honorable member for Blaxland!

So there, Sir, is the alternative to the arbitration system. We abolish the Industrial Court as we know it; we abolish industrial penalties as we know them and as they were in force when the Labour Party was in office, and we introduce industrial anarchy based on lock-outs and what the honorable member for Blaxland calls the withdrawal of labour, but which I call strikes. Now, Sir, I think that states pretty fairly the point of view put by the Opposition on this bill.

May I go back first to what we mean by arbitration. I am glad that we have in this House at least one member who has an enormous respect for the law. What are we dealing with when we deal with arbitration? We have two parties to a dispute, acting together and either voluntarily agreeing to an award which is subsequently registered or, if they cannot do so, submitting their problem to arbitration, in which case an award is made and the parties are expected to abide by it. Sir, there is no difference here between an award and a contract. There is a moral obligation on the parties to adhere to an award. A penalty can be imposed if a party to a contract breaks the contract or if, in this case, a party to an award breaks the award.

There can be three alternatives in respect of the breach of an award. The award may be broken; some person may induce others to break the award; or there can be contempt of the authority that has the responsibility to ensure that awards shall be observed. Those are the problems the dealing with which is placed in the hands of the Industrial Court. But what the Opposition suggests is this: Let us get away from the court, let people break their awards, let others induce them to break their awards, let people act in contempt of the industrial authorities, of the Industrial Court, of the judicial tribunal - and introduce instead industrial anarchy in which strikes and lockouts will become the order of the day.

I do not believe for one moment that in this year of grace, 1960, the Australian people would ever contemplate seriously the abolition of the arbitration system and a return to industrial anarchy.

So that is the argument presented to this House by the honorable member for East Sydney and the honorable member for Blaxland. What do we, as a Government, think of industrial penalties? I have tried to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, in my talks with the trade union movement and with employers that we believe that penalties should be used as a last resort, that we do not think they should be imposed capriciously. The honorable member for Blaxland is interjecting now. He has made his speech on this bill. We do not believe that the power to impose penalties should be used capriciously. Let us look at the evidence and ask ourselves if the penalty provisions have been used capriciously. The honorable member for Blaxland, who is allegedly, and, I think, probably correctly, a trade union and industrial authority, said that last year there had been a period of unprecedented industrial peace, and he put it down to the fact that it was a bonanza year for the trade union movement. He did not say so outright, but he obviously implied it. The reason was that the workers had received increases last year which were quite unprecedented in trade union history.

Mr E James Harrison:

– I did not say that.

Mr MCMAHON:

– Look up “ Hansard “ to-morrow. You gave as the reason for industrial peace substantial basic wage and margin increases that took place last year. It is only in recent months that the margins decision has been given and as yet its effect has not permeated throughout the community. But the honorable gentleman has admitted that there were substantial wage and margins increases, and has also admitted that there was a period of unprecedented industrial peace in this community.

What about industrial penalties? This matter becomes enormously important on the question whether there has been a capricious use of the industrial penalty clauses. In 1959, on the latest information available to me - I think that this should be made clear to the House - only one fine was imposed by the Industrial Court in connexion with an industrial dispute which was brought before it. One single fine during 1959! So. not only was there a period of unprecedented industrial peace, and an increase in margins which also was quite unprecedented, but also, in terms of industrial penalties, only one fine was imposed in that year. Consequently, I have to ask: What was the cause and the effect of this state of affairs? No one can say, as was argued by the honorable member for East Sydney, that the present problems have arisen as a result of the actions of the Industrial Court and the penalty provisions of the act. On the contrary, the real cause is the conduct of those who do not wish to ensure industrial peace in the community.

Now let us come to what has happened in the Australian Railways Union in Victoria, the Waterside Workers Federation and the Seamen’s Union. I do not want to go too deeply into this problem because I have already stated publicly the motives behind the recent strikes, the applications which have been made by the employers to the Industrial Court, and the events which led up to those applications being made. I do not want to be provocative in this because I have taken some action about it, but I want to make it perfectly clear that the recent spate of industrial lawlessness has been instigated by a particular group of people who have, as one design, the destruction of the arbitration system in this country. But as I do not wish to be provocative, and as I do not wish to prolong this part of the debate, I merely state that, as I announced to the House, I have referred this matter of the waterside workers’ strike to the presidential member who has jurisdiction over the waterfront.

From the facts which I have placed before you, Mr. Speaker, you can see that no one can say that there was an extravagant use of the penalty powers last year. This year, it has become perfectly clear that those unions which are dominated by a group of a particular political complexion which is opposed to the interests of this country, have instigated the strikes which have occurred and have compelled the employers to resort to the Industrial Court.

I believe that the case is complete. Very few people would feel that there was any alternative to an approach to the court to seek the protection of the law. Penalty provisions have been part and parcel of the conciliation system for many years. They were in operation when the Labour Party was in power, and they were not varied substantially when we came to office. We do not think that you can have an arbitration system unless you have some system of penalties in the law. I am perfectly certain that the Australian people and the trade unionists want arbitration. They believe in it. They know that it has brought them enormous advantages. I do not want to speak in this House in high praise of either the commission or the court, but I state publicly that I believe that they have the support of the Australian people and of the rank and file of the trade union movement. If the honorable member for Blaxland wants to keep the Labour Party in opposition permanently, let him make it public that he has said, “ In truth, we believe in the abolition of arbitration. In truth, we want to go back to lockouts and strikes because that is the way to put common sense into the trade union movement and to destroy the power of the Communists.”

There are two other comments I would make, particularly with regard to the speech of the honorable member for East Sydney. They relate, first of all, to the seamen’s dispute, and here I intervene only to make the facts clear. The Seamen’s Union is on strike on the ground that there has been a reduction in the pay of its members. I have examined this matter very carefully. While, in some cases no doubt, there could be what may be termed a reduction in pay, the old award cannot be compared with the new award. It is practically impossible to do so. When making application for the new award, the representatives of the Seamen’s Union stated to Mr. Justice Foster, the presidential member concerned, that they wanted more-

Mr E James Harrison:

– I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. When I opened on this matter I indicated quite frankly that discussion on it was limited, having regard to the terms of the bill. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I deliberately avoided referring to any decision of the commission as distinct from a decision of the court. I suggest that the Minister is completely out of order in making any reference to a decision of the commission.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think the Minister was endeavouring to answer a question which had been raised - unfortunately, by interjection. In doing so, he is transgressing as others transgressed now and again.

Mr McMAHON:

– I thank you for that, Mr. Speaker, but I paid you the deference of saying that there had been a valiant effort by the honorable member for Blaxland and the honorable member for East Sydney to keep within the context of the bill. However, the honorable member for Blaxland did raise this question, and it was only because he had raised it that I felt it had to be answered. But if you feel, Mr. Speaker–

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not think the argument should be developed. I prevented the honorable member for Blaxland from doing so.

Mr McMAHON:

– Let me state that Mr. Justice Foster, in commenting on the conditions of the seamen’s award, said -

The seamen’s actual income for nine months’ work will not, I believe, fall very much, if at all. .. He will, however, now enjoy far better leave conditions than at any time in the history of the sea, and much of it in his home port … I do not detail in this judgment either the pluses or the minuses, but in the overall balance sheet nothing was lost sight of.

In reply to the honorable member for East Sydney, I make the single comment that there is no doubt that the present award is far better than the old award, and it is highly doubtful whether, over a long period, there will be any loss of pay.

Again in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I say nothing about the waterside dispute which has been referred to the presidential member concerned. I sum up in this way: Obviously, there is an alternative. On the one hand, there is the Labour Party’s suggestion that we return to industrial anarchy. On the other hand, as I have tried to indicate, there are these facts: First, 1959 was a year of unprecedented industrial peace; secondly, according to the latest records only one fine was imposed during that year under the penalty provisions of the act; and thirdly, 1959 was a bonanza year in terms of wages and margins increases for members of the trade unions. If we are to pay any credit at all, I personally believe that we have to pay some credit - perhaps a great deal - to the commission itself and to the court. I finish on this note, as I have already emphasized in this debate, that I am sure that if the Australian people themselves were to express an opinion, they would come out loudly in support of the arbitration system of this country.

Mr E James Harrison:

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member claim that he has been misrepresented?

Mr E James Harrison:

– My word! The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) claimed that I advocated the abolition of arbitration and the introduction, in its place, of a form of anarchy. The Minister knows perfectly well that I never said anything of the kind. What I actually said was this - and I will put it on record two or three times, if need be -

I believe that the Government should get back to the days of industrial understanding. In those days, a decision of a court–

I am not saying one thing against industrial arbitration because it is the policy of the party of which I am a member. I said -

In those days, a decision of a court had to be accepted by the employer and the employee. There was only one way out of it and that was either for the employer to lock the men out or for the employees to withdraw their labour. That is the quick way to bring sanity back to the trade union movement and to weaken the power of the Communists.

Those were the words I used. It was indicated also that I said there was a bonanza for the benefit of the trade union movement. In the first place, I wish to say that is one word I have never used in this House at any time on any question. What I said in relation to that, and I stand by it, was this -

Why did we have industrial peace in 1959? The figures show that the time lost in 1959 was about half the time lost in 1957. The reason for this is clear. Two fairly substantial wage increases were granted in 1959 and so the workers wanted to give of their best during that year. But in 1960, we have the other side of the picture. We start with a reduction in the value of wages.

I never made any mention of a “ bonanza “. I was drawing the conclusion that if the Minister and the Government seek credit for industrial peace in that year, the real reason was that the workers had been given wage justice.

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.-I desire to refer to a few of the points which the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) raised in this debate, most of them being in answer, so he said, to submissions made from this side of the House. I think that the Minister has quite definitely created a wrong impression of the way in which the arbitration system in this country functions with the alternative presentations he has given to the House.

In one breath he said that the Opposition is advocating a return to industrial anarchy. In the next breath he drew a picture of perfect industrial peace during administration of this Government. I think that is a totally false picture of the situation. The Minister said that what occurs at the present time is that the parties voluntarily come together and if they cannot agree it is only then that they go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or to some other form of arbitration. The Minister then said that after the commission has dealt with the case, it is only if there is some provocative or unjustified action by the unions that the Commonwealth Industrial Court, as a last resort, applies penalties.

I think that is a totally false picture of the situation. It is becoming increasingly true that the parties do not voluntarily come together. We have increasingly the example where one party - and it is invariably the employer and never the trade union - says, “ If you want settlement of this matter, go to arbitration “. The case of the Victorian Railways, which is one of the disputes that has been mentioned time and again in this debate, illustrates precisely that situation. The employer and the union came together and an agreement was outlined. The Victorian Government, standing behind the railways, is said to have supported that agreement, but there has been some dispute about that. At any rate nothing came of this because the railways - the employer in this case - said, just as employers are saying time after time, “ This is not a matter for us to agree to or even discuss; go to arbitration “.

So the picture drawn by the Minister of the parties coming pleasantly together and deciding to agree about wages and conditions is a totally false one. Employers, and particularly State government departments in most of the States of Australia, refuse to discuss matters with the employees’ representatives. They are laying down as a law of their practice that the matter has to be taken to arbitration. That point which the Minister has tried to convey to the House is misleading.

The next question that he raised and to which I wish to refer is his statement that there cannot be an arbitration system without penalties. By “ penalties “ he means, and we know that he means, the imposition of a fine by the court to which this judge is to be appointed under this bill - fines or gaol sentences. It is not only a matter of the actual imposition of the fine or the sentence - and the Minister said there was only one fine in 1959 - but it is also the fact that unions know that the threat of this penalty is hanging over them all the time. No union that has any regard for its funds which have been accumulated with difficulty and a considerable amount of sacrifice, even to-day, can lightly risk the imposition of a penalty by this court.

Not only is there a penalty of perhaps £500, but there are also legal expenses involved which always amount to considerably more than the fine. I think the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) pointed out that employers’ organizations are in the habit of briefing not one but two Queen’s Counsel to appear at something like 150 guineas a day. As a result the unions run the risk of having to pay penalties of over £1,000 when a £500 fine is imposed. It is not just the number of times these penalties are imposed, although that is important; it is the constant threat hanging over a union. But that is what the Minister means by “penalties” and he says that there cannot be an arbitration system without penalties. Of course, he has not had his present portfolio for very long but I am sure that he knows that that statement is untrue. I know that he is well aware that Great Britain has an arbitration system without penalties. I know that he is well aware also that in Sweden, Norway and Denmark arbitration systems without penalties operate. I know that he is well aware that Australia is the one country in the world where the method of industrial penalty and contempt of court procedure is habitually practised and is becoming the traditional attitude of authorities in industrial disputes. I know that the Minister is aware that we are the only country in the world where, in this sense, we have an arbitration system with penalties, but when he says that we cannot have ah arbitration system without penalties my reply is, “ Of course we can “.

The Minister justifies the existence of those penalties by saying that there is no other way of getting industrial peace. But what has been obtained by the use of these penalties, I suggest, is that we have high profits on one hand and pegged wages on the other. How was this result achieved? It was by the actual fine and potential gaol sentence or the attempt to use the penal powers as we use them in Australia.

This bill calls into question in the minds of the Opposition the whole purpose and use of the arbitration system. In this building, only last night, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, made some references to this matter. He was speaking at a dinner to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the election to this Parliament of a Labour government with a majority in both Houses for the first time. He thought it necessary to say that one of the main issues we face to-day is the use of penal powers by the arbitration tribunal to which this judge is about to be appointed. He pointed out that the use of these penalties tends to destroy arbitration and negative the whole procedure, because so long as the employers know that they can rely on the exercise of those powers by the court they do not want to negotiate. The moment these penalties are imposed by the court, further negotiation is frozen. There is no further possibility of the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the trade unions coming together and negotiating. He made the point that the use of these penalty powers is aggravating the position and causing industrial disputes. The senior executive officer of the Australian trade union movement went out of his way to warn the Government that if the present procedure persisted, we could look forward to serious industrial unrest.

The president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions made the point that these industrial troubles are not the result of the action of some Communist official who may or may not occupy a responsible position; they are the result of general dissatisfaction with the way in which arbitration has been functioning in this country. We of the Opposition deem it essential at this time, when the Government proposes appointing an additional judge to this court, to warn the Government of the dangers to be met along the road which it is travelling. Industrial peace and high profits can be obtained at too high a price, having regard to their impact upon wage standards in the community.

I refer now to what has been occurring in relation to the distribution of the national income in Australia. The Industrial Court is the pinnacle of the system which determines the distribution of the national income in Australia. The official figures show that wages and salaries - the incomes of over 3,000,000 people, many of whom have family responsibilities - stood at 50.2 per cent, of the national income in 1951, but that since then the percentage has dropped continuously until it is now 49.2.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is drifting away from the terms of the measure.

Mr CAIRNS:

– We are doing our best to indicate to the Government how wrong it is in proceeding with the strengthening of this court by the appointment of an additional judge. We are explaining what can result from such a step. We are indicating also that, whether it realizes it or not, the court is being used as an instrument to safeguard the interests of the employers. Whether the Government realizes that, of course, is a different matter. We say that any such body - call it a court or what you will - that has such a one-sided influence must lose the respect of the people in the long run. If the people are to retain their respect for the court with which this measure is concerned, a different approach will have to be made to the problem. If the people generally, and the members of the trade unions in particular, lose their respect for this court, industrial disputes must inevitably follow. Such disputes will be both greater and more frequent.

It is not difficult to understand the attitude of the Minister. He spoke about the present situation of the seamen and he said, “ What is termed a reduction in pay has taken place “. I have some personal friends amongst the seamen working on ships around the Australian coast, and I know they are now actually losing from £3 to £4 a week as a result of the latest award. No one can deny that that is a loss in pay. These seamen find that an intolerable situation, especially when they read in the financial columns of the press in Australia of the way in which profits are booming, and when they know that the official figures - which I am not permitted to quote during this debate to support my argument - prove our case to the hilt. Those figures may be found on page 918 of the current issue of “ Hansard “. They were supplied in answer to a question, and I recommend that all honorable members on the Government side study them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I suggest that the honorable member get back to the bill.

Mr CAIRNS:

– Dealing specifically with the bill, I refer to the question raised by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) at the end of his speech. He asked who was to be appointed to this position. Parliament is being asked to agree to the appointment of an additional judge, and we are entitled to expect some indication of who is likely to be appointed. We know what happened when the last appointment was made. A gentleman who was the Government’s Attorney-General was made a judge. I have heard it said that the present Attorney-General would make an excellent judge. I have heard it said that the Government has amongst its ranks a number of men who could fill the position capably, and it has been suggested that perhaps some of them will be considered for promotion before it is too late. When I say this, every one knows that I refer to the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) in particular.

– The power of the Industrial Court to impose penalties is important, if the success of our arbitration system is to be maintained. No system will work unless provision is made for the imposition of penalties. The parties to an action before any court of law are bound by the decision of the court, and a party failing to fulfil the terms of a decision is penalized. Opposition members have raised the point that Mr. Monk, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said that the Industrial Court and the arbitration system will be destroyed if these penalties are maintained. What is not generally known is that Mr. Monk has a very ugly and difficult job to do at present because the difference between the strength of the moderates and the militants on the A.C.T.U. is very small. He must be careful. He has been told to take up a certain position, and that is why the opinions expressed by Mr. Monk are not always his true opinions.

If the Commonwealth Industrial Court is to function, it must have an additional judge appointed to it. One judge is absent and the two judges that remain form the court. If one of these is not available, the court cannot function. It is necessary to increase the number of judges so that the court can at all times carry out its function in the arbitration system. I very much deplore the efforts of the Opposition to destroy the arbitration system, which has been built up over many years. History does not support the contention that the method adopted in 1956 to overcome the difficulty created by the decision of the High Court has proved to be wrong. The last four years have been some of the best years in our history, because the court has functioned properly and trade unionists have had confidence in it. The trade unions dominated by Communists are trying to destroy it, and the quickest way to destroy it is to destroy the character of the judges and to remove the power vested in the court to impose penalties.

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 61

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message);

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to -

That is is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to increase the number of Judges who may be appointed to the Commonwealth Industrial Court.

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

The bill.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- Mr. Chairman, this measure provides, as honorable members know, for the appointment of an additional judge to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. I want to say a few words about the Government’s actions in respect of arbitration, particularly with reference to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. It seems to me that the Government is deliberately undermining the arbitration system of this country by the methods it has adpoted in relation to the arbitration laws.

Mr Wight:

– On a point or order, Mr. Chairman: I ask what clause the honorable member is dealing with. He appears to be dealing with the jurisdiction and functioning of the court rather than with a clause of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bowden).Order! The committee is taking the bill as a whole.

Mr Wight:

– I submit that the honorable member must deal with the clauses of the bill and that he may not deal with the jurisdiction of the court and its functioning.

Mr DALY:

– I shall tell the honorable member what I am referring to. It is -

A BILL

for AN ACT

To increase the Number of Judges who may be appointed to the Commonwealth Industrial Court.

BE it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Represenatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: -

– (1.) This Act may be cited as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1960. (2.) The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904- 1959,* as amended by this Act, may be cited as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1960.
This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.
Section ninety-eight of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1959 is amended by omitting from paragraph (a) the word “ two “ and inserting in its stead the word “ three “.

I trust that the honorable member for Lilley, dull as he may be, is now reliably informed on the measure before the committee. I am concerned particularly with clause 3 and who is to be appointed the fourth judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court. Are we to have an appointment like that of the former Liberal senator who is now Mr. Justice Spicer? I say that appointments of that nature are destroying the confidence of the workers in the arbitration court system. Beyond doubt, this Government has some member under consideration for this plum - appointment to this important position.

I notice that honorable members on the Government side are interjecting loudly. I do not doubt that they are interested, because, when all is said and done, the judge appointed must be a man in whom the workers and the people generally can have confidence. He will join the other judges in imposing penalties which, as honorable members have said earlier, are not confined to unions which might be described as anarchist or something of that nature. This judge will be subjected to interference by the Government, as was exemplified in the recent basic wage case when intervention by this Government stopped the workers from getting the increase in wages to which they were entitled. So, I repeat that I am very interested in who is to be appointed a new judge under this measure.

– I cannot hear you properly, Mr. Chairman, but I bow to your wishes while I do not agree with them. I say that I am entitled to refer to clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the bill. I know that the pertinent comments I have made are not to the satisfaction of honorable members on the Government side and that is why there is an endeavour to howl me down. As I have said, the judges to be appointed undoubtedly will be men who come from the ranks of those in whom the workers can have no confidence whatever. I feel that I am entitled to raise these matters and I regret that I cannot go to greater lengths on the subject under discussion. I shall probably take the opportunity to do so on the motion for the third reading of the bill when you are not in the Chair, Mr. Chairman, and I will have greater scope.

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

AYES: 60

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 24

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) - by leave - proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Mr CURTIN:
Smith · Kingsford

– My remarks on the bill will be exploratory in character. I want to ask the

Attorney-General whether he can inform me of the reasons why this Government finds it necessary to appoint an extra judge to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. Speaking on behalf of my trade union of 66,000 boilermakers, and on behalf of the 45,000 electors of Kingsford-Smith - all taxpayers - I want to know, as they will want to know from their member, the reason why this Government has found it urgently necessary to appoint a further judge to this court. What is the reason, and what is the salary to be paid to this judge? May I suggest, Sir, that the reason is that the Government has suddenly found it has lost a majority on the court, and it requires a further judge in the court’s personnel in order to restore the status quo?

The savage penalties imposed in the past on members of my union and on other members of the trade union movement have created quite a lot of dissension in the community in general. The members of the Opposition feel that there was no reason whatsoever, after those savage penalties, for the infliction on the community of another judge appointed to this court. May I suggest to the Parliament that the old gentlemen

Mr JEFF BATE:

This Act may be cited as the “Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1960”

Surely that gives tremendous scope in regard to the matter I mentioned a few minutes ago. Sub-clause (2.) reads -

The “ Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1959 “–

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no ruling to disagree with. I have asked the honorable member to confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair and I have also asked him to sit down. If he wants to be further heard I suggest that he propose a motion to that effect.

Motion (by Mr. Daly) put -

That the honorable member for Grayndler be further heard.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 36

NOES: 62

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1382

JUDICIARY BILL 1960

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Judiciary Act 1903-1959.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to enable the citizen to sue the Commonwealth of Australia in contract or in tort, not merely in the High Court or in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory as is now the position, but also in any other State or Territorial court of competent jurisdiction.

Honorable members will remember that during the last sittings of this Parlaiment my attention was called to some remarks by Mr. Justice Dean of the Supreme Court of Victoria on an occasion when the Commonwealth was sued for a small sum in his court. I said in answering that I would consider the question of the existing range of courts in which the Commonwealth could be sued. As I said on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, the Commonwealth is rarely sued for sums of money which would ordinarily be recoverable in the minor courts of a State. But as the case before Mr. Justice Dean illustrated, there are rare occasions when a matter in dispute cannot be resolved by negotiation, as is the Commonwealth’s general endeavour, but has to be resolved by a court. I think it would now be consonant with the times to provide for the Commonwealth to be sued in a court which, having regard to the amount in issue, is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, it may be of interest to honorable members if I trace briefly changes which have taken place over the years to enable a citizen to bring a suit against a government for money claimed to be due under contract or as damages for injury done to him by a servant of the Crown.

Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of government, the Crown acts through its servants. Originally, no action lay against the Crown at the suit of a subject in respect of a wrongful act or omission of a Crown servant. This was probably because the Crown was recognized in historic legal theory as the fountain of justice, a theory which helps to explain a well entrenched common law maxim that the King can do no wrong. Moreover, as a matter of history, the common law courts were the King’s courts and, therefore, it was not proper that the Sovereign should be sued in them.

It is, of course, Mr. Speaker, our fortunate heritage as Anglo-Saxons that we are able to deal with injustices arising from a situation by the process of steady and unobtrusive reform, although it is true that sometimes reforms lag behind progress in the community in other directions. Take first the inability to sue the Sovereign. This was met in England by allowing a petition of right to be presented and for the Crown’s advisers to refer the petition to a court for decision. A person with a contractual claim against the Crown could thus obtain judgment for a sum of money due to him for damage sustained as a result of a breach of contract on the part of Crown servants. Because the King could neither do nor authorize a wrong, a petition of right did not allow claims to be brought for damages for injury sustained by wrongful acts of a tortious nature committed by servants of the Crown.

Before federation, each of the six Australian colonies had provided a statutory procedure, usually commencing by way of petition, for bringing actions against their governments. Some of the colonies allowed suits in tort as well as in contract but others did not. For the most part, actions had to be brought in the superior court of the colony.

In 1901, a new body politic, the Commonwealth of Australia, came into being as a type of juristic person under the Crown. The Constitution - section 75 (iii) to be precise - contemplated that the Parliament might make laws enabling the Commonwealth to be sued. As early as 1902, the Claims Against the Commonwealth Act enabled a person wishing to make a claim in contract or in tort against the Commonwealth to petition the Governor-General to appoint a nominal defendant on behalf of the Commonwealth. In 1903, Parliament made the Commonwealth directly liable to be sued in both contract and tort by section 56 of the Judiciary Act passed that year. At the time, the Commonwealth could rightly claim to have set an example in ameliorating the disadvantages which the subject faced in seeking to enforce claims against the Crown. Nor was the Commonwealth out of step with the majority of States in limiting to the superior courts jurisdiction to hear cases against it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a singular feature of our way of life that governments throughout Australia may now be sued and held to account in the ordinary courts of the land for what they agree to and for what they do. On reviewing the situation, the limitation as to courts, reasonable enough in 1903, is, T feel, no longer in keeping with modern thought and practice, and it seems to me to be quite appropriate now to expose the Federal Government, or strictly speaking the Commonwealth, to suit in appropriate courts of competent jurisdiction. This will avoid the possibility of a citizen being put to incommensurate expense in having to pursue a small claim in a superior court or, indeed, refraining from suit because of the cost involved in suing in a superior court, where compromise has not been possible. It will also mean that a superior court will not be occupied with a minor matter when time is badly needed for the trial of more substantial issues. As I have said, it is very unusual for small claims against the Commonwealth to be litigated. But so that the remedy of the citizen shall be complete, I think it is appropriate, and the Government has agreed, that section 56 of the Judiciary Act should be amended to allow a suit to be brought in any competent court.

Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that the change I have described could have been effected very simply by a few words amending the existing provision. However, that has not proved to be the case. When the basis of jurisdiction of the minor courts throughout Australia was reviewed, several difficulties cropped up. In many instances, jurisdiction is defined in terms of the place where the cause of action arose. This, although a well understood legal criterion, is not always an easy thing to resolve and for some reason the difficulties seem to arise more in actual practice in small matters than in substantia] actions. Most of the inferior courts in Australia also enjoy competence on the basis of the place where the defendant resides or carries on business at the date when the action is brought or, in some cases, at some earlier time. This basis of jurisdiction can be usefully invoked where there is doubt as to where the cause of action arose. In yet another instance, I found that the jurisdiction of the court depended on a combination of where the subject-matter of the action arose and the place of abode of the defendant.

Real difficulty arises where jurisdiction rests in whole or in part on the place where a defendant resides or carries on business In one sense, the Commonwealth may be thought to be ubiquitous - to reside everywhere - but a cogent view is that the Commonwealth does not have a place of residence and strictly does not carry on business as private individuals or companies do.

It seems to me that a person wishing to sue the Commonwealth in contract or in tort should not be deprived of a forum because the Commonwealth is not to be regarded as a resident of a particular place. On the other hand, it does not seem to me to be right that the Commonwealth should be exposed to suit in some out of the way place simply because it should be regarded as residing or perhaps carrying on business everywhere. After a good deal of consideration the Government has decided that the best course of action, in these circumstances, is to treat the Commonwealth as a resident of the capital city of a State, or in the case of a Territory, of the principal city or town of a Territory. Thus the plaintiff who wishes to invoke the jurisdiction of a State court on grounds of residence of the defendant will bring his suit in the appropriate court of the capital city of the State. In return, he has the assurance that the Commonwealth will be treated as a resident of that city. As I have said, the jurisdiction of an inferior court does not always rest on the place of residence of the defendant and it is only where it does that a litigant will have to resort to the city court rather than perhaps to a more convenient local court But he need not resort to a court in a capital city or territorial town if he can satisfy some other ground of jurisdiction, as for example, the place of the accrual of the claim, appropriate to some court closer to his own place of residence or business.

The provision needed to give effect to the Government’s decision is perhaps more complicated than it would have wished, but this is not a large price to pay in the interests of achieving justice as between the parties. The amendment to section 56 is contained in clause 4 of the bill. Subsection (1.) of proposed new section 56 entitles a subject to bring his action in any competent inferior court of a State or Territory in which the claim arose as an alternative to the High Court or the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which the claim arose. Paragraph (a) of proposed new sub-section (2.) then deals with the question of jurisdiction insofar, and only insofar, as it is based on the place of residence of the defendant. lt takes an inferior court exercising jurisdiction in a capital city of a State or the principal or only city or town of a Territory. It says in effect that if the court would have jurisdiction in relation to the particular claim against the Commonwealth if the Commonwealth could be regarded as a resident within its jurisdiction, then the Commonwealth is to be treated as such a resident. The court on that footing would be competent to entertain the suit. The court may, of course, have jurisdiction on other ground’s, but the section is concerned to deal only with the problem of residence. Paragraph (b) of that sub-section contains the words of limitation. It provides that no other inferior court of a State or Territory is competent insofar as its competence depends on the place where the Commonwealth resides or carries on business.

The two paragraphs (a) and (b) proposed to be inserted as part of sub-section (2.) of section 56 by clause 4 of the bill amount in substance to saying that the Commonwealth is for relevant purposes to be regarded as having a residence in a capital city or principal town as the case may be but that it should not be treated as having residence elsewhere.

Honorable members will know that section 64 of the Judiciary Act stands untouched by this amendment. It provides that in suits against the Commonwealth, wherever brought, the matter will be adjudicated upon and the rights and the remedies determined in the same manner as in a suit between subject and subject.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very notable reform, one well worth the doing, and I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 1385

ADJOURNMENT

Taxation - Sales Tax - Telephone Services - Employment of Physically Handicapped Persons - The Parliament - Superannuation - Long Bay Rifle Range - Industrial Arbitration

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.- I desire to take the opportunity to explain briefly a reference in the debate yesterday on education. “ Hansard “, at page 1294, reports an interjection by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) and my answer to the interjection. I did not check this in the proofs of “ Hansard “. The honorable member for Fawkner is reported as having asked -

Do you say we should increase taxation?

I am reported as having given the answer -

No, and neither the honorable member nor any one else does.

I want to make clear that I understood the honorable member for Fawkner to say, “ Do you favour the return of taxing powers to the States? “ That is the matter with which I was dealing. The answer I gave was intended to be an answer to such an interjection. I do favour an increase of taxation, as was very clear from my remarks, for the reasons that I gave in that speech. I do not favour the return of the taxing powers to the States, and I do not think that any one else really does. I do not want to have any misunderstanding about the matter.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

.- I want to make some observations on the case that has been put to the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) by the Civilian Maimed and Limbless Association of New South Wales, whose work is, I think, known to the Treasurer, for the remission of sales tax on motor cars used for the personal transportation of certain physically handicapped people. I know that the Treasurer is sympathetic but I know also that the problem is by no means simple. My purpose to-night is to outline the problem, to analyse some of the principal administrative and financial difficulties involved in its solution, and to show, I hope, that the difficulties are not insuperable. Sir, the specific amendment sought by the association is an exemption from sales tax in respect of -

Motor vehicles (and parts therefor) for use in his personal transportation and not for sale by a person who has lost a leg or a major part thereof or such proportion of the efficient use of one or both legs as, in the opinion of a medical officer of the Department of Health or of a medical practitioner appointed by the Director-General of Social Services for the purpose of examining claimants for invalid pensions under the Social Services Consolidation Act 1947-1959, renders him unable to use public transport.

First of all, what is the problem? It arises in this way: Many physically handicapped people who have been rehabilitated - that is to say, by their own efforts and with skilled assistance, made capable of taking a job - are unable to get to work without a car. They, or their relatives and friends, have already been put to great expense in the buying of crutches, wheel chairs, calipers, surgical boots and so on, to say nothing of medical expenses and the cost of the handicapped person’s maintenance, probably over a lengthy period. If these people are fortunate, they are able, alone or with the assistance of their friends, to scrape together enough to buy a secondhand car. But this is not enough. First, they cannot afford to have breakdowns and to be marooned. More importantly, the rapid depreciation in the value of a secondhand car presents them with the insurmountable task of scraping together for replacements within a short time another large sum - large for them. On the other hand, they might be able to buy a new car if sales tax were not imposed, and, once this was acquired, they would be able to make replacements, say, at three-yearly intervals without additional expenditure. I think honorable members will follow my reasoning. An organization like the Civilian Maimed and Limbless Association may well be able to help them with finance in the first instance.

Is this, I ask, the most efficient and economical way to meet the need, Sir? I believe that there is no other way. Given this aid, handicapped people can help themselves with immense advantage to their own morale and happiness, and they can help the community as producers and taxpayers, at the same time ceasing to be a burden as pensioners. But some one may ask: How do you define the class of person eligible for this tax concession and how do you prevent abuse - for example, the purchase of a car for a family, the cripple being used as a pretext, or the frequent purchase of a car, not for use but for re-sale at a profit? One test proposed is that the concession be given to all who have passed through a recognized rehabilitation centre. But this is both too wide and too narrow. Some may be rehabilitated without going through a recognized centre, and others may be rehabilitated but may never seek a job. I believe that a better test would be to invite organizations such as the Civilian Maimed and Limbless Association of New South Wales to recommend persons for the granting of this concession, since those organizations are best informed regarding the circumstances in each case, and their reputations would be at stake. They would have to certify that the applicant needed and would be using the car in connexion with his employment. If organizations were assisting with initial finance, they also would have a stake in an applicant’s gainful employment. Some reasonably satisfactory basis of eligibility must surely be possible, since such a policy is already adopted in practice, I believe, by the Repatriation Commission in respect of physically handicapped ex-servicemen. Of course, the concession should be limited to a frequency of once in every three years.

Again, some one may ask: What would this proposal cost? In New South Wales, 800 cars are to-day fitted with hand controls. Let us say that there would be approximately 2,400 persons throughout Australia who require such cars. If there were a tax remission of £200 once in every three years for each of these persons, the cost to the Treasury would be at the rate of £67 per annum, or a total of about £126,000 a year for the whole of Australia. Actually, of course, the figure would be higher, but not astronomical. Some of the 2,400 people who require cars fitted with hand controls would not qualify, but other eligible people would come forward. It might be feared that, the concession having been given to some handicapped people, it could not be withheld from others. However, we have to remember that many handicapped people would not qualify for driving licences. I have in mind, for example, people who suffer from certain heart diseases or who have to take some kinds of drugs.

Above all, it is important to bear in mind the fact that there would be substantial offsetting gains to the Treasury, Sir. First, there would be a saving in respect of social service payments amounting to £4 15s. a week, or £247 per annum, for each person involved. Secondly, an employed person receiving an average wage would pay in income tax about £75 per annum. Therefore, there would be a total gain to the

Treasury of approximately £322 in respect of each person brought into employment who would not otherwise have been able to get to work. Of course, a certain number may be able to manage without the concession, and others may not be able to earn continually or at the assumed rate. But it is clear that the saving to the Treasury would be significant and that the additional production would not be negligible.

In the short time allotted to me, I have dealt entirely with the practical problems presented by a particular proposal. I suggest that it is not necessary to labour in this place the physical deprivations and the psychological stresses of the handicapped, or to acclaim the character and courage of the brave people who are striving to overcome these disabilities. Observation and imagination can sufficiently paint the picture. It is enough, I believe, to say that these fellow human beings ask for no greater boon than that they be helped to help themselves to return to a useful place in society.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal shortly with three matters in the ten minutes available to me this evening. First, I should like to commend the honorable member for Bradfield (Mr. Turner) on having raised the matter to which he has just referred. This is about the third occasion in the last fortnight on which the important subject of the remission of sales tax on the purchase of motor cars by handicapped people has been raised. I hope that the Government will consider the matter sympathetically now that it has begun to prepare the Budget items. I wholeheartedly support the request. I do not think that I have heard a more thoroughly represented case than the one presented to honorable members by the Civilian Maimed and Limbless Association of New South Wales. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) could reject the representations only if he had mercury instead of blood in his veins.

The next matter that I want to mention is the extended local service area scheme, commonly known as Elsa, for charging for telephone calls which was introduced on 1st May. On 27th April, the honorable member for Mitchell (Mr. Wheeler) asked the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) about the new radial system of making unit charges for telephone calls. Under that system, calls from city exchanges to exchanges within a radius of about 25 miles of the centre of the city exchange area, or calls from small country exchanges to exchanges within a radius of 25 miles will be charged as local calls. The honorable member for Mitchell asked, in part -

Has community of interest been taken into account in determining these zones?

Already, most members of the Parliament, especially country members, have had representations about this system, although it was introduced only three days ago. In the relevant part of the answer to the question asked by the honorable member for Mitchell, the Postmaster-General stated -

The basis of determination of the zones which wilt operate under the new system of extended local service areas does include community of interest As a matter of fact this is one of the major factors.

That I deny this evening.

I propose to give an illustration comparable with that given by the honorable member for Mitchell in order to establish that community of interest is not taken into consideration in every instance. The Beaconsfield municipality, which is the biggest in my electorate, extends from Launceston northwards to Bass Strait and west to the West Tamar. Those honorable members who have been to Tasmania may know that all that area is one municipality. An area based on a radius of 25 miles from the centre of Launceston does not include the substantial town of Beaconsfield, which is the head-quarters of the municipality. In the West Tamar section, right near the Tamar River, the two districts of Sidmouth and Deviot converge. Under the new scheme, at one point a person living on one side of the road, in the Deviot section, pays 4d. for a call to Launceston. On the other side of the road in the Sidmouth area, a person will have to pay ls. 4d. for a trunk line call to Launceston although there is only a stone’s throw between the two houses. These people have a community of interest. There are many apple-growers in the West Tamar district. That is the principal industry.

I say that the community of interest has not been taken into account in the Municipality of Beaconsfield, and it will cause a lot of discontent and heart-burning in that area. If the Beaconsfield Council wants to ring its branch at Riverside which is on the border of Launceston, it will have to pay a trunk-line fee although Riverside is within a 25-mile radius of Beaconsfield. Anomalies will occur in this system. I admit that it has required a lot of work to bring the system into being. A tremendous amount of detailed work must have been associated with this scheme but I remind the Postmaster-General that he has said -

Consequently, in a scheme of such magnitude, in which it expects there will be some inequities in the original determination, the department will be quite prepared, when it finds evidence of any such inequities, to correct them where necessary.

I appeal to the Postmaster-General to carry out that promise which was made to the honorable member for Mitchell last week. There will be many such anomalies and many cases in which the 25-mile radius will cut right through a community of interest and cause much dissension. I appeal to the Minister to correct the situation in Beaconsfield which I have taken up with the Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs in Hobart on behalf of the municipality.

I want to mention now the employment of handicapped persons. This matter was raised to-day at question time. I also had a question on this matter that I intended to ask of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen). It was this -

Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of the nation-wide campaign at present for the employment of handicapped people? Why is it that, though the Government has the Department of Labour and National Service and the Social Services Department working towards the rehabilitation of such handicapped folk, doors are continually slammed in the faces of the handicapped seeking employment in Commonwealth Government departments? Why does not the Government practise what it preaches instead of expecting private enterprise to provide such employment?

This is a very vexed question. We have all this publicity from government departments about the employment of handicapped people and yet those departments do the least of it themselves. All of us in this Parliament have had handicapped people come to us with a request that we try to get them employment in Commonwealth departments, but they are not wanted. If any of them get through, it is a miracle.

We have this iron-clad law of the Medes and the Persians applied by the Public Service Board. It is time it had a shake-up. Appointments to the Public Service are so rigid that there is no difference between the board and a dreadnought. Getting a concession from the board is like trying to get a Russian to visit Australia. We come up against this cast-iron constitution of the Public Service Board time and time again. We do not find any feeling, any real sympathy or humanity towards these problems. I appeal to the Government to take another look at itself and the Public Service Board and to do its best to give some of our handicapped people a chance to have a career. The medical examinations the applicants have to undergo are such that the Public Service Board can deliberately keep people out of the Public Service even if they are 100 per cent, efficient.

Mr Uren:

– What about the exservicemen?

Mr DUTHIE:

– The ex-servicemen have the same problem. The Public Service Board has become a little select group which says to this man and that, “ Stay out; we don’t want you. We are a clique of our own “. Handicapped people have to go round begging private enterprise to give them a job. I pay tribute to private enterprise for what it has done for the handicapped people. I commend the appeal on their behalf that the Junior Chamber of Commerce has initiated throughout Australia. I feel that the Public Service Board is not doing its duty to humanity by constantly slamming the door in the face of these people, many of whom would do a better job at a desk than a man with all his faculties and physical powers.

Finally I make another appeal for the pensioners who have to pay the increased telephone rentals. This is one of the iniquities of the new Elsa system. Some will pay an extra £6 and others £10. In some cases double the present rental will be paid for the privilege of calling some far-distant person at the local rate. Pensioners hardly ever use the telephone. If they do, it is usually because they need a doctor quickly.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- First, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I regret the practice of Ministers in failing to attend in the chamber during the debate on the motion for the adjournment when they should be present to hear matters that honorable members may want to submit to them. These matters affect the various departments and Commonwealth administration generally, and I regret that the practice of Ministers attending during these debates has apparently been discontinued Night after night, week after week, month after month, honorable members in this Parliament representing thousands of people - in my own case 70,000 - want to place matters personally before the Ministers on the floor of the House but they are not here.

The practice of Ministers attending during the adjournment debate was a good one. This Parliament has a Prime Minister and 21 Ministers, but to-night only the Minister for Air (Mr. Osborne), who is sitting at the table, is present; all the others are missing’. Nobody can tell me that the Ministers are so over-burdened with work that it is impossible for them to put in an appearance at least once a day and give honorable members an opportunity to place problems before them directly.

Mr Osborne:

– Here is another Minister now.

Mr POLLARD:

– One more Minister has turned up, but neither of them is in the Cabinet. After all, what are two Ministers out of 21? It is a disgraceful state of affairs. It appears that the Government is treating this Parliament more and more with utter contempt. I do not think that during my ministerial term of office I ever failed to put in an appearance during the adjournment debate. I was in this chamber so that anybody who wanted to take a shot at me could do so personally. I hope that the Minister at the table will convey this complaint to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen) and see whether greater courtesy cannot be paid to the members of this Parliament.

Mr Osborne:

– How many members of the Opposition are there present to make complaints? There are only five!

Mr POLLARD:

– Does the Minister want the members on his side to be counted?

There are two Ministers and seven of the rank and file. But I will not be sidetracked. Whatever responsibility a private member has to be present in this House, there is an infinitely greater responsibility on Ministers to attend.

Now I want to make a few remarks about a problem that concerns practically every organization in my constituency and no doubt in many other electorates. It concerns municipalities, all sorts of semigovernmental institutions, private institutions and organizations, sporting bodies, benevolent associations, children’s societies, school committees and individuals. I refer to what appears to be the ever-continuing inability of the Postmaster-General’s Department to provide telephones. The people are prepared to pay for this service and for the department it is a very profitable business indeed.

Mr Whitlam:

– There are 70,000 waiting for telephones.

Mr POLLARD:

– Yes, there are 70,000 on the waiting list, and judging by the volume of correspondence that I receive, I would not be surprised if at least 7,000 of them were in my electorate. I admit that my constituency is in a worse position than some of the older settled metropolitan areas. I live on the fringe of the metropolitan area, which, in the last ten years has grown very rapidly indeed.

When we look at the situation of other public services we find that, without very much delay, the State Electricity Commission in Victoria and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works have been able to supply their services to the people who come into that area. Electricity is connected while the home-builder is building his home, and water also is supplied during this period. Yet the Postmaster-General’s Department is lagging badly. I think I have been reasonable in this matter although I have made many complaints in this Parliament.

The time has arrived when this Parliament can no longer accept the excuses of shortage of materials, shortage of manpower, or shortage of money. It is true that telephone services, unlike electricity and water supplies, require lines to be run from the home or business to a central telephone exchange. But surely there is no excuse for the fact that, fifteen years after the war, there are 70,000 people in Australia who are able and willing to pay for a telephone service and who have not one. Administrative costs in connexion with this shortage must be enormous. All those people who are suffering from this disability write to their member of parliament; their member writes to the DirectorGeneral or the State Director of Posts and Telegraphs; clerks have to open all the letters and replies have to be sent to the constituents; the constituents are dissatisfied with the replies and write to their member again. Many of these people have paid their fees for the service that they require.

All over the metropolitan area, particularly in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, there is a very strong discontent and very strong resentment is mounting against this Government for its negligence in this matter. The officers of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department are extremely courteous. Members find that the service those officers give them in endeavouring to explain the difficulties is very good. They must be driven nearly to distraction by the tremendous volume of correspondence coming in from day to day on this allimportant matter.

Whilst I would be the last to praise private enterprise in preference to government institutions, I have to admit that I do not think there is a private enterprise in Australia which is as far behind in supplying the requirements of the people as the Postmaster-General’s Department is. 1 know that that may be taken as a reflection on the administrative officers; it may be a reflection on the engineering and design branch; it may be a reflection on the draftsmen and designers, or on others; but I think that, most of all, the responsibility rests with the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) and this Government. After all, the department depends very largely on the supply of funds. If a Minister has sufficient prestige in the Cabinet to see that funds are made available to his department, surely the work of that department will be done. I indict the Government in this respect.

I urge members of the Government to get off their tails and do something to provide telephone services for people. The present position is a disgrace. I ask the Government to put some ginger into its Cabinet and into the Postmaster-General and give them the sinews of war. It is not as if we were asking for something to be subsidized. The profit made by the telephone services last year amounted to about £6,000,000. When business is good it pays to go out after it and give service to the people. This is not a question of what the Labour Government did nor of how many telephones it supplied. That government went out of office ten years ago. It is now fifteen years since the cessation of hostilities. For ten years the provision of telephones has been this Government’s responsibility. Because of the number of immigrants who have come from overseas, the Government has had an increasing supply of labour. It has also had increasing supplies of materials and growing clerical and engineering staffs, yet it has fallen down completely on the job!

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

.- First of all, may I say that I earnestly support the plea of the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) in respect of telephone services? As a matter of fact, it has been said that workmen employed in the Sydney area by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), who leave his department, are not being replaced and that one of the main reasons why a lot of business people, even doctors, have been told that they will have to wait for from one to three years for telephones is that the number of employees has not been increased to cope with the task.

The principal subject on which I rose to speak is the means test on age, invalid and widows’ pensions. An assurance was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), as I clearly recollect, during the Budget debate last year. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last year not only was there a concerted appeal by the Opposition for substantial alleviation of the means test but there were even threats of rebellion in the Government back benches. I am not saying this as a political gesture. I think that all members will recollect that the Prime Minister assured the Parliament that before the next Budget was introduced the means test would be thoroughly reviewed. If I recollect correctly, the Prime Minister expressed the opinion that this matter ought to be dealt with apart from the Budget.

I think he made the point quite clear that the Government did not always wait until a budget session to make alleviation of this kind. He gave an assurance to the House that the review would be made before the next Budget and, very probably, apart from the Budget. There are not many weeks to go before the present session ends and the next session will be the Budget session. 1 want to tell members of the Government that a lot of people outside the Parliament clearly remember the statement by the Prime Minister to which I have referred. I am not making that assertion as a threat but as an appeal. A lot of people have delayed arranging such affairs as the sale of property or negotiations to purchase an annuity in anticipation that, before this session finishes in two or three weeks’ time, the promised review of the means test will have been made and consequent legislation will be introduced in this House.

I am confident that the Government will make substantial alleviations of the means test. Many people who are not getting the same assistance as some of those who receive the pension are urgently in need of help. At question time to-day, the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) gave an assurance that the finances of the Commonwealth were in pretty good shape. That is heartening news and I am sure that a lot of pensioners will be glad to know it. I am talking, not so much of people who are already entitled to a pension, especially a full pension, but of those who are debarred from receiving a pension and the benefits that go with it.

Another class of people who anticipated that they would receive some help from last year’s Budget but who did not receive it are the Commonwealth superannuitants. These men and women gave long and loyal service to the Commonwealth Public Service. There was a persistent and strong rumour before last year’s Budget was introduced that the superannuation unit of 17s. 6d. would be increased to £1. I think these people are entitled to expect that such an increase will be made, because they know that the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund stands at a colossal figure - about £70,000,000. These people are entitled to expect an increase of at least 2s. 6d. a unit. The people whose position is most desperate are those who were able to take out only very few units of superannuation during their working life. It would be interesting to know how many Commonwealth public servants were able to take out only four units. At one time four units represented a pension equivalent to one and a half times the basic wage. Now, four units entitle a public servant to £3 10s. per week, while the basic wage is over £14 per week. People in this class have suffered grievously through inflation and I think it is up to us to ensure that the profits and prosperity which have accrued at their expense to other sections of the community are returned to these people in some measure at least. I make a special appeal in this regard, as did the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament, and it was to the credit of the State Government that it heeded the appeal and did increase the superannuation payments, although not uniformly. The greatest help was given to those in receipt of the lower pensions. 1 appeal now to this Government to take heed of the position of Commonwealth superannuitants who desperately need help. They have been forgotten, but there is no reason why they should be forgotten. There is £70,000,000 in their own fund, and all they ask is that they be given a little of the prosperity to which they contributed during their working lives.

The contributions made to the superannuation fund by such people are as nothing compared with the long and loyal service which they have given to this country. The £3 10s. per week that a single man receives just debars him from the pensioner free medical service. Many people in this group have to supplement their superannuation payments with the age pension, but these payments are just enough to debar the majority of them from getting the pensioner medical service. In fact, some of these people are worse off than they would be if they had no superannuation at all. If they are sick and have to pay their way because they have not the benefit of the pensioner medical service they are worse off. I make an appeal to the Government to do something to help these people who are hoping for relief, and especially those who are affected by the property means test. I appeal for an alleviation of the means test and for an assurance to be given to superannuitants shortly as they are anxiously looking forward to it in view of the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in the last Budget debate.

Many of these people have given 40 01 50 years’ service to the Commonwealth but are receiving as little as ?3 10s. per week in respect of four units of superannuation. I make a special plea for some alleviation of the means test in relation to the pensioners medical service, under which people who receive ?2 a week or more in addition to the age pension, are debarred from that service. I make a special plea to the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron) on behalf of many ex-servicemen in the community who are getting service pensions which, as we all know, are equivalent to the age pension. They should be given relief from the disability under which they labour whereby a service pension of only ?2 a week is sufficient to debar them from receiving the benefit of the pensioner medical service. This amount of ?2 per week was fixed in 1955 and everyone knows the effects of inflation since that time.

I make these three humanitarian appeals to the Government; for an alleviation of the means test on age, invalid and service pensions; for an alleviation of the means test in respect of the pensioner medical service; and for a fair go for Commonwealth superannuitants who have given long and loyal service to the Commonwealth.

Mr CURTIN:
Smith · Kingsford

– For years I have been trying to induce the Minister for the Army (Mr. Cramer) to take action with respect to the removal of the Long Bay rifle range in my electorate. Employing its usual stubborn tactics, the Department of the Army, in conjunction with the Minister, has refused to budge on this question, and last Saturday there was a near tragedy. A father and son were fishing in a boat, off the coast, close to the rifle range at the lower end of Maroubra beach. That day the Army followed the usual practice of indiscriminate firing at so-called pop-up targets.

Mr. Wright. ; It would not be indiscriminate firing.

– They have had it all teed up since just before the last war. Although the land was needed for military purposes during the war, these people were able to get some sort of concession from the Government at the time to allow them to play golf on that land. Why is the Minister so stubborn in regard to this beautiful building land? It is the dress circle of the district, and nobody knows that better than the crooks who are selling real estate in that district. There are many of them operating in that particular district, and one of them is to-day the favourite son of this Government.

I want this rifle range shifted. While I have a voice, I will use it in this Parliament to see that sooner or later the military shift the rifle range from Long Bay, before a major tragedy happens. There are hundreds of little children in the area, hundreds of teen-agers, hundreds of boys and girls of all ages-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McIVOR:
Gellibrand

I appeal again to the Government. If it wants to come into headlong collision with the industrial movement in Australia, let the penalties which now operate continue. Neither I) the Labour movement generally, nor the Australian Council of Trade Unions want to see that happen. The employees want to work in co-operation with the employers and to help in the great development which is going on in Australia to-day. They do not want to retard it. I appeal again to the Minister for Labour and National Service to set an example to the parties in this dispute. Let him encourage some sanity in their thinking. There is ample opportunity for him now to make a great name for himself in this country by moving in as a conciliator and removing the grievances which the workers have against the Industrial Court. No one wants to see the Arbitration Commission or the system of arbitration crumble, but it will crumble if the court continues to impose penalties on the workers.

Mr COSTA:
Banks

.- I support the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Reynolds) in the matters which he has brought to the notice of the Government. Possibly this is one of the last opportunities that we shall have to remind the Government of its many promises which are still outstanding. The honorable member referred to the means test. We all know that this Government was elected in 1949 on a deliberate promise to eliminate the means test and replace it by something better. We know also that the Government has failed to do this.

The means test debars pensioners from receiving medical and hospital benefits if they have an income of £2 a week in excess of the pension. The means test which was applied in 1955 is completely out of date in 1960, having regard to increased wages and costs since 1955. Then there is the means test on property. Many people in their working days, acquired some small property to provide security for their old age but, because of inflation, this property has lost its real value. However, if its valuation is in excess of £2,250, its owners are disqualified from receiving any pension. This group of people really is worse off than the pensioners. Many people, because of this property means test, are receiving less than half the age pension. Would any one of us like to try to subsist on such a small income?

The honorable member for Barton also referred to superannuation. As long ago as August, 1957, the Joint Council of the Commonwealth Public Service, which comprises representatives of the Public Service Board and of the federal executives of the Public Service unions, agreed at round table discussions that the unit of superannuation should be increased by 2s. 6d. That present unit value is out of date. Although the cost of living has increased by over 300 per cent, since the unit was determined in 1923, the value of the unit has increased by only 75 per cent., so that it is completely inadequate at present. The Government, when preparing the next Budget, should provide for the unit to be increased from 17s. 6d. to £1. The fund can very well afford to meet the additional cost. The Auditor-General’s report indicates that the fund is completely buoyant. The honorable member for Barton said that the fund balance in June, 1959, was nearly £62,000,000. That is a very large sum of money. When the balance as at June, 1960, is made known, I suppose that it will be over £70,000,000. During 1958-59 the fund received £13,874,000 and paid to superannuitants in pensions and refunds only £7,000,000, so income is almost double the outgoings. Investments too are earning good returns. Interest on investments by the fund last year was £2,600,000, and that amount will increase because the Commonwealth Public Service is increasing continually which means that there will be a greater number of contributors to the fund. In ten years’ time it will be earning a big sum of money. I am certain that the fund is so healthy that a distribution could be made to the benefit of these pensioners who badly need the assistance.

The honorable member for Barton mentioned a group that had contributed for four units. In the early days of the fund it was not compulsory for a person over the age of 40 to contribute for more than four units. At that time four units were worth £2, and £2 was then half the basic wage. That £2 for which they contributed in good faith and which, at that time seemed to be a good investment, is now only oneseventh of the basic wage. I believe that the fund should be used to assist these people, and that their superannuation pensions should be a little better than they are. I would not make this suggestion if the fund was not buoyant, but the AuditorGeneral’s report clearly indicates how healthy it is. I hope that the Government will examine the fund with the object of seeing that superannuitants who depend upon it will get full benefit from it.

I strongly support the three matters mentioned by the honorable member for Barton - the means test as applied to medical benefits, the limitation applying to property which is making the lot of property owners worse than that of pensioners, and, finally, superannuation. I hope that the Government will take notice of the representations which the honorable member and I have made to-night.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.32 p.m.

page 1396

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Australian Airlines

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

What was the profit or loss resulting from the operations of Trans-Australia Airlines in each year since its establishment?
What Government aid, including direct or guaranteed loans, has been granted to AnsettA.N.A. or its predecessor, Australian National Airways, since the commencement of operations?
What are the terms of the Governmentsponsored agreement between Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett-A.N.A.?
Does this agreement include provision for the division of government business between the two airlines; if not, on what basis is it allocated?

Mr Townley:
Minister for Defence · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– The answers to the honorable members questions are -

No direct loans have been granted by the Government to Ansett-A.N.A. or its predecessor Australian National Airways since the commencement of operations. However, Government aid, by way of government guaranteed loans has been made available to Australian National Airways. In accordance with the terms of the Civil Aviation Agreement, 1952, the Government - (a) guaranteed loans of up to £3,000,000 to Australian National Airways for the purchase of two DC.6 and four DC.6B aircraft; (b) subsequently extended the guarantee to £4,000,000 for the purchase of two Viscount 800 aircraft; whilst under the terms of the Airlines Equipment Act 1958, the Government guaranteed a loan of £2,910,000 to Australian National Airways for the purchase of two Lockheed Electra aircraft. This latter act also authorized the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee loans up to £2,000,000 for the purchase of six Fokker Friendship aircraft, but Ansett-A.N.A. has not availed itself of this guarantee.
The only agreement between the airlines in which the Government has been involved are the 1952 and 1957 Civil Aviation Agreement Acts enacted by this Parliament. The terms of the agreement are clearly set forth in the legislation.
If the honorable member will refer to clause 6 of the Civil Aviation Agreement annexed to the Civil Aviation Agreement Act 1952 he will find that government business is freely available to both the commission and the company and that the holder of a government warrant has a free option as to the service he will use.

Pharmaceutical Benefits

Mr Daly:

y asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

Are Raudixin and Esidrex tablets available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?
If not, will he consider making these tablets available free of charge when prescribed by a doctor?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Raudixin is not available as a pharmaceutical benefit. However Esidrex is available as a benefit under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Raudixin cannot be made available as a pharmaceutical benefit except upon a recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to whom the matter has been referred.

Insurance Legislation - Protection of Policyholders

Mr Daly:

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of the losses sustained by policyholders of the Nottingham Insurance Company, Sydney, what action has the Commonwealth Insurance Commissioner taken to protect the policyholders of Harvey Trinder (N.S.W.) Proprietary Limited, Lloyd’s brokers, now that a petition to wind up that company has been filed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The provisions of the Insurance Act 1932-1937 apply to all those carrying on general insurance business and in accordance with the terms of the legislation, Harvey. Trinder (N.S.W.) Proprietary Limited has lodged the deposit required of it. That deposit, like those of all others carrying on insurance business in Australia, is available to satisfy any final judgment obtained in the Commonwealth by a policyholder in accordance with the terms of section 22 (1). There has been no such payment from the deposit lodged on behalf of the Nottingham Insurance Company Limited.

Department of Works

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for Works, upon notice -

What expenditure has his department incurred in the last two completed financial years in each State?

Mr Freeth:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

Films.

Mr Osborne:
LP

e. - On 7th April the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Chresby) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, the following question, without notice: -

Will the Minister ascertain whether it is a fact that theatre proprietors generally throughout Australia are being forced to accept low-grade films from American and British distributors? If it is a fact, will the Minister indicate what action can be taken to protect the Australian viewing public?

I now supply the following answer furnished by the Minister for Customs and Excise: -

The Commonwealth has no legislative powers in respect of the quality of imported films. This is a matter solely for negotiation between the Australian film distributors and their overseas suppliers. Similarly, the question of the quality of films available to theatre proprietors in Australia is a matter for negotiation between the proprietors and the Australian film distributors.
The only control which the Commonwealth Government can exercise over imported films is in terms of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations which prohibit the importation of films which are blasphemous, indecent or obscene or are likely to be injurious to morality or to encourage or incite to crime, &c.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 May 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1960/19600504_reps_23_hor27/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 4 May 1960

SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS

Petition

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL 1960

Mr HAROLD HOLT:Treasurer · HigginsTreasurer · LP

QUESTION

LAMB EXPORTS

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr ADERMANN:Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr JESS:LA TROBE, VICTORIA

Mr Calwell:

Mr DAVIDSON:Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES

Mr COSTA:BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DAVIDSON:CP

QUESTION

HOTEL FOR QANTAS EMPIRE AIRWAYS LIMITED

Mr WHEELER:MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr Calwell:

Mr McEWEN:

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr LUCHETTI:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr FAILES:LAWSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HAROLD HOLT:LP

Mr Pollard:

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

Mr Calwell:

Mr HAROLD HOLT:HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

PORT PIRIE TO BROKEN HILL RAILWAY

Mr RUSSELL:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr OPPERMAN:Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

DISPOSALS SALES

Mr ERWIN:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr HULME:Minister for Supply · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr McIVOR:GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

Mr DAVIDSON:CP

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION

Mr DEAN:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MCMAHON:Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

ROADS

Mr WHITLAM:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Mr BARNES:MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND

Mr OPPERMAN:LP

Mr E James Harrison:

Mr OPPERMAN:

QUESTION

GUIDED MISSILES

Mr BRYANT:WILLS, VICTORIA

Mr HULME:LP

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HULME:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HULME:

QUESTION

SYDNEY BUILDING SITE

Mr BURY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

GUIDED MISSILES

Mr MAKIN:BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HULME:LP

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

House of Representatives
4 May 1960

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HigginsTreasurer · LP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr FAILES:
LAWSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr OPPERMAN:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr HULME:
Minister for Supply · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MCMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr BARNES:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND

Mr OPPERMAN:
LP

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

Mr HULME:
LP

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HULME:
LP

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

Mr COPE:
Watson

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

Mr HAMILTON:
Canning