House of Representatives
17 August 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1961

Mr. SPEAKER (Hoo. John McLeay) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 175

EMPLOYMENT

Petition

Mr. BEATON presented a petition from certain citizens of the city of Bendigo and district praying that, in order to maintain the level of employment both at Bendigo and at other naval construction centres, orders for vessels lodged overseas be cancelled and placed with shipyards within Australia.

Petition received and read.

page 175

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

page 175

QUESTION

VETERINARY SURGEONS

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health, in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Are there enough veterinary surgeons in Australia to ensure the early detection and the combating of foot and mouth disease and other stock ailments? Can some of the money to be found under the foot and mouth disease legislation be used in meeting the cost of university courses in veterinary science? If the answers to these questions are in the negative, what action is being taken or is contemplated in order to meet the present situation?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In the first place I should point out that this legislation was introduced by me as Minister for Health, and not in my capacity as Minister in charge of the C.S.I.R.O. The number of veterinary surgeons, of course, is not a matter for either the Department of Health or the C.S.I.R.O. Veterinary surgeons are trained in the universities, and the honorable member is aware that the Government has made available very large amounts of money for universities, some of which, of course, is used to provide veterinary schools and to train veterinary surgeons. I cannot tell the honorable member whether there are enough veterinary surgeons. I suppose one cannot have too much of a good thing. The foot and mouth disease legislation recently introduced is not designed to provide money for the purpose of education. All that the legislation does is to set up a trust fund to be used, if necessary, should an outbreak of the disease occur.

page 175

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Immigration whether he is aware that appalling poverty exists among some migrant families as a result of unemployment. Can the Minister inform me what the Government is doing to protect unemployed migrants from eviction and from the loss of homes when, through unemployment, they fall into arrears in the repayment of loans or the payment of rent? Does the Minister know that housing commission authorities are especially severe on tenants who are in arrears of rent? Since the funds used for the building of housing commission homes are derived from Commonwealth revenue, will the Minister take steps to ensure that unemployed tenants and purchasers of housing commission homes are not allowed to be evicted while they remain unemployed, and that they are permitted a reasonable period of employment to enable them to catch up with arrears of rent?

Mr DOWNER:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am certainly sorry, as I am sure other honorable members are, for migrants who find themselves in the position that the honorable member has described. With respect to the first part of the honorable gentleman’s question, the Government believes that the measures that the Treasurer announced the evening before last will have a salutary and stimulating effect on the economy and that, as a result, some of these things of which the honorable member complains will be obviated in the quite near future. So far as the second part of the honorable gentleman’s question is concerned, I think that he himself realizes that what he complains of is properly within the purview of the various State governments. I suggest to him, as I have done during the recess in correspondence about a particular case in which he is interested, that the responsibility in this matter is primarily on the State governments, and that the decision is one for them and not for the Commonwealth Government or this Parliament.

page 176

QUESTION

TRADE MISSIONS

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. I ask: Is it a fact that trade missions, apart from those sponsored by the Department of Trade, are being organized by private industry? If so, do these private trade missions consult with senior officers of the department before leaving Australia? Are these missions being organized as a direct result of incentives for export provided for in a measure passed by the Parliament during the last sessional period?

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

– I am aware of only one privately-organized trade mission, which, I understand, is to leave Australia in October for the Fair East. This mission is being organized, I think, by Personnel Administration Proprietary Limited - a private company - in conjunction with Thomas Cook and Sons (Australasia) Proprietary Limited. Those who are organizing it have been in contact with senior officers of the Department of Trade and have been offered all the help that the department is able to give. I have been informed that the mission is a direct outcome of the export incentives recently approved.

page 176

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister for Territories. Will he state when his reasons for disallowing two bills passed by the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory will be tabled in this House? Will he state, further, whether he intends to meet the Council in conference as a result of these two bills being re-submitted at a specially-convened session of the Council and again being passed by a substantial majority? Such a conference would allow the Legislative Council to take up with the Minister again, as well, the granting to if of certain financial powers.

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

– As honorable members know, there is a statutory requirement that when ordinances are disallowed a statement should be tabled in the House. I hope to be able to comply with that requirement early in the sittings next week.

page 176

QUESTION

H.M.A.S. “SYDNEY

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Defence state what progress is being made in the conversion of H.M.A.S. “ Sydney “ for troop carrying purposes? Can he also state details of how this imaginative decision will add to our defence potential?

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

– I know that the honorable member takes a keen interest in anything that has to do with the forces. The decision to convert “ Sydney “ to a fast carrier was taken because she still had, I think from memory, about fifteen years of useful life in her hull and engines and, although we have a large civil fleet of aircraft and the C.130 transports for carrying heavy equipment for our forces, it was felt that we lacked capacity to carry very heavy equipment. It was decided, therefore, to convert “ Sydney “ into this kind of carrier. I cannot tell the honorable gentleman the exact stage that the conversion has reached except that I know that it is up to schedule. Obviously, the provision of this ship will increase the mobility of our forces to a tremendous degree.

page 176

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– My question to the Minister for Immigration relates to the migrants who were charged in court in connexion with certain events al the Bonegilla migrant centre. Did he make a statement in the early stages of the incident implying that these men would be severely dealt with? Is he aware that both the police and the Victorian Court of Petty Sessions itself withdrew many of the charges and that others were adjourned in circumstances which indicated that the court was not meting out serious punishment? Does the Minister agree with this action? Did he or any member of his department have any communication with those in Victoria responsible for the decision that was made relating to the charges? Is he aware also that the twelve men charged have been out of work for many months? Will he ensure that special efforts are made to have jobs provided for these people who have suffered so much?

Mr DOWNER:
LP

– At the time of these unfortunate riots at Bonegilla I stated that if those who were responsible could be located accurately they would be dealt with according to the ordinary process of the law. That is what in fact has happened. The law has taken its course. These men have been charged and the honorable gentleman, and the House, already know the outcome of the proceedings. I was quite determined at the time of these riots to direct attention, on behalf of the Government, to the fact that it was a reasonable prerequisite and a primary requirement of new settlers coming to this country and living and making their homes here that they should be prepared to observe the laws of Australia and to conduct themselves in the way that citizens of a civilized country are expected to do. I should think that very few reasonable people would dissent from that statement but, as the House knows, the honorable member for Yarra has interested himself in this matter. He has come out, so it seems, if not as the champion at any rate as the attempted defender of some of these rioters. I must confess to considerable surprise and disappointment that a prominent member of this Parliament should have taken the course that the honorable member took.

page 177

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Trade aware that lack of competition between buyers at the current tobacco sales is contributing to unfairly low prices for quality usable leaf? As it is necessary that there should be competition when sales are made under the auction system, has the Government considered restricting imports of both manufactured cigarettes and unmanufactured leaf?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The Government is aware of what has been occurring at the tobacco auction sales. Indeed, if the Government itself had not been aware of it the honorable member would have made me cognizant of the position because there has scarcely been a day over the last couple of months that he has not been in contact with me or my colleagues, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Customs and Excise, and acquainting us with what is a very real problem for many growers and share-farmers in the tobacco-growing districts. The Government itself has been in close, and I think I can say, continuous contact with the organized growers. It has brought the manufacturers into consultation on this matter and, as an outcome, has established a committee representative of both those sides of the industry, together with skilled officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. The committee will also have the advantage of consultation with officers from the State Government services with a knowledge of tobacco. This committee is examining the tobacco that has not been sold, and it will report to the Government. It is unanimously agreed - even by the growers - that some of the unsold leaf :? not usable. There is also a quantity of the leaf which is usable, and for which offers have been made by the manufacturers, but at prices not satisfactory to the growers. Then there is some leaf regarding the usability of which there is dispute. So soon as the Government has received a full report from the investigating committee it will re-examine the policy in relation to the sale of leaf. In the last few days, with my Cabinet colleagues concerned, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Customs and Excise, T met a committee of the Australian Tobacco Growers Council for the second time. That council has discussed with us the problems of the industry as seen through the eyes of the organized growers, and has asked the Government to lend it the assistance of some of its skilled officers. It also proposes to ask the State governments concerned to help it in the same way. In this way, it should be possible to make a full examination not only of the auction results, but also of the general problems associated with flr? industry. I have assured the tobacco growers that a prompt decision will be made on their request, and I assure the industry that it is the intention of the Government to see that there is a payable market for quality leaf that is suitable for Australian smokers.

page 178

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I ask the Minister for the Interior: As government schools in Canberra are staffed by the New South Wales Department of Education and generally follow the New South Wales curriculum, can he say whether action is being taken to implement the recommendations contained in what is known as the Wyndham report on secondary education? Will we automatically follow the decisions on this matter taken in New South Wales, or will there be separate consulation and decisions affecting schools here?

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I shall have a look at the matters raised by the honourable gentleman and let him have a reply later.

page 178

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I should like to ask the Treasurer whether he is aware of the taxation anomaly that exists in respect of Commonwealth scholarships. Is he aware that in the case of two taxpayers with equal taxable incomes of £2,000 one, whose child wins a Commonwealth scholarship worth £60 a year, pays £42 more in tax than the other? Will he discuss this position with the Commissioner of Taxation and ask that particular attention be given to the notice of appeal to the High Court against a recent Taxation Board of Review decision which could possibly have been used to obviate this unfair treatment?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I cannot claim that this particular matter has previously been directly under my notice, but now that the honorable member has given me the details which he has presented to the House I shall certainly explore them with the Commissioner of Taxation, as the honorable gentleman requests.

page 178

QUESTION

SECURITY SERVICE

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I desire to know whether the Attorney-General will say whether, in addition to tapping telephones, it is a fact that the security service has opened and is still opening communications sent through the post and by telegram?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have said on a number of occasions that I will not answer questions as to the particular activities of the security service. I would have thought that those who had the interests of this country close at heart would not persist in asking such questions.

page 178

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr BANDIDT:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport by pointing out that members of the Opposition have claimed that ships for Australian purposes have been bought outside Australia. I ask the Minister: Have any ships for Australian civil use been built outside Australia during the life of the present Government? As Walkers Limited of Maryborough, Queensland, is about to complete the construction of a ship and is in need of an order for more shipping construction, will the Government use its best endeavours urgently to arrange another order for that company?

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr. Speaker, as I have two questions on the notice-paper bearing on this precise matter I submit that the question is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What are the numbers of the honorable member’s questions?

Mr Whitlam:

– No. 118, addressed to the Minister who has been asked this question, and No. 92.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Reference to the firm in Queensland which has been mentioned will be in order.

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

– Having recently been at Maryborough, I know the interest of the honourable member for Wide Bay in this matter. I point out that over the last four years the only ships that have been built for non-trading purposes have been vessels built for the Melbourne Harbour Trust for which Australian ship-builders could not submit acceptable tenders. In view of the distortions which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been making concerning ship-building, it becomes necessary to provide authentic information on the subject. Before 1956, four ships of over 2.000 tons dead weight were ordered for Australia because the Australian shipbuilding yards at that particular time were too busy to tender for such ships. Approval was given for the importation of four small second-hand trading ships in the past four years. Two of these, “Slevik” and “ Tandik “, were required urgently to replace other ships lost at sea. “ Kopua “ was urgently needed for the northern rivers sugar trade, and the import of two small ships, “ Sumatra “ and “ Ewen Allison “, was strongly pressed by the Tasmanian Government. The circumstances were such that they were needed immediately because of the state of a small trading vessel which had to be replaced. “ Ewen Allison “ and one other ferry had been constructed in Australia and had, if I remember correctly, gone to New Zealand, and application was made for their return. The state of the Australian ship-building industry-

Mr Whitlam:

– What about “Ian Crouch “?

Mr OPPERMAN:

– “ Ian Crouch” was lost coming into Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Honorable members must not interrupt the Minister when he is replying to a question.

Mr OPPERMAN:

– The ship-building trade throughout the world has been at a low ebb for some time. However, by comparison with the rest of the world, the Australian proportion of ship-building is extremely high, due to the 33) per cent, subsidy given by the Government. At the present time, Whyalla has a full quota of ships, ranging from 16,500 tonners to 21,500 tonners and the Ampol oil tanker. The New South Wales State Dockyard has recently declared a record bonus for the workers. It has orders for three lighthouse ships for this Government and a naval survey ship. It has all the shipbuilding that it can take care of. Evans Deakin have recently contracted to build for the Australian National Line a vessel of 7,500 tons, which will guarantee employment for 1,000 men for the next two years. The position at Walker’s is under consideration by the Government. Tendering for ships must be done on a competitive basis but, due to the constant representations of the member for Wide Bay who has been to see me about this, we are well aware of the need for new orders. The Government will do its best to arrange for a ship-building order to be placed with Walker’s if and when the opportunity arises.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I wish to ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question supplementary to the one which has just been asked. Why was it necessary to import the following 2,000 ton vessels in the last four years: - “ Koonya “, “Kodama”, “Pateena”, and “Poolta”?

Mr Cramer:

– He has just told you.

Mr WHITLAM:

– He did not mention all these ships. I ask the Minister why it was necessary to import last year the 500 ton ship “ Southern Endeavour “, which I believe he did not mention.

Mr Calwell:

– Let the Minister get out of that one if he can.

Mr OPPERMAN:

– I can assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that my department and I have given every consideration to the ship-building industry of Australia. The question that he has asked me will be dealt with in the way in which I think he would want me to deal with it. In order to give him authentic information I shall look into the matter and let him have an answer.

page 179

QUESTION

CREAM

Mr HOWSON:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Primary Industry seen a report that Victorian companies have been selling cream in Sydney at 2s. 6d. a half pint? As a result, the price of cream in Sydney has fallen from 3s. 6d. to 2s. 5id. a half pint and sales have risen 50 per cent. Does the Minister welcome this as a vindication of the dairy industry report? Will he encourage further enterprise by milk producers so that the sales of whole milk in the county of Cumberland and elsewhere may be similarly increased?

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

– I did not realize that the honorable member’s question was being addressed to me. However, I am quite sure that the information that he has supplied is in accordance with the facts, and we welcome this development very much.

page 180

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Defence state whether American U.2 aircraft are using an isolated airstrip near Alice Springs? If so, is the use of this airstrip in the interests of the Australian people and of world peace?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– The answer to the question of the honorable member for Hunter is an unequivocal, “ No.”

page 180

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Now that the wool-growers organizations have agreed to an increased wool levy, I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether he is in a position to inform the House of the progress made by the Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry.

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– The members of the Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry have just returned from making investigations overseas. They are now completing their itinerary for the balance of their inquiry in Australia, and no doubt this part of their work will be very interesting. I might point out to the honorable member that before going overseas they had visited three of the Australian States.

page 180

QUESTION

KING ISLAND SHIPPING SERVICE

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport on the construction of a roll-on, roll-off type of vessel for the King Island run. Does this vessel qualify for the ship-building subsidy, and can the Minister give me any information about any arrangements the Government has made to assist the owners in the construction of such a vessel?

Mr OPPERMAN:
LP

– As the honorable member knows, negotiations have been taking place for a considerable time in connexion with the establishment of an essential modern shipping service between King Island and the mainland and between King Island and Tasmania. The service given up to date by Captain Houfe with “ Loatta “ and “ Dorrigo “ has been of great value to King Island. Because of this, it was felt that assistance should be given to Captain Houfe. To do this, a good deal of adjustment and arrangement was necessary. My colleague in another place, the Minister for Customs and Excise, has been across to

King Island. I have visited the island, and the Prime Minister made a special visit to it recently. Arising out of those visits, proposals were put forward and accepted. The position now is that final arrangements for financial aid to Captain Houfe are almost settled, and a start will be made shortly on the construction of a vessel for the benefit of the King Island trade.

page 180

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Treasurer. Yesterday the honorable member for Mitchell asked a question about the Treasurer’s statement in his Budget speech that the Government would be willing to agree to an increase of £5,000,000 in the borrowing programmes of local authorities and the smaller semi-government bodies so that the rate of expenditure on employmentgiving works may be increased. I should like to say here that one of the shires in my electorate wants to borrow money for works, but I understand that it has been unable to find any one willing to lend the money. I also understand that certain other municipalities are experiencing similar difficulty. I now ask the Treasurer: When approval to borrow has been given, who then does the borrowing? Is it the Commonwealth, the State or the municipality concerned? In brief, whose responsibility is it to see that the money is raised and made available to the municipalities?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The procedure is as I outlined it yesterday. At the Loan Council meetings, discussions occur between the representatives of the States and the Commonwealth on what should be the agreed maximum of authorized borrowings for local government purposes in the course of the financial year under consideration. After that decision has been taken, there is a pro rata division between the six States. Then, within the area of the allocation to a particular State, the government of that State, in its turn, notifies municipalities and other local or semi-government authorities of their entitlement to borrow. These bodies are given an entitlement to borrow and, once given that entitlement, it is then for the local authority so notified to make its own arrangements for borrowing. So far as I am aware, substantially the full amounts authorized have been raised over the years. Indeed, although there may be difficulties in particular cases, the advice given to us by the representatives of the States at the last Loan Council meeting was that there would be additional funds available if the borrowing authorizations could be increased. That was stated emphatically by the spokesmen for New South Wales and, I think, Queensland. So, if the States agree upon the increase to which we have indicated our willingness to move - another £5,000,000- that should result in an effective addition to employment opportunities throughout Australia to that degree.

page 181

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does the right honorable gentleman recall that last May he informed me at question time that the home-building industry would not be permitted to return to the boom conditions of 1960 when approximately 100,000 houses were built, although we need some 120,000 houses a year for ten years to beat the housing lag? Does the Treasurer mean that a constant squeeze will be placed on the industry by a fixed top limit of home construction? Does this also mean that only some of the 120 timber mills will be permitted by this Government to re-open?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The honorable gentleman’s question and the manner in which it has been presented to me, Mr. Speaker, really invite a full-scale debate on housing policy and its effect on employment in the timber industry. It would not be proper for me to attempt to do that at this juncture; but let me say that it has been a determination of the Government throughout its long period of office that home building should proceed at a high rate. Indeed, Sir, if the honorable gentleman cares to contrast the level of performance in this field during the last year that the Labour Government was in office with the average of home construction over the period of office of this Government, he will discover how substantially we have increased the rate of home building. Last year it undoubtedly was the fact that in homedwelling construction we had reached a boom situation. I have given the figures before, and I mention only one illustration now: At one period in Victoria, there were eight vacancies offering in the building industry for each building tradesman offer ing for employment. It is well known that there were shortages of such items as bricks. Steel was being imported for structural purposes in considerable quantities, and so on.

We have not attempted at any time to say what should be the numerical level of construction in a particular year, because we think the more practical way of looking at the matter is to consider what resources are available that can usefully ‘be taken up; but in practice, it has been found that a level of home construction somewhere about 80,000 units over recent years has been about the size of the programme at which we should aim. Special actions are being taken already this year through the banking system and, in particular, through the savings banks, to assist housing. In the Budget speech, I stated that the Commonwealth Savings Bank would maintain a higher rate of lending for housing purposes. Increased provision is being made in this year’s works programme for housing purposes in the States. All these things, together with the war service homes programme, should supplement in a valuable way dwelling construction by private enterprise. We would expect from these combined influences a rate of building construction around 80,000 units.

page 181

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT BANK

Mr TURNBULL:

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer to section 73(1.) of the Commonwealth Banks Act, which reads -

In determining whether or not finance shall be provided for a person, the Development Bank shall have regard primarily to the prospects of the operations of that person becoming, or continuing to be, successful and shall not necessarily have regard to the value of the security available in respect of that finance.

I ask the Treasurer whether that provision is being fully implemented. Will he make available to the House in the near future information as to the average amount of security provided by those in the primary industry field to whom loans have been made by the Commonwealth Development Bank?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– As honorable members know, the Commonwealth Development Bank is prevented from lending except where finance cannot be obtained on reasonable terms and conditions from the banking system at large. To the best of my knowledge, the Development Bank is applying its policy in accordance with the charter prescribed by the legislation passed by the Parliament. It has now been found necessary to increase the capital of the bank and in making the statement that an increase of £5,000,000 in the capital would be proposed to the Parliament, I said that this was by no means the limit of the resources that it was expected would become available to the bank, which has certain borrowing rights. That fact does indicate that the bank is lending actively. I gave the figures in the course of my Budget speech of the total of lendings achieved in the relatively short life of this institution.

The honorable gentleman asks whether I can supply a table showing the average amount of security offered by rural borrowers. I think it would be possible to obtain information on the average amount of loans to rural borrowers, but whether it would be practicable to secure the other item of information is by no means so certain in my mind.

Mr Turnbull:

– Not the security offered but the security accepted by the bank.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– Yes, accepted by the bank. I will study the detail of the honorable member’s question and take the matter up with the chairman of the board of the Development Bank to ascertain whether the honorable member’s wishes can be met.

page 182

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the absence of the Postmaster-General, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will seek from the newly appointed chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission an explanation of the seeming marked partisanship towards the Government which has been increasingly evident in the commission’s news services in recent weeks, culminating in its treatment of the Budget. Will he particularly seek from the chairman of the commission an explanation of the impression generally created, which I share, that maximum stress, far beyond any proper news balance, was placed upon every minor concession in the Budget, suggesting to the uninformed that what was really very little was in fact very much. Will he also ask the chairman of the commission why, in publishing comments on the Budget - 1 refer now to this morning’s news session - the comments of the Leader of the Opposition were shabbily cut to a few words while the commission went out of its way to seek comments of applause for the Government from the leaders of every business interest that had in any way received any minor concession from the Budget, yet failed to report any impressions from the representatives of pensioners-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honorable member is now giving information. I ask him to put his question.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Or of the mothers who were denied any increase in child endowment? Finally, will he obtain from the commission an explanation of why it selected a comment from the Chairman of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, as though he were in any position to give an independent or critical comment on the Budget?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– This question, directed during the time when honorable members are given an opportunity to seek information, is clearly an attempt by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro to indulge in party political propaganda. I shall treat it in the manner that it deserves to be treated, and I shall not trouble my colleague, the Postmaster-General, by recounting it to him.

page 182

COMMONWEALTH COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– by leave - I lay on the table of the House the report of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, and I shall make a few remarks concerning it.

Honorable members will recall that the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation was appointed in December, 1959, to examine and inquire into the operation of our income tax laws for the purpose of ascertaining any anomalies, inconsistencies, unnecessary complexities and other similar defects. The committee met at intervals from February, 1960, until the end of March, 1961. It received a very large number of written submissions and also heard in person most of those submission writers who expressed a wish to come before it for discussions.

The committee received representations upon a wide variety of subjects, and as a consequence its recommendations cover a very wide field. These recommendations can, from the Government’s view point, be conveniently divided into three broad categories. The first category consists of recommendations of the committee regarding the avoidance of income tax.

The committee has drawn attention to several parts of our income tax law which are being exploited to the serious detriment of the revenue. The areas of avoidance of tax to which the committee specifically draws attention are -

  1. Superannuation funds;
  2. Family partnerships, trusts and alienation of income; and
  3. Leases.

The Government shares the concern of the committee that ingenious taxpayers should make use of the existing provisions in a manner not intended by the legislature, thus obtaining advantages at the expense of their fellow taxpayers. The committee places the annual revenue loss due to these stratagems at no less than £14,000,000.

The Government proposes to give its close attention to the recommendations of the committee to close these particular avenues of tax avoidance, and will in due course bring down amending legislation which will be operative from to-day’s date; that is, the date of tabling of the committee’s report. I cannot, at this stage, indicate the precise form which the proposed legislation will take, but certainly due weight will be given to the recommendations of the committee on these matters. However, the prevention of tax avoidance raises all manner of complex issues which will require detailed study before the drafting of remedial legislation can be started.

The committee has also drawn attention to the ways in which the present provisions relating to the taxation of private companies are being misused, and has made recommendations to counter these practices. However, the recommendations of the committee on this subject are bound up with their more general recommendations on the taxation of companies and shareholders. As honorable members appreciate, the taxation of companies and shareholders is a most complex matter, which has exercised the minds not only of our own taxation administration but also of taxation administrations in many other countries. Consequently these particular recommendations of the committee will require very extensive examination, and the precise form of any legislation which might be adopted by the Government to block off the existing avenues of tax avoidance will require considerable research and investigation. I propose, however, that any legislation to be introduced to prevent the abuse of the existing legislation will also date from to-day.

The committee has made a number ot recommendations which quite clearly fall within its terms of reference, and the Government will consider them from the stand-point of simplifying our legislation or removing anomalies and inequities.

The report also includes a number ot recommendations which appear to the Government to fall within the field of taxation policy. Their implementation would, as the committee itself recognizes, have the effect of depleting revenue to the extent of something in excess of £14,000,000, and in some cases could result in the introduction of future anomalies into our income tax system. Honorable members will find on page 171 of the report certain comments of the committee on this aspect of the matter. Perhaps I should read certain of those comments. The committee says -

Our Terms of Reference require that “the Committee shall have regard to the cost to Consolidated Revenue of giving effect to the recommendations and shall take it to be necessary for the Commonwealth to continue to receive, from the taxation of income, Revenue not less in total than the Revenue that might be expected to be received under the existing laws “.

In certain areas of estimation of Revenue loss or gain, such as those related to the correction of “ legal tax avoidance “ schemes, basic statistical data was inadequate or even nonexistent. In such circumstances, we found it necessary to make our own estimates.

In other instances, however, where it was possible to make calculations on the basis of sufficiently precise statistical data, we are indebted to the Commissioner of Taxation for undertaking the task of making the necessary mathematical compulations.

Subject to the foregoing, we have endeavoured to ensure that if our recommendations are given effect to, the Commonwealth Treasury will continue to receive from the taxation of income, substantially the same amount of Revenue as under the present Act

Then the committee sets out in detail, in the following pages of its report, the estimated effect on revenue of the implementation of its recommendations. We shall have to consider, with the assistance of the Commissioner of Taxation, just how the adoption of these recommendations would work out, and decide, of course, having regard to considerations of policy, to what extent the recommendations should be adopted. However, the recommendations will be considered at the appropriate time by the Government, but they will have to be treated, I repeat, as taxation policy issues.

I would like to take the opportunity of placing on record the Government’s appreciation of the unremitting labours of the committee. In a little more than eighteen months it considered a tremendous volume of submissions and representations in what is clearly a most complex and intricate field of endeavour. They produced a report which has reduced this material to manageable proportions and which presents recommendations which in themselves are models of clarity and precision. We, as a Government - and I am sure I speak on behalf of taxpayers generally in this regard - would like to express our appreciation of the manner in which the committee has approached its task, and to assure the members of the committee that their work will make a permanent contribution to the simplification of our tax procedures. In particular I would like, on behalf of the Government, to thank the chairman of the committee, Sir George Ligertwood, who, despite illhealth, insisted on completing his assignment as chairman of the committee.

page 184

CADETS’ BARRACK BLOCKS AT ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, DUNTROON, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr FAIRHALL:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1960, I present the report of the Public Works Committee relating to the following proposed work: -

The construction of cadets’ barrack blocks at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, Australian Capital Territory.

The reference of this matter to the committee arose from the need to provide additional accommodation if the planned intake of cadets is to reach a satisfactory level without the need to spend a lot of money bringing back into use unsatisfactory and completely uneconomic war-time temporary buildings. The proposed buildings conform with the scale and standards of accommodation for peace-time, with some improvements in the construction of bedroomstudies for the cadets. One fact which emerges from the committee’s consideration of the proposal is the great urgency of the need to shorten the time of construction. The estimated cost of the two blocks of buildings is £341,000.

Ordered to be printed.

page 184

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr. Townley) - by leave - agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent consideration of Notices of Motion, General Business, being continued until 12.45 p.m.

page 184

QUESTION

REPATRIATION LAW

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- I move -

That, in the opinion of this House, that section of the repatriation law relating to the onus of proof is not being administered in a proper way.

This is the second occasion on which the Opposition has taken an opportunity to use the forms of this House to propose a motion in these terms relating to section 47 of the Repatriation Act. That is a controversial provision which is more commonly known as the onus-of-proof section. The Opposition welcomes the fact that on this occasion the Minister for Repatriation - who is at present the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) - is a member of this House and will be able to reply here on behalf of the Government.

The Opposition has taken its present course of action because it believes that since the inception of the act section 47 has never been properly administered. It has been the subject of reports by committees, it has been investigated by an all-party committee of this House, and not until 1943 was there inserted in the act an amendment which, in the opinion of this House, made section 47 clear and explicit. With respect to war pensions entitlement appeals tribunals, then, section 47 is now, in the opinion of this House, explicit and clear. Sub-section (2.) of that section quite clearly lays down -

It shall not be necessary for the claimant, applicant or appellant to furnish proof to support his claim, application or appeal but the Commission, Board, Appeal Tribunal or Assessment Appeal Tribunal determining or deciding the claim, application or appeal shall be entitled to draw, and shall draw, from all the circumstances of the case, from the evidence furnished and from medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant, application or appellant, and in all cases whatsoever the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority who contends that the claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed.

That means, in effect, that unless it can be ^proved beyond a show of doubt that the condition on which the claim is based is not due to war service the claimant shall be given the benefit of the doubt. The Opposition contends that the onus of proof is not being applied as this Parliament originally intended. That is the contention not merely of Opposition members. It is shared by some Government supporters and by other interested organizations, particularly the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia.

Mr Osborne:

– No, it is not.

Mr BARNARD:

– The Minister says that it is not, but I hope to be able to prove to him conclusively that that organization disputes the claim made so often by the present Minister, and the Minister who previously administered the Repatriation Act on behalf of the Government, that the onus of proof section is being properly administered. There is conclusive evidence that the onus of proof is not being properly applied.

Before I deal with the subject more fully, perhaps I should turn for a moment to the Repatriation Commission generally. I want to say at this point that the Opposition does not make any criticism of the commission generally. I believe that I have had sufficient experience in repatriation matters by and large to appreciate what the commis sion is doing on behalf of ex-servicemen who, for one reason or another, lodge claims with it. I think that the officers of the commission are most sympathetic in dealing with the claims that come before them. I consider that they are most helpful. That applies particularly, in my view, to the present deputy commissioner in Tasmania and to his assistant and all those who serve under him. They deal with claims expeditiously and give the ex-servicemen concerned all possible consideration.

Mr Haworth:

– Does the honorable member consider that that applies to the tribunals, too?

Mr BARNARD:

– Yes. I shall deal with that point later.

I could make some minor criticisms of the Repatriation Commission, but they are only very slight. For example, I think that one form which applicants are obliged to fill in is completely redundant, lt requests information concerning deceased members of an applicant’s family and his parents and also information about his employment prior to war service. After twenty or 30 years, an applicant cannot always supply such information.

Mr Chaney:

– Should not a complete medical history be obtained?

Mr BARNARD:

– I believe that it is completely redundant to ask an ex-serviceman who makes a claim in respect of a gunshot wound received on war service to supply information concerning the deaths of various members of his family.

Mr Chaney:

– What the honorable member is saying is that a complete medical history should not be obtained.

Mr Osborne:

– That is all that he is saying.

Mr BARNARD:

– I said at the outset that this criticism was only a minor one. If the Repatriation Commission wishes to have this form completed, I shall not offer major criticism of the commission on that score.

Mr Osborne:

– Then the honorable member does not contest the advisability of the commission having a complete medical history?

Mr BARNARD:

– I want to be completely fair in my criticism in this respect. Let me put it this way: I believe that too much responsibility in the supplying of this information is placed on the applicant. After all, in many instances, in my view, he is not in a position to supply the information. 1 think that the commission should, if possible, assist in obtaining the informa[on that it requires in this respect.

Having paid what I consider is a welldeserved tribute to the Repatriation Commission generally for its attitude to the problems of ex-servicemen, I pass again to the question of the onus of proof. A few moments ago I was asked, by way of interjection, whether my comment about the commission applied to the tribunals. Most certainly it does. Let me deal with the assessment appeal tribunals first. We have no quarrel with them, because they function in entirely different circumstances. An exserviceman who goes before an assessment appeal tribunal has an established disability which has already been accepted by the Repatriation Commission. The argument then is not whether his claim should be accepted, but whether his disability has increased to such a degree that the commission should accept greater responsibility. The only people who are able to give accurate information on that point are those who have some knowledge of an exserviceman’s medical condition. I refer to the doctors who normally constitute the panel. So we have no quarrel with the assessment tribunal in that regard, but we find ourselves in opposition to the entitlement tribunal. We do not oppose entitlement tribunals simply because they are tribunals. We oppose them because we do not believe that the onus-of-proof provisions of the act are being applied in the generous way that this Parliament originally intended, particularly in relation to the 1943 amendments to the act.

I have appeared frequently before entitlement tribunals, and I have no doubt that other honorable members have done so. I have always been most impressed with the courteous way in which an advocate for an appellant is received by the tribunal. I do not deny that every opportunity is given to the advocate and the appellant to state their case before that body. But I have always believed that sympathy and cour tesy are not enough in this case. There ishere a concept of law with which we of the Opposition disagree. We claim that the onus-of-proof provisions are not being, applied as they should be. I believe that entitlement tribunals are, as they should be, most sympathetic to the claims of exservicemen because they are constituted by ex-servicemen who should have some, understanding of ex-servicemen’s problems. But 1 have always maintained - this opinion is shared by other interested organizations, one of which is the R.S.L. - that the entitlement tribunals are not in a position to interpret or to apply the onus-of-proof provisions of the act. 1 could refer to many cases this morning which would indicate that these provisions have not always been applied correctly There must have been some disagreement or dispute, probably on one point in the evidence submitted to the tribunal, and for that reason the application has been dismissed. I, and probably the doctors who have supported one particular case that 1 have in mind, have felt that if section 47 had been applied correctly that exserviceman’s condition would have been accepted as being due to his war service.

I come now to the various interpretations of the section that have been made available to the Parliament by interested people who have served in this place. First, I refer to the former Minister for Repatriation, Senator Sir Walter Cooper, who, when addressing the 1955 congress of the R.S.L. held in Queensland, made specific reference to section 47 of the Repatriation Act in these terms-

The law, shortly stated is this- firstly, if there is in the mind of the adjudicating authority any doubt on any matter whatever, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the claimant, applicant or appellant.

The former Minister’s interpretation of section 47 is quite clear. He then went on to say -

Secondly, the adjudicating authority must draw from all the circumstances of the case and from the evidence furnished and the medical opinions all reasonable inferences in favour of the appellant; and, finally, those two conditions having been complied with, the adjudicating authority can only properly dismiss a claim if it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the claim should be dismissed. It is not for the claimant to prove his claim, but, throughout the whole proceedings, the onus remains on the opposing person or authority to prove mat he is not entitled. 1 believe that the opinion which was stated by the former Minister for Repatriation clearly expresses the intent of section 47 of the Repatriation Act. But in direct contradiction of that let me examine for a few moments the opinion of the No. 2 War Pensions Entitlement Appeals Tribunal which, in its report of 18th September, 1956, when referring to advocates appearing before tribunals on behalf of exservicemen, stated -

As they read the act, all that an ex-serviceman need do is claim that his incapacity is a repatriation responsibility without alleging when, where or how it had its origin, or in what manner il was caused, or contributed to, or aggravated by or during, his service. Then the onus of proof is on the commission to disprove the claim.

That is right. The act states clearly that the onus of proof is on the repatriation authorities to disprove the applicant’s claim. But then the report of the tribunal disputed that interpretation in these terms -

If the critics’ idea of “ onus of proof “ were correct, the ex-serviceman would win his case without putting forward one word of evidence or explanation to support it.

Mr Griffiths:

– A direct contradiction!

Mr BARNARD:

– As the honorable member for Shortland has stated, that is a direct contradiction. The report goes on -

It is not a reasonable inference that a claimant has a good case when he does not put that case up. Until he puts up some sort of case to answer - some fact, or theory, or suggestion, from which a reasonable inference in his favour might be drawn - there surely can be no onus on the commission to disprove his case.

I have already intimated to the House that I have appeared before these tribunals on numerous occasions. I know of no case in which either the advocate on behalf of the appellant, or the appellant himself, does not submit some evidence to the tribunal. Obviously, evidence must be placed before the tribunal. I am in complete agreement with that portion of the report of the No. 2 War Pensions Entitlement Appeals Tribunal. Obviously, an ex-serviceman must be prepared to give evidence to the tribunal to support his claim, and I believe that is always done. But I object strongly to the report which contradicts and disputes the interpretation of the relevant section of the act which has been laid down clearly by this Parliament and which states that if at any stage of the proceedings there is any doubt in the mind of the tribunal the exserviceman should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Let me pass now to the next important phase in this discussion. I stated a few moments ago that other former members of the Parliament have given their interpretation of the onus of proof provisions of the act. In 1956, Mr. Justice Spicer, who then was Senator Spicer, the AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth, gave an interpretation of section 47 of the Repatriation Act following continuous pressure from the Opposition. The then Attorney-General interpreted this controversial section in this way -

Ordinarily, the onus lies on the party who makes a claim to prove the facts necessary to support it.

Senator Spicer then was referring to the normal course of justice in the courts. He went on -

Thus, unless otherwise prescribed by Parliament, the onus would be upon the claimant for a pension under the Repatriation Act to establish that the necessary conditions are fulfilled.

In the Repatriation Act, Parliament has completely reversed the normal process. It has expressly declared in section 47: -

that it shall not be necessary for the claimant, applicant or appellant to furnish proof to support his claim, application or appeal; and

that in all cases whatsoever the onus ot proof shall lie on the person or authority opposing the claim, application or appeal.

The effect of this is that it is not for the claimant to prove that he is entitled to a pension, but it is for any opposing person or authority to prove that he is not entitled. In every case the question is not: Has the claimant satisfied the tribunal that he is right? but has the opposing person or authority satisfied the tribunal that the claimant is wrong?

Of course the claimant may find himself in a position in which it is greatly in his own interest to supply evidence in support of his claim.

The onus remains with the opposing person or authority throughout the proceedings. The claimant need not, but he may, if he so desire, furnish proof in support of his claim. But, whether he furnishes proof or not, the onus will, at the end of the proceedings, still be upon the opposing person or authority to satisfy the determining authority that the claimant is not entitled. 1 point out that Mr. Justice Spicer’s interpretation of section 47 had the complete approval of the former Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament. We said at the time that this judgment was given that it clearly stated what were the intentions of section 47. I know, and I am sure that most honorable members know, that not every case that goes before the Repatriation Board in the first instance and thence to a tribunal and thence, on rejection, to the commission, and thence, on further rejection, to a tribunal, has some merit. There are probably a lot of cases that do not have merit. However, to support the contention I have made in this House before, that tribunals are not giving the benefit of the onus of proof provision to the claimant, I can do no better than refer the House to figures contained in the Repatriation Commission’s report for the year 1959-60 showing the number of cases allowed and disallowed by the various entitlement appeal tribunals. In that year claims by 1914-1918 war claimants were allowed in 275 cases and were disallowed in 2,061 cases. So approximately 13 per cent, of the cases before the tribunals were successful or, to put it in another way, 87 per cent, of the claims were rejected.

The position is slightly better regarding 1939-45 war claims in that year, no doubt due to the fact that more evidence was available to support the applications of the various appellants. There were 599 World War II. cases allowed in that year, and 3,160 were disallowed. So 18 per cent, of those cases heard in that year were accepted by the tribunals and 82 per cent, were rejected. I submit that this figure of rejection is remarkably high.

The fact that more than 80 per cent, of the cases that come before the entitlement appeal tribunals are rejected every year confirms my opinion, and the opinion held by most organizations which support the Opposition in this matter, that the tribunals are not in a position to give the interpretation to section 47 that should be given to it. A little while ago the Minister for the Interior disputed my claim, but I can tell him that we are supported in this matter by the various ex-servicemen’s organizations, particularly the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. Let me refer the Minister for a moment to a statement made by the New South Wales branch of the R.S.S. & A.I.L.A. in reply to a third interpretation of section 47 of the Repatriation Act that has been given to this Parliament by the present Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick). I have read the Attorney-General’s interpretation. It is an academic statement which does not differ greatly from the interpretation given by the former Attorney-General except that, in my opinion, the present Attorney-General has endeavoured to show that the exserviceman is not entitled to the consideration under section 47 that he is generally believed in this Parliament to be entitled to. Only two days ago, on 15th August, State congress of the R.S.L. in Sydney carried a resolution which concerns thi> matter. The congress was urged to submit a Senate team in the next Federal election to press for a new interpretation of the onus of proof provision in pension applications.

Mr Osborne:

– Did YOU say that such a resolution was passed?

Mr BARNARD:

– I said that this matter was urged.

Mr Osborne:

– I think you said thai a resolution was passed.

Mr BARNARD:

– I am coming to the resolution, but first I shall deal with the matter that was urged at the State congress of the R.S.L. in Sydney. That body was urged to run a Senate team at the next Federal election for the purpose of pressing for a new interpretation of the onus of proof provision. Now let me pass to the resolution that was carried by the State congress. This was reported as follows: -

The resolution, which was carried by congress, claimed Sir Garfield’s interpretation was incompatible with the objects of the R.S.L. and contrary to the intention of the Commonwealth Parliament.

In other words, this organization is certainly not satisfied with Sir Garfield Barwick’s interpretation of section 47. I direct the attention of honorable members to the last annual federal conference of the R.S.L., held in South Australia last year, in which it was clearly stated in a resolution before that congress that section 47 was not being administered in the way that the Commonwealth Parliament originally intended it to be administered. I think that I have dealt with this matter very comprehensively. Members on this side of the House are not satisfied that section 47 is being given the generous interpretation that the Parliament originally intended, and we propose to press this matter in the Parliament until some clear definition is laid down regarding the attitude to be adopted by entitlement appeal tribunals to section 47.

There is one part of the AttorneyGeneral’s interpretation with which I find myself in complete agreement. He had this to say -

I have set out these views at some length as 1 apprehend that you may find it appropriate to furnish them to the chairman of the tribunals. Whilst these tribunals must act judicially, they are not, of course, courts; and except for the possibility of proceeding by way of mandamus to require them to hear a claim according to law, there are at present no appellate provisions to correct any mistakes of law which they may make.

That has been the contention of the Opposition in this Parliament for some years - that in the final analysis there should be a further appeal to a judge of the High Court of Australia or a judge of a Supreme Court of a State, lt is the procedure which has been followed in Great Britain, and 1 do not have to remind the Minister of the remarkable judgments which have been given in Great Britain in relation to these cases by the former Mr. Justice Denning, now Lord Justice Denning. He has clearly laid down the interpretation which we have advocated in this Parliament; in the final analysis there should be an appeal to a higher authority. I believe that contention has now been borne out by the statement issued by Sir Garfield Barwick.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Brimblecombe:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Order! I must ask the honorable member to refer to the AttorneyGeneral by his proper title.

Mr BARNARD:

– I apologize, Sir, if I have offended against the Standing Orders. In conclusion, I simply say that I believe this matter has been discussed sufficiently frequently in this Parliament, and by interested organizations outside the Parliament, to show that there is room for improvement in this section of the act. I believe that all honorable members of this Parliament, as well as the R.S.S. & A.I.L.A. generally, are prepared to pay the Government a well-deserved tribute, as I have already done, so far as the Repatriation Department, generally, is concerned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP

.- This is the first occasion upon which I have risen in this

House to speak for the Repatriation Commission or the Repatriation Department on their behalf. I gratefully acknowledge the kind and appreciative remarks made by the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) about the general administration of my department and the sympathetic attitude of mind of its officers towards the exservicemen for whom they are responsible. The honorable member’s charge, in his motion, is that those authorities, to whom he is generally complimentary, are not applying section 47 of the act in dealing with exservicemen’s claims and appeals. In fact, and I listened carefully to him, he said nothing that he has not said before during similar debates in this House. Although he said, at the outset of his remarks, that there is conclusive evidence that section 47 is not being applied, unfortunately he did not bring such evidence forward; he produced no concrete evidence at all to substantiate his charge.

Since the first repatriation legislation of World War I., the basic principle has always been that the benefits provided by the act must flow from war-caused injuries. But there have always been difficulties in establishing, particularly after some years, that an injury or illness is due to war service. Since 1929, special legislative help has been given to applicants to establish their claims, because the Parliament has clearly felt that it is better for some to be treated for conditions which are not really due to war service than for one who is truly entitled to treatment to be rejected. The law in this respect is contained in section 47 of the act and was amended to its present form by a Labour Government in 1943.

Section 47 begins by saying that the various determining authorities shall act according to substantial justice and according to the merits of the case and shall not be bound by technicalities. What it goes on to say, in laymen’s terms, is that the claimant shall be given the benefit of any doubt and that any inference which can be reasonably drawn in his favour shall be so drawn; that it is not necessary for him to furnish proof of his claim, but that the onus of proof shall lie on the authority who contends that the claim shall not be granted. As I think is conceded, it is to the exserviceman’s own benefit to produce evidence. If he did not do so the onus of proof which lies on the commission would be too easily discharged. Therefore, the ex-serviceman usually does produce the best evidence he can in support of his claim.

Section 47 says that the onus of proof shall lie on the authority who contends that the claim should not be granted. This phrase, the onus of proof, in section 47 and in the similar section in the earlier acts which it replaced, has been the subject of a great deal of argument in the past. Its meaning and application were clearly stated in 1953 by the then AttorneyGeneral, Senator Spicer, now Mr. Justice Spicer. Senator Spicer’s opinion was further explained and confirmed by the present Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) last year. Both of those opinions have been widely circulated and are wellknown and there is’ no disagreement with them. As the honorable member for Bass said a little while ago, the Attorney-General in 1943 - the present Chief Justice of New South Wales - who is credited with being the author of section 47 in its present form, himself said in this House that he shared1 Senator Spicer’s view of the section. I think the House can take it that the meaning of the section is clear and is not in question.

The only question is whether the section is, in fact, applied. After eight months of responsibility for the administration of the act, I am satisfied that it is. The opinions I have referred to have been circulated to all the determining authorities. The authorities are well informed of the meaning of the section and they do in fact apply it scrupulously in favour of the applicant. Indeed, I can go further and say with some assurance that many claims which would have been dismissed by an ordinary court applying the usual laws of evidence have been allowed only because the determining authority was obliged to give the applicant the benefit of any remaining doubt, or because it was not completely satisfied that the commission had fully discharged the onus which lies on it to disprove the claim before it is rejected.

I ask the House to look at the elaborate machinery for determining claims which has been developed over the years. An ex-serviceman makes application in respect of some disability of which he is aware and he is then given a most comprehensive medical examination. Whether he originally asked for it or not, all disabilities which are revealed by the examination are listed and for practical purposes he is regarded as having applied to have them all allowed as having been due to war service. That is in the applicant’s own interest and is done in order to give him the benefit of any doubt which may exist. To give him the benefit of everything to which he is entitled under the act, every effort is made to establish his physical condition and what he suffers from so that if any of it is due to war service it may be allowed in his favour. That is why he is asked to give the fullest information including family information upon which his complete medical history can be established. It is done in his own interests.

The Repatriation Board for his State then considers his application and the results of his examination and makes a decision, applying section 47, as to whether any of his conditions are due to war service. If the applicant is dissatisfied with that decision he can then appeal to the Repatriation Commission, which again considers his case and if he wishes he can submit further information to the commission. If he is dissatisfied with the commission’s decision he can then appeal to an entitlement appeal tribunal. All the members of the boards, the commission and the entitlement appeal tribunal are exservicemen. The chairman of the tribunal must be a qualified lawyer and one of the members of each of these determining authorities must have been selected from a panel of names submitted by exservicemen’s organizations. In this way, every effort has been made to build into the system a sympathetic as well as a legal advantage for the applicant.

A high percentage of applications is accepted in the first instance by the repatriation boards. It was 47 per cent, of all claims in the year 1959-60. It is understandable that a smaller percentage is successful before the Repatriation Commission because the clear cases have been dealt with. In 1959-60, 18 per cent, of applicants were successful before the commission. Inevitably, a smaller percentage still - it was 14 per cent, in the year mentioned - is allowed by the entitlement appeal tribunals. The opinion has been expressed to me that nearly all of those allowed by the entitlement appeal tribunals are allowed only because the tribunal finds some reason to feel a doubt in the applicant’s favour. Undoubtedly, a number of applicants have succeeded when the probability is that their disability was not due to war service at all. But they have succeeded because of the provisions of section 47 and because Parliament, quite deliberately, has preferred that doubtful applications should succeed rather than that one genuine application might be rejected.

This question of the onus of proof is inevitably a technical one and inevitably it gives rise to misunderstandings in the minds of disappointed applicants. To say that section 47 puts the onus of proof on the commission and not the applicant means that the ordinary rule before a civil court in that respect is reversed. The Ordinary rule is that the applicant must establish his case. He must produce evidence which the court considers to be truthful and reliable and which enables the court to say whether his claim is right. If the court cannot decide, the benefit of the doubt, under the ordinary rules, is in favour of the defendant. Section 47 reverses that rule in favour of an applicant in repatriation cases. When the determining authority is in doubt it must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant and it does so.

This applies only when the authority is in doubt. It has no application when the authority can make up its mind, free from any doubt. In his opinion, the AttorneyGeneral clearly draws the distinction between the principle of the onus of proof and the unavoidable responsibility of the authority to decide between conflicting bodies of evidence. The two things are distinct.

One has to accept the fact that there are some disappointed applicants who believe that they have been unfairly rejected. T have found in my eight months of experience in administering the Repatriation Act that this generally occurs in this way: Let us suppose that an applicant produced evidence from his doctors that in their opinion his condition could be due to war service. Then, suppose that when the matter was before the board, the department’s medical advisers gave quite convincing evidence to the contrary, and the board was left in no doubt. It therefore accepted the contrary opinions and rejected the claim. Inevitably, the applicant goes away and says, “ My doctors are good doctors. They submitted their evidence. How can the board be reasonably free from any doubt in my favour? “ It is understandable that the ex-serviceman who is disappointed should say that. There is at least one member of the Opposition who says it. But every judicial authority has constantly to decide between conflicting bodies of evidence. They hear the evidence in support of one view and they hear the evidence in support of the other. Then they weigh the one against the other and make up their mind which is right. In most cases, they can do so quite clearly and are left in no doubt. Under the Repatriation Act, when they are in doubt, they must decide in favour of the applicant. But the important thing is this: The doubt referred to by section 47 is a doubt in the mind of the tribunal, not a doubt in the mind of the applicant or of one or more of his witnesses.

I would ask the honorable member for Bass this: How much further does he want Parliament to go? How much further can Parliament go in the ex-serviceman’s favour? Unless you are prepared to make the applicant himself the judge of his own case, you cannot go any further than section 47 has already gone. Would the Opposition really suggest that the applicant’s judgment should be substituted for that of the determining authority under the act?

There is one thing of which I have become convinced: Members of Parliament, from the nature of their work, are so placed that they can easily get a distorted view of the operation of the act. T will explain why. From 1914 onwards, the governments of this country, with the strong approval of the whole community^ have accepted moral obligation to treat the war-caused injuries of our exservicemen as well as it is practicable to do, and to compensate them and their dependants for the inevitable misfortunes of war. This is a moral responsibility which has been accepted by the community. It has been my experience that the ex-serviceman whose claim has been accepted acknowledges the value of what has been done for him, and although it is no more than his right, he is generous in his expressions of gratitude. But he has no reason to seek out his member of Parliament and say so. Disappointed applicants generally go to their member of Parliament only after they have been through the whole range of application, medical examination, consideration by the repatriation board and the commission, and, finally, appeal to an entitlement appeal tribunal.

Mr Barnard:

– That is not right.

Mr OSBORNE:

– As a general rule, when a case reaches a member of Parliament it has been through the processes to which I have referred and has been considered and considered and considered again. So, usually only the hopeless cases reach the member of Parliament and he can easily get an unbalanced view of the administration of the act.

There is one very significant fact which 1 want to put to the House. In this fact will be seen the reason why the statistics of allowances and rejections of applications used by the honorable member for Bass are valueless to support his argument. After World War I. the peak of demand for pensions and treatment under the act was reached in 1931 - only thirteen years after the end of the war. To-day, we are sixteen years from the end of World War II., yet the numbers are still going up. A statistical survey carried out in my department recently, established that on the information at present available to us the number for whom my department is responsible will go on rising at least until 1975. The House may very well ask why it is that the figures began to decline thirteen years after the end of World War I. but will still be rising 30 years from the end of World War II. The most ready answer that I can find is that the scrupulous application of section 47 by all the determining authorities in giving the benefit of the doubt - by drawing inferences in favour of the exserviceman, and by giving him the benefit between the onus of proof - has led to this striking difference between the number of claims still being accepted to-day and the number that were being accepted at a corresponding time after World War I.

The honorable member for Bass has moved a motion in terms identical to this one before. He expressed the same attitude of mind and the same views, but has brought no proof in support of them. 1 think it is time that the House was asked to reach a conclusion on the matter. Therefore, I propose to press for a vote on this motion in due course.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- The vote desired by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Osborne) is something which we will be happy to press for so that the people outside may see whether members of the Government parties propose to take their stand on the legal position, or whether they will recognize their moral duty to the servicemen of the First and Second World Wars. This is not a legal question. The Minister for Repatriation, himself a man of some distinction in various fields, has adduced to this House only those arguments which we have heard repeated ad nauseam. For that reason, we on this side are compelled to raise the matter once again. Let it not be thought that we are alone in suggesting that a wrong interpretation is placed upon the onus-of-proof provision in the act.

First of all, I believe that the law itself is quite explicit, that the onus of proof does rest on the commission. There is no obligation on the part of the applicant to discharge any onus of proof. When the amending legislation was before the Parliament, it was clear from the debate and from the general attitude of honorable members that the intention was that the serviceman should have to prove only that he had served. In my view, the onus is on the official authority to refute a serviceman’s statement that any disability from which he suffers was war-caused. Therefore, in my view and in the view of all other honorable members on this side, and of many other people as well, there rests upon the Repatriation Commission an onus of proof which it has failed to discharge in many thousands of cases. In support of that argument 1 cite the opinions expressed during the debates in this Parliament in 1957, and particularly the opinions expressed by such very distinguished legal gentlemen as Mr. Justice Spicer, Lord Chief Justice Denning, Mr. Justice Joske and Mr. Chief Justice Evatt. The opinions of such eminent legal authorities cannot be disregarded. They must carry more weight than any opinion expressed by the Minister for Repatriation.

We can prove that in a number of cases the onus of proof has not been discharged by the commission itself. So far as we can determine, the position is simple enough. As the Minister himself pointed out when quoting from the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Spicer, this act of Parliament completely reverses the normal legal process. In other words, Mr. Justice Spicer has stated that the onus of proof lies on the commission itself. In answer to a question by the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Reynolds) the Minister’s predecessor seemed to imply that the ordinary legal processes should be applied even though the act says explicitly that the ordinary legal processes do not apply to any appearances before the commission. When replying to a question relating to the right of applicants to produce witnesses and cross-examine them, the then Minister said that if the claimant were given the right to cross-examine witnesses for the commission and himself to call witnesses who would also be subjected to crossexamination, it would be establishing a precedent which was not at all desirable. That, of course, is purely the legal view. We are concerned with the moral obligation to the servicemen of both world wars.

Let us take the arguments submitted by the Minister in the closing stage of his address. He cited figures which proved conclusively that the onus of proof was being discharged more satisfactorily for ex-servicemen from the Second World War than it had been for returned servicemen from the First World War. Those figures may be found on page 23 of the last report of the Repatriation Commission. They show that from 1916 to 1920 there were 90,000 pensions being paid out to exservicemen from the First World War. Between 1931 and 1935 that figure dropped to 74,000. In only one year since then did it increase. In that year, it rose to 76,000, but the number of pensions being paid to returned servicemen from the First World War has been declining consistently since then. At the end of the Second World War, 35,766 pensions were being paid to incapacitated ex-servicemen, and that figure has increased steadily every year since then. For instance, from 1946 to 1950. it rose to 108,922, by the end of 1955 it had increased to 134,979 and between 1956 and 1960 it jumped to 155,534. During the First World War, about 330,000 men sailed away. Of that number, 314,000 or 95 per cent, became casualties. In the Second World War over 1,000,000 men served, and 183,000 became casualties. The casualties from the Second World War numbered only half as many as those from the First World War; yet, fifteen years after the Second World War, twice as many servicemen have qualified for a pension. On those figures it might be possible to establish that the exservicemen from the Second World War were more favorably treated in connexion with the onus of proof provision than were the ex-servicemen from the First World War.

What happened to those men who returned from the First World War? At the present time, they find themselves in exceptional difficulty if they wish to prove a case before the commission. Now, 40 years after the event, they have not got their medical certificates and the widows of those who have died have not got the medical certificates. So there are two groups of people who are in extreme difficulty at the moment. There are those who have been before the commission in the last seven or eight years and who would have received a pension, who would have had their disabilities accepted as war-caused, had the onus of proof been discharged by the commission as it should have been, but who are not receiving a pension; and there are the widows of the men who would have received a pension had the onus of proof been discharged between 1925 and 1943 in the same way as it has been since then. They are not an insignificant group, and they are the ones whom most of us have before us so consistently in our parliamentary offices. They are the people to whom we have to apply something more than strict legality. They are the people towards whom we have to adopt a new moral attitude. They are the people to whom this Parliament and the country owes a debt of gratitude. Indeed, the Government has shown that it is conscious of the need to adopt this viewpoint by providing for increases in war benefits in the Budget just brought down. We know, of course, that this has been done only after long agitation by people such as ourselves, and no doubt by many members on the Government side in the party room, as well as by the Returned Sailors’, Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Imperial League. We can prove conclusively from statistics that the onus of proof has not been discharged satisfactorily for a significant proportion of exservicemen, particularly those from the First World War. Therefore, the whole attitude of the Government, the commission and the tribunals must be changed. The present Minister for Repatriation has held that portfolio for eight months now. He still has a few more months, perhaps, in that position and he should be able to do something, but he merely stands in this House and repeats the arguments which we have heard so often, and which in fact contradict the opinions of distinguished legal authorities from his own side of the House.

This question cannot be disposed of by resorting to legalities and technicalities. There are many points which have yet to be explained to our satisfaction. For instance, why have so many appellants had their applications rejected consistently over the years and then finally accepted? Why were not those applications accepted in the first instance if the onus of proof were being discharged as the Minister says it has been? I recall a case in which I appeared before the tribunal on behalf of one of my constituents. This man was suffering from arthritis. I thought I proved conclusively by producing meteorological records of the weather conditions during the First World War when this man was serving that the arthritis from which he was suffering was a war-caused disability. His application was rejected. There was no cross-examination of witnesses. Those officers who claimed that the disability was not war-caused were not required to prove their assertion. This man pressed on with his claim and eventually it was accepted. I wonder how many thousands just did not press on with their applications?

Mr L R Johnson:

– To what date was the pension made retrospective?

Mr BRYANT:

– Back to the date of the last appeal. How many thousands of widows of such men have no difficulty whatever in proving that they are entitled to more generous and more grateful con sideration from the community? Those are the tragic cases. If the commission would only go back through the files from 1920 to 1930, and even to 1943, or even through those relating to the appeals coming before the commission now and those relating to men who died perhaps twelve or fifteen years ago-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Lung cancer is another example.

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes. These matters should be re-examined and then we might get some justice. That would be a step in the right direction. But there is this problem of the onus of proof. Is it so clear-cut that we know the causes of all the diseases to which man is heir in his later years? Of course, we do not. What is the cause of cancer? Can anybody say? If you cannot say what is the cause of cancer, how can you deny that service in one region or another under war conditions was the cause of cancer? You cannot prove it. But hundreds or thousands who submit claims are continually rejected on this score. Can anybody deny that the stresses and strains of war, such as those experienced in the First World War, and in certain jungle areas in the Second World War, were so wearing on the human frame that they were likely to induce heart failure in later years? Can the Minister prove that that is not the case? What is the cause of diabetes and other diseases? We on this side of the House - and I believe we have the support of a large section of the community - believe that common sense and justice say that these things should be the responsibility of the Repatriation Department. It is not a question so much of money in one of the wealthiest countries of the world, but whether justice will be done and whether a logical attitude will be adopted to medical benefits for those who served in war.

I believe it would be desirable if we could dissociate the actual medical benefits from pensionable benefits. I know the two are not inextricably tied, but I am afraid that the departmental attitude must always bring to bear the Treasury attitude. There is a certain amount of continuous expenditure which is greater for pensions than that for medical disabilities. It would not be too much to accept full medical benefits for all servicemen of both world wars. In the first place, this would be desirable from several stand-points; but it would certainly be desirable from the viewpoint that the department should have to prove conclusively that a certain incidence of disability could not possibly have been caused by war service. If it could not do so, the onus of giving the benefit would lie on the department.

Although the Repatriation Commission has set up tribunals with a sympathetic attitude, and although the relevant act of Parliament has been written with that attitude in view, in fact the application of the law is a reversal of this view of the onus of proof. If a constituent of mine must go back to 1935 or 1936, or if he must revert to 1947 or 1948 to find a doctor, get a certificate of his condition at that time and produce it before a tribunal, the members of which sit in their majesty without having to argue their case at all, then the onus of proof lies on the ex-serviceman. This ought not to be the case. An applicant puts in an application. He has had war service and is suffering from a disability for which there is no proven cause. The onus should be on the tribunal, the commission or the departmental officer to prove by argument that war service could not possibly be the cause of the condition. The onus should not be on the exserviceman to prove his case. The proof should be produced by the department. Of course, that is not the way the law operates, no matter how sympathetic those concerned might be, no matter how logical it may appear, and despite any legal technicalities that are introduced into the case. The fact is that an ex-serviceman - an ordinary man with no legal training and no facilities in his home for keeping medical records over a long period of time - has to front a highly qualified panel and prove his case. That is not the general spirit of the act. So, we on the Opposition side say that we have the support of the great majority of exservicemen in our claim.

The Minister for Repatriation has said, “You have not proved any case”. Last Saturday, I returned to a town in Victoria where I had gone to school until I was ten years old. I met a man who had served on Gallipoli. He was a feature of my boyhood. He had lost an eye and his hearing, and one side of his face was badly scarred and damaged at Gallipoli. I was shocked and surprised to find that although that man was now in his sixties, he was not classified as totally and permanently incapacitated. He also informed me that a condition on the other side of his face where cysts had developed, had been accepted as a warcaused disability. In so many cases logical people like myself who are just as careful of the budgetary position as is anybody else, find ourselves surprised by illogical decisions, especially in regard to exservicemen of the First World War. It is the exservicemen of the First World War and the widows who are particularly badly hit by the failure to interpret the act in the proper spirit.

I know of another case of a man who served in the Light Horse in 1916. In a training accident at Seymour, he was thrown to the ground and severely injured. Twelve months after his enlistment he was discharged as no longer fit for military service. Although that man has had a long battle with the department, he cannot convince it that he did not have this injury, which has kept him almost completely crippled, before he went into the service. When he enlisted he was fit. Records show that the first 100,000 men who joined the First A.I.F. were magnificent specimens of manhood. The medical examinations were stringent. If a man went into the First A.I.F. classified as Al and later was discharged as medically unfit, his disabilities were warcaused and nobody can dispute it. Unfortunately, the onus of proof still lies on the ex-serviceman and not on the department.

Therefore, we on the Opposition side say there is a strong case for the Minister for Repatriation to answer. The onus of proof provision as it is expressed in the street, in this House and in the laws of this Parliament, is not being exercised in favour of the ex-serviceman as fully as we have the right to expect. I do not believe this is a legal matter. The fact that we bring it before the House every few months does not inhibit in any way the rights of our case. Unfortunately, it will only be by constant repetition that the Minister and his party will be forced to face the matter and do justice. It was only by constant repetition that the Government granted medical benefits for service pensioners; and it will only be by constant repetition, votes in this House, pressure from constituents and arguments by the Returned Soldiers League that we will produce a change of heart in the Government.

This is not a legal matter or a technical matter. It is simply this: If a man served in the armed forces in full health and was discharged with a disability, that is the responsibility of the Repatriation Department. If a man has some disability and there is no medical evidence of its origin, and if the man has had long service in the forces in either of the two world wars, or in Korea, it is logical for the community to accept his disability as caused or aggravated by war service. I do not care how much technical argument the Minister might produce. The statistics are unanswerable, in my view.

I had great hopes when the present Minister for Repatriation took his portfolio - if it was not thrust upon him. I was sure that if he turned his skill and knowledge to use, he could carry out the spirit in which the Parliament expressed this provision. But in his maiden repatriation speech in this House he has echoed the sentiments I have heard from his predecessors. I hope that every step will be taken in the constituencies of the Liberal Party and Country Party members to show the ex-servicemen and the electorate generally exactly where the sentiments of Government supporters lie; and I hope that the electors understand that we will have justice and a proper moral attitude on this question.

Mr CHANEY:
Perth

.- The House has been debating a resolution which states that a section of the repatriation legislation relating to the onus of proof is not being administered in a proper way. The two members of the Opposition who spoke traversed a fair amount of ground, but I do not think they confined their arguments to the resolution.

What, in fact, will happen if the House agrees to the resolution? What will the Opposition have achieved? The Opposition says that the provision is not being administered in a proper way, because cases can be cited in the House to show that, in the opinion of an honorable member, justice was not done to an ex-service man when his disability was not accepted as war-caused. I should say that every Minister, every member and every senator could go through his records and find a case where, perhaps, in his opinion the disability of an ex-serviceman could possibly have, been accepted as war-caused. This, to me, does not justify an outright damnation of the legislation as it stands or the administration of it. What the Opposition is trying to say is that the members of boards and tribunals are not acting in the best interests of ex-servicemen, and the allegation has been made on other occasions in this House that the Government wants applications for pensions to be refused so that it may save money.

Mr L R Johnson:

– Do not hide behind the boards. Face up to the position!

Mr CHANEY:

– The honorable member should listen to my argument. Criticism has been made of repatriation tribunals. It has been said that the Returned Servicemen’s League has been strongly opposed to the administration of section 47. Let us see who administers section 47. First, there are the repatriation boards. I do not know of any repatriation board in Australia which has not a direct representative of the R.S.L. or ex-servicemen’s organizations on it. In the home State of the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard), the representative was the State secretary of the R.S.L. I do not know whether he still holds that position. Every tribunal has a direct representative of exservicemen, but throughout the history of repatriation in Australia, not one exservicemen’s organization has failed to renominate a representative who was willing to serve again on a board or tribunal. Surely, if there was an overall wrong in the administration of the provision, and if it had been established conclusively that justice was not being done, the first action to take would be to reconstitute the boards. Opposition members should look at the whole picture of repatriation and not confine their view to the cases that are rejected after three bites at the apple - the board, the commission and the tribunal.

If we look at the statistics quoted by the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant), we see that, in 1960, 654,336 pensions were in force. They are the latest figures available to us. In the whole history of the

Repatriation Act, since appeals were instituted, I think, somewhere about 1929 - that date may be wrong - there have been 90,000 appeals. 1 refer to the total number of appeals and not the appeals granted or disallowed. In other words, 560,000 exservice personnel have been granted pensions without any argument, without any recourse to the benefit of the doubt or the onus-of-proof provision. These statistics cannot be taken out for every year, but I will take the statistics for last year. In that year, 37,602 applications for the acceptance of a disability as war-caused were made to the repatriation boards. I ask honorable members to keep in mind that, on the 1914 and 1939 statistics, the proportion of appeals granted to the total lodged remains fairly constant; there is no great variance. The figures are not easy to compare, because in the two wars conditions were different and the medical records were different.

Of the 37,602 applications, 17,754 were allowed. This is 47 per cent. of the total. The remaining 19,848 were advised that they had a right of appeal, but only 62 per cent. were prepared to appeal to the second body, the commission itself. In other words, 38 per cent. of the rejected applicants were satisfied that the decision was correct.

Mr Griffiths:

– They are not satisfied at all.

Mr CHANEY:

– These are the figures. The Opposition used the statistics provided by the department to prove its point, and that is all I am doing. Surely what is right for one side is right for the other.

The commission heard 13,022 appeals. Of these 2,307 were allowed and 10,715 were rejected. In other words, 18 per cent. of the appeals were allowed. The final tribunal, the Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, heard 72 per cent. of the appeals rejected by the commission. In other words, 28 per cent. of those who went to the commission did not proceed further although they were encouraged to do so. Of the 6,172 appeals heard by the tribunal, 887 were allowed and 5,285 were rejected; 14 per cent. of the appeals were allowed. Of the applications originally lodged, 55 per cent. were granted. If we take into account those who accepted the first decision and did not appeal, we find that the figure of applicants satisfied reached 80 per cent. On these figures, I say that we have a Repatriation Act of which, as a whole, we can be extremely proud.

Mr Bryant:

– We just want to improve it.

Mr CHANEY:

– As I understand the Opposition’s argument, the only way the provision can be improved so as to give complete satisfaction is to grant every application as it is made. The situation would then be that an ex-serviceman could walk into the Repatriation Department and say, “ I have a cold or rheumatism, which was caused by my war service because I had to lie in the mud in 1916 “. If every person who made such an application received a pension, there would be no need to have a tribunal. Section 47 is needed with the present set-up of tribunals, boards and the commission, and I believe that the provision is being properly administered.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why do you always speak against the ex-serviceman?

Mr CHANEY:

– I say to you, as I say to every ex-serviceman who comes to me, that I am prepared to look at the files relating to ex-servicemen and advise them, if I believe there is any need to go further. I think some members of the Parliament would do well to study repatriation legislation or the health legislation covering repatriation matters in other parts of the world. They would then be convinced that in repatriation matters Australia is tremendously far ahead of any other country. For instance, in England the ex-serviceman of the 1914 war has no right of appeal.

The time available to me to speak on this resolution is limited and I intend to continue my remarks during a late? repatriation debate.

Motion (by Mr. Osborne) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 33

Majority . . 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the motion (vide page 184) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 37

NOES: 59

Majority . . . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).Order! As it is now past 12.45 p.m., the time for precedence to general business has expired.

Sirring suspended from 12.55 to 2.15 p.m.

page 199

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1961

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 15); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 16); Customs

Tariff Amendment (No. 17); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 18); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 19); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 20); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 21); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 22); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 23); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 2); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 3)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 15).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the twenty-fourth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following date: - 11th May, 1961.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 16).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the twenty-sixth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced Into the House of Representatives on the following date: - 11th May, 1961.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 17).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the twenty-ninth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following date: - 11th May, 1961.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 18).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the thirty-first day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following date: - 11th May, 1961.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 19).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the fourteenth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced Into the House of Representatives on the following date:- 11th May, 1961.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 20).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following date: - 11th May, 1961.

page 203

THE SCHEDULE

page 203

THE CUSTOMS TARIFF

By inserting a new Prefatory Note as follows: - “ (14) Unless the Tariff otherwise provides or the Minister otherwise directs horse-power or brake horse-power of internal combustion piston engines means the normal working load horsepower or that which the engine is capable of carrying continuously over a period of twelve hours, running at its rated speed under normal working conditions.”

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 21).]

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 22).]

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 23).]

[Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 2).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-61 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one. THE SCHEDULE. [Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 3).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-61 be amended as set out in the Schedule io these Proposals and that the amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated on and from the second day of August, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one. {: .page-start } page 216 {:#debate-28} ### THE SCHEDULE [Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Amendment (No. 3).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) I960, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the eleventh day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one. {: .page-start } page 216 {:#debate-29} ### THE SCHEDULE Omit the words specified in column 3 opposite to consecutive number 2 in column 1, insert the following words: - " Fruit juices ". [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 3).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1961 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the twenty-sixth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one. The tariff proposals which I have just tabled place before Parliament the tariff alterations which have been made since Parliament rose last May for the winter recess. In accordance with section 273ea of the Customs Act, notices of these proposals were published in the Commonwealth " Gazette " and copies of the notices were circulated to honorable members. Customs Tariff Proposals 15 to 19 and 21 to 23 provide for temporary duties on - Nitrogenous fertilizers, Woollen textile fabrics weighing over 4½ oz. per square yard, Certain papers and paper boards, Polyethylene resins and moulding compounds, Electric clocks and movements, {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Chloropicrin, {:#subdebate-29-1} #### Glucose, and Copper and brass sheet and strip of less than1/8-in. in thickness. In each of these instances, the temporary duties were imposed following a report by a Deputy Chairman of the Tariff Board. The normal protective needs of the industries concerned have been referred to the Tariff Board for full inquiry and report. The temporary duties will remain in effect only until the Government has taken action on the final report of the board,but in any case not longer than three months after the receipt of the relevant report. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 20 provides for amendments of the Customs Tariff on - Citrus juices, Narrow fabrics, Hoop and strip of iron and steel, Cycle parts and accessories, Lawnmowers and air-cooled internal combustion engines, Tetrasodium pyrophosphate and sodium tripolyphosphate, and Tailors' and dressmakers' dummies. The amendments arise from consideration of Tariff Board recommendations, as distinct from reports by deputy chairmen. Copies of the reports were forwarded to honorable members at the time the " Gazette " notices were published, and a summary of the alterations is now being distributed in the chamber. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 217 {:#debate-30} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-30-0} #### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
LP -- I lay on the table the reports of the Tariff Board on the question whether temporary duties should be imposed on the following items: - >Acrylic yarns. Chloropicrin. Copper strip and copper alloy strip. Electrically operated clocks. Glucose. Man-made fibre piece goods. Nitrogenous fertilizers. Paper and paper boards - two reports. Piece goods of wool or containing wool and nonpile fabrics imitating furs. Pile floor coverings - two reports. Polyethylene. I lay on the table, also, the reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - Axes. Citrus pulp and citrus juices. Cycle parts and accessories. Hoop and strip of iron and steel. Lawnmowers and air-cooled internal combustion engines' not exceeding 10 brake horse-power. Narrow fabrics. Tailors' and dress-makers' dummies. Tetrasodium pyrophosphate and sodium tripoly phosphate. Dried figs. Ginger. The Government has accepted the board's recommendations on dried figs, but has decided to retain the existing revenue duties. The duties on ginger in brine or syrup, also, are being retained. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 218 {:#debate-31} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-31-0} #### AUSTRALIA AND THE EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET Debate resumed from 16th August (vide page 165), on motion by **Mr. Menzies** - >That the following paper: - > >Australia and the Common Market - Ministerial Statement - be printed. Upon which **Mr. Calwell** had moved by way of amendment - >That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - " this House, while declaring that the United Kingdom's move to join the Common Market requires the strongest action to protect Australia's interests, expresses no confidence in this Government's ability to provide it because of its lack of foresight and frankness in this matter, its dilatoriness now, and its continuing failure, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister's speech, to appreciate the real issues which are involved ". {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-JSG} ##### Mr BRIMBLECOMBE:
Maranoa -- **Mr. Speaker,** last evening I listened very attentively to the reply made by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell),** as spokesman for the Australian Labour Party, to the statement made by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** on the European Common Market. One can come to only one of three conclusions as a result of the Leader of the Opposition's speech: The Opposition does not understand what is involved in this great problem; it is confused; or it is deliberately trying to hide what will be its approach to the question in the future. I say that because no Opposition member has made a definite declaration about where the Australian Labour Party stands with respect to this very great problem which faces not only the United Kingdom, but also Australia at the present time. The historical background of the Common Market and the European Free Trade Area and the circumstances which led to their establishment, have been very fully and capably outlined to the House by the Prime Minister and other honorable members on the Government side of the chamber. I do not propose to go over that ground again, because I think that the majority of honorable members know what the background is. I intend to confine my remarks to an outline of the implications for some of our export industries, and particularly our primary industries, if Britain joins the Common Market and the protection that we now enjoy is removed. It is true that under existing arrangements and agreements with the United Kingdom special provision is made for the products of some of our primary industries - notably for sugar and meat. Long-term arrangements have been made with the United Kingdom Government in respect of those commodities, and we hope that these arrangements will be preserved in the event of Britain going into the European organization. Let me now deal more fully with some of these existing agreements. Under the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement, Australian exports to Britain are guaranteed entry duty free. Also, tariff preferences on many important items of trade are guaranteed. On most other items of trade, preferences are enjoyed by Australian goods on a non-guaranteed basis according to which foreign goods pay duty and Australian products enter Britain duty free. With respect to wheat, of course, the trade agreement provides for a minimum sale to the United Kingdom of 750,000 tons of Australian wheat a year. Provision is made for that in the existing arrangement between the United Kingdom and Australia. The United Kingdom at present imports the bulk of our primary products. It is our best market. But the majority of those exports will be affected to a very great extent if preferences that we now enjoy are not preserved. Wool has been mentioned during the debate, but this commodity is not likely to be affected to any extent. It was discussed at great length earlier this week. Wool earns most of our export income, and I believe that it will still be required by our present customers in the free trackarea. Ores are of vital concern to us and earn a considerable sum each year. Ores and concentrates are expected to receive duty-free entry, but for lead and zinc metals, exports of which to the United Kingdom in 1959-60 were worth £10,000,000, the eventual common tariff of the present European Economic Community provides for a duty of about 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, at present prices. Under the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement, duty-free entry and some small preferences are guaranteed for these items from Australia. However, in the absence of the trade agreement and in the absence of any other arrangement to safeguard Australia's position, a duty would be applied to Australian metal. Metal from the United Kingdom or European refineries would then be in a better competitive position in the United Kingdom market because while they would not be paying any tariff the Australian refined product would have to pay duty. Butter will be affected more than any other primary product that we export. In 1959-60 our exports of butter to the United Kingdom were worth about £22,000,000, so it is apparent that butter earns a considerable amount for us. The United Kingdom is the only substantial world importer of butter, but even so its imports amount to only about 400,000 tons a year. If special arrangements are not made to safeguard Australian butter exports to the United Kingdom which now, under the trade agreement, have duty-free entry and therefore a tariff preference against continental suppliers like Denmark and Holland, then the adoption by the United Kingdom of whatever common agricultural policy on butter might ultimately be agreed upon between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community could result in higher prices for butter in Britain. This would reduce consumption. Australia would lose her present preference against Danish, Dutch and French butter and, in fact, would face the position in which the product of those countries had a preferred marketing position in the United Kingdom compared with Australian butter which then would be paying a duty or import levy. Continental suppliers inside the new group, such as France, Holland and, no doubt, Denmark, would be encouraged to divert to the United Kingdom market as butter their present exports of processed milk to other countries because the United Kingdom butter market would be more profitable. In these circumstances, the result for Australia's butter trade would be a very substantial reduction in our available market in the United Kingdom, if not its elimination. That is the problem that we must face up to in relation to our butter exports. We know the present position of the industry. It cannot stand any further reduction in its income because even now the Commonwealth Government, in an endeavour to maintain the industry, is subsidizing it to the extent of £13,500,000 a year. If we lose the United Kingdom market we will not be able to sell our butter to any other country because the majority of them are not great butter eaters. The result would be that we would have to sell it on the United Kingdom market at a greatly reduced price. Sugar exports to the United Kingdom in 1959-60 earned about £16,000,000. Under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which is incorporated in the International Sugar Agreement, the United Kingdom guarantees the Australian producers a market for 300,000 tons of sugar at an annually negotiated figure above the world price, and also guarantees an outlet for a further 300,000 tons at world price plus preference. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement as it now stands would expire in 1968, but the practice hitherto has been that every year the future duration of the agreement has been extended by one year, thus keeping its termination date eight years ahead. Apart from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, Australia is guaranteed a duty preference under the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement. In the absence of special arrangements to safeguard the Australian sugar trade, and if there were no Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, the adoption by the United Kingdom of common marketing arrangements with the European Economic Community would mean that Australian exporters of sugar to the United Kingdom would face a tariff of about 80 per cent, compared with the present preference of nearly £5 a ton, as well as increased competition in the United Kingdom market from continental or local beet sugar suppliers, and loss of preference against Cuba and other foreign suppliers of cane sugar. The world sugar position is one of oversupply. This has been contributed to by large production of beet sugar in the industrialized countries as well as heavy production of cane sugar in some tropical countries. Let me now deal with wheat. In 1959- 60 our exports of wheat to the United Kingdom were worth about £14,000,000. Australian wheat entering the United Kingdom is guaranteed duty-free entry under the trade agreement. I have mentioned previously that the United Kingdom has given us an assurance that she will take an annual minimum of 750,000 tons of wheat. But that arrangement will be challenged by France and other European countries if the United Kingdom joins the Common Market. Beef and veal exports to the United Kingdom in 1959-60 amounted to about £24,000,000. The fifteen-year meat agreement gives Australia a right of unrestricted entry into the United Kingdom market for all beef, mutton and lamb until 1967. Dutyfree entry is also guaranteed under the agreement. If the United Kingdom adopted a common agricultural policy with The Six, Australian suppliers of beef and veal would eventually lose the present right of dutyfree entry; they would lose preference against foreign suppliers such as Argentina and, in respect of imports from Common Market countries, they would experience preference in reverse, that is, continental countries within the group, such as France, who were supplying to the United Kingdom, would get duty-free entry while the Australian product paid duty or an import levy. This would apply also to other meats which compete with beef. Australian mutton and lamb, instead of getting free entry, would have to face a tariff of about 20 per cent, when the United Kingdom had adjusted its rates of duty to the common external tariff over the transitional period. Canned meat exports to the United Kingdom in 1959-60 earned about £10,000,000. Australian canned meats at present receive a preference of 20 per cent., 10 per cent, of which is guaranteed under the trade agreement. Our canned meats also receive guaranteed free entry. In the absence of the trade agreement, and if other arrangements were not negotiated, Australian canned meat, instead of entering duty-free and getting a substantial preference, would have to compete, with loss of preference, against foreign suppliers. European canned meats, including pig meats, would enter the United Kingdom market duty-free while the Australian product would be paying duty at the rate of about 25 per cent. I mention this because I think it is important that the people should know what they will have to face, and that they will have to explore every avenue to get other markets in the event of Great Britain's entering the European Common Market. Now I turn to a consideration of fresh apples and fresh pears. Our exports of these to the United Kingdom were worth about £A.5,000,000 in 1959-60. Australian apples and pears are guaranteed dutyfree entry under the trade agreement, which also guarantees a tariff preference in the Australian shipping season. In the absence of the trade agreement, and if other arrangements were not negotiated, E.E.C. suppliers would get free entry into the United Kingdom market. They would be in a preferred position against Australian fruit, which would be paying duties of about 8 per cent, for apples and 10 per cent, for pears. It is also possible - although the governments of the present European Common Market countries have not yet taken decisions on this - that other forms of import regulation would be introduced for these products. Now I turn to canned fruit and fruit juices. Our exports of these to the United Kingdom were worth about £A. 11,000,000 in 1959-60. Under the trade agreement Australia is 'guaranteed free entry and a tariff preference of about 12 per cent. In the absence of the trade agreement, and if special arrangements were not made to safeguard Australian trade in these products. Australia's suppliers would lose free entry and the present duty preference and competition would be encouraged from the continent, free of duty, whilst Australian canned fruits would have to pay a duty of about 25 per cent. Our exports of dried vine fruits to the United Kingdom in 1959-60 were worth about £A.4,000,000. Here again Australian exports to the United Kingdom now enjoy duty-free entry and preferences - 2s. sterling per cwt. on currants and 8s. 6d. per cwt. on raisins - which are guaranteed under the trade agreement. Tn the absence of the trade agreement, and if no special safeguarding arrangements were made, the Australian exporters would lose free entry and preferences, and would face a tariff of about 9 per cent. The loss of preference would be particularly important in view of American competition. If Greece and Turkey joined the European Economic Community they would be placed in a preferred position in the United Kingdom market. I could mention many more of the products of our primary industries which would be affected, but as my time is running out I shall be unable to mention them all. I want to say, in conclusion, however, tha' I was very pleased indeed to 'hear the Prime Minister say last night in his speech that a special committee of Cabinet had been appointed which would sit frequently, would watch the position as it affected Australia, and recommend what it thought should be done to protect what we claim is our legitimate market, and to protect our interests in the event of Britain's joining the European Common Market, so that we shall be able to make long-term provision against our being squeezed out of our markets. The right honorable gentleman also mentioned at the end of his speech that the problems confronting our export industries were great, and that every last detailed care must be taken to solve them in a way which would protect and, indeed, enlarge our national, developmental and trading future. That is very important, **Mr. Speaker,** and I believe that this Government, and the Australian Country Party in particular which, in the main, represents country areas and is vitally concerned, has a duty to see that every avenue is explored. The Government will do that, I am sure. I know that the Minister for Trade has this matter continuously in mind, and has watched the trends ever since the European Common Market was first mooted some years ago. I am sure that he will continue to do that. 1 hope that the Government will be successful in its negotiations, and I know that if it is called into conference with the British Government our Government will protect Australia's position adequately. {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr BIRD:
Batman .- It is ludicrous for the honorable member for Maranoa **(Mr. Brimblecombe)** to suggest that the Opposition does not understand the problems associated with Great Britain's contemplated entry into the European Common Market. It is because the Opposition has a clear appreciation of all the problems involved that we have moved the amendment, because we believe that the Government, by its vacillation up to the present time, and its uncertain attitude as shown by the Prime Minister's speech, does not have as firm a grip on this matter as one would expect of the Australian Government. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** has for its one purpose the aim of prodding the Government into doing something for the people of Australia. This is a unique debate because, irrespective of the views of this House, the ultimate decision will be made 12,000 miles away by the British Parliament. It is quite obvious that Britain has made up its mind to negotiate with the idea of ultimately joining the European Common Market, and it looks as. though eventually she will join. When the decision is made it must be Britain'sdecision, and Britain's alone. After all, the British are the people who are mainly concerned, and while we may have some reservations about whether or not they are taking, the right course the fact remains that under the sovereignty enjoyed by the British Parliament the British decision must be made by Britain's own Parliament. If the Government of Great Britain decides that Britain will join the European Common Market it will do so for a variety of reasons, and not only for trade reasons. 1 am prepared to concede that trade considerations will be a very important factor in Britain's decision to join or otherwise; but I also suggest that political and defence requirements will enter into it. One can understand, when one looks at the situation, that faces Britain to-day on the continent of Europe, that the more friends Britain can make the better it is for her future security. Let us look at the position of one of th& present members of the European Common Market - West Germany. When West Germany joined the Common Market her view was that that group would be an economic and political bloc against the Russians. The Germans were quite frank in giving that as the reason for their entry into the Common Market. It is for the same reason that the Germans have buried the hatchet with the French. For centuries there was marked and open conflict between Germany and France, but at long last those two countries have come together in friendship, because they realize that they have common interests against what they consider to be their ultimate common foe. If Britain decides to join the European Economic Community it is very hard to envisage the future, not only so far as Australia is concerned, but also so far as the Common Market itself is concerned, because the Common Market is not only a customs union but is also, to a degree, a political union of a kind never contemplated by any British statesman of the past. If you were to have suggested this to British statesmen 30 years ago they would have laughed, but to-day, because of changing circumstances the British point of view has somersaulted as compared with what it has been for the last two or three centuries. **Mr. Macmillan,** in an endeavour to placate Commonwealth interests, has stated that he will protect the interests of the Commonwealth in the negotiations which are to take place with the six units of the Common Market. To justify this he has spoken airily about the Commonwealth's position as the result of Britain's decision, but I think we must recognize the obvious, just as **Mr. Macmillan** occasionally must. Whatever agreement is reached by Great Britain with the European Economic Community, it will be at the expense of Commonwealth relations. Because of Great Britain's most momentous decision, firstly to enter into negotiations and secondly, I strongly suspect, ultimately to join the Common Market, Australia must develop a new stature in world relations. From now onwards energy, determination and imagination must be our watchwords. I do not think any one will disagree when I say that Australia's immediate problems in the years to come will be the provision of alternative export markets and our balance of payments. These problems have caused difficulty in the past, but unfortunately they will be accentuated in the future. There is likely to be a diminution of preferences as far as we are concerned in Great Britain. The importation of wheat, meat, butter, sugar, fruit, wine and some minor products will be severely curtailed if not wiped out altogether. Luckily for us some of these agreements have some years to run and so we will have some opportunity to retrieve our losses in the British market and find alternative markets. Britain in an endeavour, I suggest, to help us, has told us she will try to preserve our trade preferences, but I think there is scant hope of success as far as that is concerned. Luckily for us wool is not affected. It has never received a preference in the past and the fact that it will not receive preference in the future will make no difference whatever to this great industry upon which such a great deal of Australia's welfare depends. When we look at our trade with Great Britain we find that there has been a decline in recent years, and this might offer a ray of hope. For example, of Australia's exports in 1936-39, 53 per cent, went to Great Britain. That was in the three years before the war. Last year 26 per cent, of our exports went to Great Britain, a drop of 50 per cent. On the other hand we find that of Australia's imports in 1936-39, 42 per cent, came from Britain - in the three years before the war - and last year our imports from Great Britain were 36 per cent, of our total imports, 6 per cent. less. It can therefore be seen that the volume of trade, both to and from Great Britain, has diminished in recent years. At the present time, we export £240,000,000 worth of goods to the United Kingdom and £175,000,000 worth to Western Europe. This includes £200,000,000 for wool. Minerals and hides also will probably not be affected by the Common Market. I think we should be grateful for that. Most of the balance, excluding the products I have mentioned, comprises farm produce, valued at £115,000,000, and this is the bloc of products which presents formidable problems for us in the future. At present, that £115,000,000 worth of foodstuffs which are subject to such forebodings in the future enter the United Kingdom duty free or at preferential rates, whereas similar European goods have to pay higher duties. In the event of Great Britain entering the Common Market, the reverse will operate, and European goods will enter Great Britain free, whereas we will have to pay duty and the preferential duties will no doubt be eliminated. In addition to primary products, Australia now sells about £6.000.000 worth of manufactured goods to Great Britain annually and I think it is certain that, in the event of Great Britain entering the European Economic Community, Europe could capture this trade, and so we will probably lose it. Under the European Common Market, we would have to compete with French wheat, and therefore there are difficulties which I hope the statesmanship of both the Australian representatives and those of Great Britain can get around, so that Australian wheat will have at least some outlet in Great Britain in the future. The Government has been well aware of this situation for some time, but has not informed the House of the difficulties involved. At long last we have had a statement from the Government that it is trying to develop new markets and has opened trade commissioner posts. I think the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** mentioned last night that 30 new trade posts had been opened over the last three years. The whole pattern of our economic existence is likely to be changed as the result of Great Britain's decision, and we must depend upon our own efforts to ensure that, whatever decision is reached, it is not inimical to Australia's interests. We have to look after ourselves. It is very nice to help other countries, but at the moment the first duty of the Australian Parliament is to preserve and protect the interests of all Australians, irrespective of class or creed. A stern fight is ahead and we must not equivocate. Our duty is to protect the interests of Australia and Australians. **Mr. Macmillan** has stated that Commonwealth countries will be represented at the negotiations prior to Britain's entry into the Common Market. That is a nice gesture, but I am of the opinion that Great Britain does not take much notice of what we say. I hope the Government will be as strongly represented as possible and will fight as forcibly as it can to retain at least some of Australia's trade with Great Britain in the f t re. 1 am not very optimistic about what Australia's representatives will do during the negotiations, but if we get only some minor concessions they will be somethins which we will not lose. If we do not look for other markets - I think we are all agreed that if we lose markets in one direction we must look for them elsewhere - there will be an inevitable decline in our standard of living. If we are to seek other markets we must be certain that our own productive capacity will stand examination when compared with that of other parts of the world, but I do not think it does stand that comparison in some respects. Our ability to compete in price and quality with products from elsewhere will determine the extent of our new markets as far as manufactured goods are concerned, and in that respect we must expect private enterprise to play its part. In the past, private enterprise has left it to the Government to look for new markets and so on and has played a minor role in that regard. In future it is up to private enterprise to work in concert with the Australian Government to see that every effort is made to increase and preserve Australian trade in other parts of the world. The challenge at the moment is that we must find new outlets for our products. Inability to do so will cause a deterioration of our living standards, and I do not think any government worthy of the name would countenance that if it could be avoided. When one talks about new markets one's eyes turn in the direction of Asia. It has become increasingly apparent that Asia, because of its rising living standards, represents a very prominent market for many of Australia's basic commodities. Trade is mounting both ways between Asia and Australia, and Australia has reached a favorable trade balance with Asia of £400,000,000 over the past five years. When we analyse these figures we find that Japan is now Australia's second best customer; she buys more goods from us than any other country except the United States of America. Going from Japan to continental, or Communist, China we find that despite the emotional hostility of the Australian people to Communist China trade is growing steadily. In 1955-56, Australia's exports to China were worth £2,700,000 and in 1959-60 the figure was £16,000,000, and our sales of wheat to China this year will dwarf last year's figures. I would suggest that we must not neglect any further chances of trade with China just because we do not like its political philosophy. I do not like it myself. But we must realize that we have to live in a world of reality which imposes limitations on the attainment of human desires. We have to discriminate between the desirable and the practicable. The practicable is that we have to trade with any country which is prepared to trade with us provided that we do not supply it with materials to use against us in a future war. Our trade with Malaya is increasing. Australia is now the second largest supplier of food to Malaya. Unfortunately, trade with India has fallen steadily over the last five years. Last year our imports from India amounted to £18,000,000 while we exported £16,000,000 worth of goods to that country. It is unfortunate that, for a variety of reasons, our exports to India have dropped when we would like to see them increase. Australia's worst trade balance is with Indonesia. Last year, our imports from Indonesia amounted to £29,400,000 whilst our exports to that country amounted to only £3,200,000. This represented a terrific balance of trade against us, due mainly to the importation of large quantities of oil from Indonesia. Overall, Australian trade with Asia for the last five years has been of such a nature as to make one optimistic for the future if we promote a campaign with vim and vigour. It has increased from a value of £276.000,000 to £383,000,000 a year. That is not bad. But it will have to be improved a lot in order to compensate for the loss of markets in Great Britain if that country takes the decision which it seems certain to take. Last financial year, almost one-third of our exports went to Asian countries - £280.000,000 worth out of £873,000,000 worth in the eleven months to the end ot May. This shows that we have a toehold in Asia and we should further our interests by seeing that the toehold becomes a foothold in the very near future. There has been a vast change in the direction of our trade in recent years. In the foreseeable future, our greatest opportunity is to export foodstuffs to Asian countries. I do not think there is very much opportunity to send a large quantity of manufactured goods to Asia because in this connexion there are some disquieting features about the Asian economy. We must remember that the Asian countries are attempting to speed up their rate of economic development and to diversify their economies. Asian countries do not want to retain agri cultural economies. As long as Australia continues along the same path of rapid economic development, with industrialization and a high rate of immigration, there will be a periodic need to apply import restrictions. What is happening to us will happen to Asian countries in future as they increase their industrial capacity because they will face the very same problems as those which have faced Australia since we have rapidly industrialized our economy. However, there is a prospect that the larger countries of southern Asia will become important markets for Australian foodstuffs. I think that this is inevitable and that we can bank on it to help balance our imports because those countries are trying to raise their living standards, but so far as manufacturers are concerned there is a different story. The first aim of Asian countries is to raise productivity in agriculture, partly to eliminate the drain on foreign exchange for imported food and partly to provide higher incomes for the greater part of their population. This will mean savings to the Asian people for a developing economy, and also a market for an increasing flow of consumer goods from their own new industries. Asia at long last has cut the shackles, of European domination. Asian governments aim, naturally, to increase the standard of living of their own people. They are not concerned about Australia's dilemma, consequent upon Britain's entry into the Common Market. They are concerned about their own interests and we can understand that. I warn the Parliament that any plan to maintain an Australian living standard without helping Asia to increase its standards will not be very successful. In the past, we have helped Asian industries and Asian agriculture to a microscopic degree by the much ballyhooed Colombo Plan. What we have done has been nowhere near enough. If we hope to have better trade with Asia on a two-way basis we have to help its agricultural and secondary industries. By that means we can engender more friendly relations than exist between us at the present time. It is up to the Government to give this lead. **Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).Order!** The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-31-0-s2 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar .- The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** introduced this debate on a high and entirely non-political level and I believe that there is no room for party politics in this very serious matter. It is not certain yet whether Great Britain will enter the Common Market or not. We know that she has opened up negotiations, but whether those negotiations will be successful or on what terms they will succeed depends upon a number of very complicated circumstances and we would not be wise to be too sure of the outcome. At this present moment, therefore, we can talk, to some extent, only in generalities. The Prime Minister laid stress upon the political nature of the decision that Britain was making and the effect that it would have upon her independence and, concurrently, upon her relations with Commonwealth countries. His suggestions were undoubtedly true. When the Australian Federation was set up none of the States thought that the Commonwealth Parliament would achieve the primacy which history has thrust upon it, but achieve this primacy it did. There is no doubt that if Britain enters what she thinks is a limited alliance, that alliance will have political consequences. Eventually it will result in reducing the British Parliament to the same status as the State parliaments in Australia have in relation to Canberra. The State parliaments are called sovereign parliaments, but they have lost many of the vital attributes of sovereignty. I do not say these things without evidence. For example, the last report of the Common Market Commission openly expresses the hope that the European Common Market will develop into a political federation of Europe. This hope has been voiced by other influential figures and was accepted some time ago, I understand, by influential people in the British Parliament itself. There can be little doubt that if Britain makes a decision to go into the Common Market, she will give up a very large proportion of her actual and effective sovereignty. The English Channel, to some extent, will be filled up. The Prime Minister laid stress on this point. 1 think that he did not exaggerate. He might even have understated the political implications. These things are inevitable because a common market presupposes, eventually, a common currency, a common credit system, free movement of labour and capital, free interchange of all commercial activities. It presupposes also equality of wages, hours, social conditions, social services, and all things which make up economic life. They will not be equalized over the whole of Europe immediately, but the process of equalization is inevitably set in train. By going into the European Common Market. Britain sacrifices a great proportion of her traditional independence. It may be that this is desirable, lt may be that under the present threat of Communist domination, not only over Europe but over the whole world, these sacrifices must be endured. It is a matter for the people of Britain to say whether they think such a sacrifice is justified. Under the existing political circumstances in the world, under the present crisis which is so much greater in its implications than are our traditional values, this sacrifice might have to be endured. So much for the political, and perhaps the more important, side. Then there is the economic side. No doubt Britain's manufacturers will face competition if Britain enters the European Common Market. Those manufacturers talk now of chill winds, but they will be required to meet the Arctic blasts of competition and, in their present state, the British manufacturers are not geared to do that. The British labour force will have to accept a longer working week, and perhaps lower rates of pay more in consonance with those applying in the competing countries. If, as is thought, cheaper food will be available from Common Market sources, then the structure of the British rural community will be vastly affected. The British way of life will change, and Britain will have to endure the sacrifices which France and Germany have suffered in two periods of inflation since the end of World War II. Some of the things that we consider best and most desirable, some of the things that we consider ought to be preserved in the British way of life, will have to go. These are tremendous economic sacrifices, and if is i.:p to the British people to say whether or not they want to endure them. But those are the concerns of Britain. It is our concern to protect the interests of Australia, and to make certain that Britain at least is made fully cognizant of the effect that her decision will have on our community as part of the British Commonwealth if she decides to enter the European Common Market. Perhaps our political ties with Britain will not be affected. I hope they will not be, although I fear that inevitably they will be. As the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** said, the nature of the Commonwealth must change. Australia is alined as part of the free world, and I am confident that that alinement will not be affected in any way. If Britain chooses a new kind of grouping for the discharge of her functions in the free world, that will in no way affect our relationship with the free world as a whole. What is perhaps most in question for us at the moment is our economic situation, and this depends largely on the terms of entry by Britain. We do not know whether Britain is going in. If she does go in, we do not know whether she will go in unconditionally or on terms. If she goes in on terms, we do not know on what terms. At the present moment, all we can do is assume that if she goes in the Treaty of Rome, the basic fundamental document of the European Economic Community, will remain unchanged. Under those conditions, Australia stands to lose a good deal economically. It is true that the position of our major export commodity - wool - will be unaffected. Indeed, it may even improve marginally, but there are many other products which will be gravely jeopardized. The honorable member for Maranoa **(Mr. Brimblecombe)** mentioned a few of them this afternoon. Other markets are not available for these products except by special negotiation. The Australian economy is a small economy in which the full advantages of large-scale production cannot be enjoyed. Our small economy cannot produce all the variegated goods we need for our consumption. Therefore, we must be a trading economy. Can we go into a free-trade area? Certainly we cannot go into a free-trade area which is a low-wage area without sacrificing not only the position of the Australian community, but also the development of Australia. Protection is inevitably the mechanism of decentralization. Without protection, manufacturing industries which now comprise most of the world's industries, gravitate inevitably to the centres of big production and big population. The Australian manufacturer could not stand in a free-trade area with low-wage countries. It may be that we can become associated with the European Common Market as an associate member on some particular terms, as Greece did recently. That is a matter for negotiation. Certainly we cannot become simply members of the European Common Market as it stands to-day. Even less can we become members of an Asian common market. A few weeks ago, some fantastic nonsense about this was canvassed in the Sydney press, but Asian wages are low and Asian standards of living are low. For us to enter into an Asian common market must adversely affect the population of Australia. Perhaps we can hope to have some kind of common market with America, where the west coast is available to us, and with Canada. Certainly, although it may not help our dairying industry, we should be thinking again of establishing a closer union with New Zealand, for New Zealand would bring another 2,000,000 people into our market and help to give us a bigger and therefore more viable community. Perhaps, as one consequence of this move, we can hope to see New Zealand become one or two States in the Australian Commonwealth. I do not share the view that it is safe for us to make good the gap by trading with Communist countries. We have already seen from Great Britain, our sincere friend, how other considerations may outweigh the desirability of maintaining continuity of trade with us. I repeat that we have already seen this from a friend. Could we expect any more from an enemy? To involve our economy on any substantial scale with that of Communist Asia would be utter folly. It would be a crime against the Australian people, their standards of living and their future prosperity. It would be a shortsighted, ridiculous policy. It is possible for us, however, in the case of some other nations, including the non-Communist nations of Asia, to enter into safe negotiations for trade increases, not on free-trade terms but on special exchange terms. We can give to them the opportunity to send to Australia those things which Great Britain sends to us now. By so doing, we can induce them to buy from us not merely the things which at present we sell to Great Britain but other things too. Our unfavorable balance of trade with Great Britain, looking at it in the broad, is something like £200,000,000 a year. We have that as a bargaining counter when we are looking among nonCommunist nations in Asia for markets for our primary products. We will be compelled to cut down our imports from Great Britain by £200,000,000 more than they cut down their imports from us, and we will be compelled to use this as a bargaining weapon to get markets for our primary products elsewhere. This is the kind of hypothesis which flows from the British decision. But I think - and I feel that the House will agree - that whatever happens, if Britain goes into the European Economic Community unconditionally - 'and I say " if " - there must be a quite painful redeployment of Australian productive capacity. I give this one example: Our New South Wales north coast would have to turn quite quickly and drastically to meat production rather than dairying production. This re-deployment can be carried out only in times of economic buoyancy. It is essential for us to have economic buoyancy to be able to meet the technical problems of re-deployment of our industries. I think, also, we must make a conscious effort to reduce our dependence upon imports. We are already too much a trading nation. We should endeavour to expand the home market, and home production to go into the home market. The most important feature of this, of course, is oil. Our big import and our increasing import - the only import which is really irreplaceable - is oil. The sooner we devote more of our resources to the search for oil and find oil in Australia, the better for all concerned. It is heartening to find in the Budget that was brought down by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** earlier this week that the Government is doubling its assistance to oil search in Australia. I wish that the multiplier were more than two. Again, we can in many ways be thinking of the manufacturer, especially if he can expand his market by bringing New Zealand within the compass of it, and can expand his production so as to reduce our dependence on overseas trade. He would thus reduce the difficulties which the primary industries are otherwise going to face in finding markets for such products as sugar if Britain goes into the European Common Market unconditionally. There are other clear facts. For example, it is almost inevitable that if Great Britain goes into the European Common Market, there will be some devaluation of sterling. At present, Australia holds very big sterling funds in London. The British Treasury has given guarantees to certain foreign countries that if they hold their foreign funds in London, their exchange rates will be protected for any repatriation of this capital. I think the Australian Government - if it has not already done so - should be already getting a similar guarantee from the British Treasury as a condition of leaving our London funds in London where they are now. All the considerations I have spoken of, which are economic considerations, are important. They are less important than the political considerations. They are less important than the defence considerations. The Government has a paramount duty to preserve the safety of Australia, and this may present problems where the inter-actions between our economic, political and security interests are very difficult to square one with another. {: #subdebate-31-0-s3 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART:
Lang .- The speech by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** last night on the implications of Great Britain's entry into the European Common Market was full of maudlin sentimentality and pessimism. It was a speech which did little to enhance the right honorable gentleman's reputation as a world statesman. The attitude he has adopted as spokesman for the Australian Government bears the same imprint as the policies that the Government has adopted towards most of our internal problems. Here we have a Prime Minister who is a fair-weather Prime Minister. As soon as there are any changes in the political or economic climate, he loses all confidence, fighting spirit, optimism and determination. The same pessimistic views have been outlined in various speeches made in this House by members of the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party. They have no confidence at all in the potential of this country, in the people of Australia, or in the prospects for Australia's development. If one is to judge from the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the President of the United Kingdom Board of Trade, the Lord Privy Seal, the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers in the House of Commons and the House of Lords debates on Britain's entry into the European Common Market, it seems reasonable to state that the general opinion is that Britain has little choice. Admittedly, the motion- that was adopted by the House of Commons stated that the special interests of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association would be considered before any agreement was entered' into. But we have to remember that **Mr. Macmillan** will fee negotiating with the leaders of nations whose main purposes are to safeguard the unity of Western Europe and the economic well-being of their people, and to enhance the prospects of. world peace. They will be tough negotiators, and probably will not be prepared to give the United Kingdom special conditions of membership. If such should be the case, the United Kingdom will undoubtedly follow the practice of doing what is considered to be in the best interests of her own people. The Commonwealth might not be sacrificed, but it will certainly be relegated to second place. This could create a certain amount of hardship and difficulty for Australia; but surely we are old enough, prosperous enough and sufficiently developed to be able to stand on our own two feet. We are a vigorous nation of hard-working people, and we should be prepared to accept the challenge which could be thrown out to us if the United Kingdom joins the European Common Market. In his speech last night, the Prime Minister's main concern seemed to be the disintegration of the Commonwealth of Nations and the loss of British sovereignty, together with the loss of certain markets for some Australian goods. The Commonwealth of Nations has experienced many changes, particularly in recent years. It has changed in its structure very considerably; but the Prime Minister refuses to face up to those changes. He thinks of the Commonwealth as being wholly and solely the United Kingdom. He refuses to face up to the fact that the Commonwealth has been in the process of changing for many years with the granting of independence to India and Pakistan and South Africa's decision to stand apart. On Wednesday, 16th August, 1961, " Muster " in an editorial said that the Prime Minister must face the fact that the Commonwealth is not the same. The editorial said - >But it is not appropriate to the Prime Minister of a nation brought face to face with a new set of economic and political circumstances which demand a dynamic reply to change rather than a reluctant, nostalgic, lookingbackovertheshoulder acceptance of the inevitable. It is not, in fact, even realistic. The Commonwealth has never been " the same "'. It was not the same after Prime Minister Curtin, in the crisis following Japan's entry into the war, turned to the U.S. for the protection Britain was unhappily unable to give. It has been increasingly not the same ever since, commencing with the granting of freedom to India and Pakistan, the Commonwealth, from a tight little group of nations of the same race, basic culture and standards, became a sprawling and ill-assorted assembly of peoples sharing, for the greater part, nothing in common but a fragile bond of self-interest. In the very spheres with which we are currently so concerned, trade and diplomacy, change has been constant and increasingly swift: Pacific policies framed' in Washington, for instance, weigh at least as much with us now as those framed in Whitehall. So the disintegration of the Commonwealth has already commenced and the United Kingdom joining the Common Market, if such it does, is only a further nail in the coffin of the Commonwealth. But at the same time, certain interests within the nations that make up the Commonwealth should be preserved. There is no reason why preferential tariff treatment with various nations outside the United Kingdom should not still be preserved. In his speech last night, the Prime Minister spoke about British sovereignty. What is the sovereignty of which he speaks? I say it is nothing more or less than the right to adopt the narrow instead of the broad view. The horizons are wide in this instance. The unity, the economic welfare and the peace of Western Europe are involved. Selfishness and self-interest should have no part in our thoughts. I feel the main Australian argument against the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market is that some of our primary producers may be affected. The United Kingdom has offered us a ready market and a continuing market for many, many years. This has caused complacency, particularly among our primary producers and those who sell our primary products. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- We have offered the United Kingdom a ready market, too. {: .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART: -- Certainly, we have offered the United Kingdom a ready market, but whatever we have provided to the United Kingdom has been more than paid for by the Australian goods bought by the United Kingdom. The figures were given last night by the honorable members for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** and Scullin **(Mr. Peters).** They show that the United Kingdom in the last few years has had a substantial surplus of trade with Australia. The market has been there for us; it has not been necessary for the Australian producers or exporters to find new markets. There is a chance that some of our markets may decline if the United Kingdom joins the Common Market. But there are many new markets that can be found. In the few short years since 1956, when the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** was first appointed to his portfolio, many new markets for Australian goods have been found. However, if we had made an all-out and determined effort since 1956 to capture some of the markets in Asia, South America and the African continent, perhaps at this stage we would not be nearly as worried as we are about Great Britain entering the European Common Market. Australian primary and secondary incustries have been lazy. Managements of the industries have not endeavoured to find markets. They have left this effort almost entirely to the Government and, whilst the Government has made some attempt, sufficient has not been done. If those who produce goods in Australia expect a market, they should co-operate with the Government at every opportunity in finding a market. The Government should not be expected to find every market that is needed for the sale of Australian primary and secondary products. Before us may lie a period of difficulty and hardship and it is up to governments, managements and employees to cooperate. There may be some reason for our standard of living not being raised, but I cannot agree with the sentiments that have been expressed by the honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** and other Government supporters that, because the United Kingdom happens to have a higher standard than have some of the nations in The Six, it is essential that it should lower its standard. Why not look at it the other way? Why not say that the countries with the highest standards should be the guides and those with the lowest standards should raise their standards. The honorable member for Mackellar spoke about a lowering of wages and longer working hours. But he made no mention of increased efficiency by management in industry. He made no mention of a decrease in profits. He is prepared to allow these matters to be based on competition in trade between the nations of The Six. The entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market could have certain effects on Australian primary produce. It may be necessary for us to change our attitude towards the crops we grow. We may find it necessary to produce different crops to accommodate the demands of our new purchasers. Certain action can be taken to build up the economy of this country in order to preserve our markets and our overseas trade balances. Preferential treatment could easily be granted to our customers. At present we have the British preferential tariff. If the United Kingdom joins the Common Market, this preference is likely to decline, and, I cannot see any reason why the Government should not then introduce preferential tariff treatment for those nations that are prepared to buy our goods. Certain other action could be taken. Selective import restrictions could be introduced to preserve our overseas trade balances. The honorable member for Mackellar said that we could devote some of our activities to becoming less an importing nation. One way to create this situation is to impose selective import restrictions. If our primary and secondary producers are to gain overseas markets, particularly in underdeveloped countries, it may be essential for the Government to increase or to grant incentives and subsidies to our exporters. Another aspect that seems to be overlooked in these times is that Australia is still seeking a tremendous number of people to increase our population. Our immigration quota could be greatly increased so that our internal market would become much bigger than it is at present. But if the immigration programme is to be increased, it is essential that full employment be maintained. Another factor causing some of the decline in our overseas reserves is the tremendous amount of money being invested in Australia by overseas companies. These companies with their investments should be welcomed, but they should not be given an open cheque. They should not be allowed to charge whatever price they wish for the goods they sell. They should not be allowed to send out of this country the profits they make and they should be compelled to publish balance-sheets so that the Australian people can see what profits they are making and how much they are sending abroad. There is no reason at all why these companies and investors should not be controlled. I believe that at this time, when there is an imminent danger of the United Kingdom joining the Common Market, it is right that an investigation should be made into the activities of overseas investors in Australian companies. We should find out, for instance, what prices these companies are charging and what profits they are making. We should find out whether these Australian companies are being denied, by their parent companies overseas, the right to sell in markets abroad. Oil is a commodity that costs us a great deal of money and seriously depletes our overseas balances. I realize that the Government has, during the past few years, made some attempt to assist in the search for oil in Australia by granting subsidies to companies engaging in exploration for oil. In this Budget the Government has almost doubled the subsidy for oil exploration. This, however, is not sufficient. It is not enough merely to give an open cheque to these companies, which are spending millions of pounds in setting up distilleries here, for their oil exploration activities. I can tell the House of an oil exploration company in Australia which was able to sell to two American oil companies the right to explore on certain leased land, the consideration being 25 per cent, of profits made by the two American companies on any oil they might find on those lands. Surely an Australian government should ensure that a national asset such as oil should be held in the hands of the Australian community. Overseas financiers do not invest in Australian primary or secondary industries, or in oil search activities, simply because they like to do so. They make their investments because they see the opportunity to reap continuing profits and they see the prospects of widespread development in this country. It is up to any Australian government, of whatever political complexion, to preserve our assets, and to see that the wealth of the country, developed with the brains and hands of the people of Australia, is retained in Australian hands. It is not sufficient to grant these subsidies; we must also preserve the assets if we are to face the challenge that is confronting us at the present time. There are certain other comments that I would have liked to make, but time is running short. I would like to conclude by saying that unless this Government has confidence in Australia and is prepared to do some of the things that I have suggested this afternoon, the hardships and suffering that are likely to be experienced by Australian industry will be of great magnitude. We must work for the future. We must build up our economy and preserve our assets. We should welcome overseas investors, but only on our terms. The likelihood of Britain joining the European Common Market should not be a cause of pessimism or despair. It should be accepted as a challenge to Australia to prove its worth as a nation, to take its place as a large-scale exporter of primary and secondary products, to maintain its standard of living and, at the same time, to assist under-developed nations in their march towards progress. Irrespective of the decision that Britain will make, many of the suggestions I have made should be adopted by the Australian Government so that our country may be developed. Australia can do it; Australia will do it if the necessary confidence, determination, initiative and example are shown by the Australian Government. {: #subdebate-31-0-s4 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- In political controversy it is usual, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** to find violent differences of opinion. The violence may moderate from time to time, according to the circumstances. I had hoped that on this occasion, despite the controversial nature of the issue to which the House is attending, there would have been an attempt to achieve a detachment from mere party allegiance. Last night the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** set out in a lofty way to explain the basic elements involved in this issue. No sooner had he sat down than the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** turned himself into the most forlorn political figure that this Parliament has ever gazed upon. He made no attempt at all to grapple with the fundamentals of the issue. He evidently considered it more important to try to win a few votes. I want to tell the honorable gentleman, with great respect, that there are no votes to be won in this issue. Whatever some of the carping little critics opposite may say of the Prime Minister, the history of this country, which has an affection for honesty which is not held by some of the Prime Minister's critics to-day, will portray the right honorable gentleman, not only as one of the most devoted servants of this Parliament, but also as one of the most devoted servants of the Commonwealth cause. That is how the record will show him. This issue is a great one. It would be - and again opinions may differ - the greatest issue that this Parliament has ever debated. Its significance dwarfs, in many respects, that of the industrial revolution. You would need to go back to Simon de Montfort and the beginnings of the concept of parliamentary government to find a parallel. You could not point to anything that has happened in the last ten or fifteen years and say, " There is a parallel ". This, **Sir, is** a new concept entirely in the affairs of men and in the order of society. It is a new concept and a fundamental change. I believe that we should all discipline ourselves to the extent of not depending on what some editorial writer has to say about the European Economic Community organization, or on what some one's view about it may be. The essence of the duty of members of this House, and of any other person who sets out honestly to understand the issues, is to go to the treaty itself and to read it as a whole. We must consider carefully the language that is used in it, giving that language its ordinary, everyday meaning. We should not embark on some voyage of exploration and discovery in the newspaper editorials; we should go to the treaty and read it. What does the treaty say? This admittedly involves matters of interpretation, which are open to dispute, but we are obliged to look at the language of the treaty. The concept of the treaty provides for the submergence of parliamentary government as we know it. That may seem, to some, a rash statement, but I shall set out to substantiate it. When the Rome treaties were signed - I believe in the plurality here, to cover the two organizations, Euratom and the European Economic Community - a convention was signed at the same time. The effect of that convention was to make common to the three communities, the European Coal and Steel Community, Euratom and the European Economic Community, two institutions - not three, as 1 saw in some documents here to-day - a court of justice and a European parliamentary assembly. This European parliamentary assembly has no legislative character at all. It has the power to sanction, and it has the power to summon a commission - that is, one of the three commissions, if you will forgive me for referring to the European Coal and Steel Community's high authority as a commission. For all practical purposes we can say that there are three commissions, and the European parliamentary assembly has the power to summon a commission to give an account of its activities. It has the power to dismiss, by a two-thirds majority vote, a commission. It has no power to dismiss a single commissioner. The relationship of a commission and of a council to the parliamentary assembly is, broadly, as follows: The three commissions in their respective fields are administrative, recommending bodies. The councils are executive bodies. The commissions are composed of nine individuals chosen, as the treaty lays down, for their indisputable competence and integrity. These are the nine experts, and their task is to range over the whole of the community's activities. They make recommendations to the Council of Ministers, and the council will put them into effect if it agrees with those recommendations. The way in which the council will vote depends on the issues with which it is confronted. Some issues call for a unanimous vote. But it is interesting to note, **Sir, that,** in the majority of cases in which the requirement of a unanimous vote is laid down, that requirement shall prevail only during the first two stages of the community's existence - that is, for the first eight years. Thereafter, the council may vote by a qualified majority vote. That brings me to the voting powers of the six member countries. The three major powers have four votes each, Belgium and the Netherlands have two votes each, and Luxembourg has one. So there may be a qualified majority vote on the basis of twelve votes, and the three major powers can out-vote the three minor ones. Any one who likes to look at the Treaty of Rome will find, for example, that Article 155 of the treaty gives the European Economic Community Commission its own power of disposition. Article 189 makes directives binding on nationals and on member countries. Article 192, I think, deals with the powers of execution of the judgments of the Court of Justice, and any one who turns to this article will find that those judgments are enforceable. This is a great issue. The Treaty of Rome does not deal solely with tariffs, trade and customs. Any person who insists on saying that it does deal only with those matters is open to a charge of not having read the treaty or, if he has read it - I think this would be a tolerable impertinence - of not having understood it. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: -- Who said that the treaty deals solely with tariffs, trade and customs? {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- That has not been said here, but it has been said by people outside this country. They have put the emphasis on trade, tariffs and customs. But the Treaty of Rome is not a document which puts the emphasis on those matters. It is not a treaty of trade. It is fundamentally a constitution. Article 3 (h) provides for the approximation of the municipal law of member countries - in other words, the approximation of the national law of member countries - to fit in with the requirements of the treaty. The power there is as wide a power as any one could imagine. Those are the facts, **Sir, and** they explain the sort of background on which a judgment should be brought to bear on the question of Britain's entry into the European Economic Community. What are the responsibilities of Britain's membership? An application has been made by the United Kingdom under Article 237. There is scope for association with the community under Article 238. Many of us, realizing the sort of difficulties that impinge on the British people to-day, would have preferred an application under Article 238 to the application that has been made under Article 237. Some people, with a spirit of optimism, have said, " Of course, there is a lot of scope here for the brilliant capacity of the British to find a formula for compromise ". I do not know where people get that idea from. If you turn again to the treaty - and that is where one finds the value of the discipline of reading the treaty as a whole - to seek for any possibility of some brilliant compromise in Britain's participation in the treaty, one finds that a substantial modification of the treaty and the jettisoning of its fundamenal political basis would be necessary. Is any one at liberty to imagine that that sort of thing can take place? We have read what Professor Hallstein, the President of the European Economic Community Commission, had to say a few months ago. He said: " We are not in business. We are in politics." We can go, too, to what President de Gaulle has said. He has been described as an ardent Frenchman with a great sense of national pride. When he reviewed the whole field of international relations following the break-down of the last Summit Conference, he referred in the most explicit language to the need to create a unified Europe. Perhaps I may now interrupt my theme to say something about this unified Europe, **Sir. I** can appreciate - I hope, with adequate sensitivity - the need for a bulwark to be erected against the spread of the power of Moscow. But it is interesting to recall that some of the people who snipe at the Prime Minister to-day have despised and trenchantly criticized those who have sought to explain and point out the dangers of the machinations of Moscow. However, that can be left for another day. What is the price that the British people have to pay in this? Even if suitable economic adjustments with respect to our trade and the trade of the rest of the Commonwealth and arrangements for the continuation of the preferential system for ten or twelve years could be made - if all those things could be gained - the fundamental fact of the political implications and the essential political basis of the European Economic Community would not be altered. If the United Kingdom Parliament committed itself to the Treaty of Rome as it now stands, the authority of the House of Commons would be equal only to that of some local government authority. Therefore, **Sir, this** is no mean and miserable issue. I implore those people who want to challenge that statement to discipline themselves and read the treaty, to give to the language that is used its ordinary everyday meaning and not to go on some voyage of discovery and say, " This may not happen for many years to come ". We must take the treaty as it is to-day and examine it carefully. The powers given to the Court of Justice mean that Britain's committal in the European Economic Community would see the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords substantially disappear, because the authority and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice can, in many circumstances, run to an ordinary tort action. I hope that those people who are so bemused by what they regard as the trifling insignificance of this issue will at least recognize the fact that in many circumstances the Court of Justice can sit in camera. I trust that those people will recognize, also, that the British people, who for centuries have wrestled against judicial proceedings in camera, have found their anchorage in the system of British law. As I have said, we have to consider the Treaty of Rome on its present basis. That is the only basis on which I consider we are at liberty to take it. If we consider the effect on the British people of Britain's entry into this community, we find that in many respects the entire structure of the prerogative writs of the British people would disappear. Would any individual find it funny to have his rights and powers interfered with abruptly, clumsily and improperly by some quasi-judicial tribunal? I point out that there are 2,000 tribunals in Britain at the present time. Would that be a funny business? What of the possibility of Britain entering the Common Market? Until a few months ago, if one took at their face value the sentiments expressed by senior British Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, one would have been led to the conclusion that Britain would not enter the Common Market. I say with some feeling that no person has more misled the British people on this issue than has the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He has led the British people and the British Com monwealth on this issue with the same measure of assurance as that with which a blindfolded man would walk in a foreign territory. A few months ago, **Mr. Reginald** Maudling, the President of the British Board of Trade, said that the supra-national qualities of the European Economic Community would never be tolerated by Great Britain. Let us go back to **Mr. Macmillan's** survey of the reasons why Britain failed to enter the European Coal and Steel Community. He stated that Britain would never give to any supra-national authority the right to close down Britain's coal pits and tell the United Kingdom how much steel to make. The whole British world has been waiting and wondering why there has been this grievous vacillation by Britain. Some people to-day contend that the British Commonwealth has changed. Yes, it has changed. I admit that. But I believe that it has changed for the worse. There was a time when the British people spoke with one voice and acted with one accord. The House and the country would do well to recall that in 1940 and 1941 the whole British world stood alone against the tyranny of Hitler and to-day, because of the great losses and sacrifices of the British people, many European countries are in a position of dominance, and the United Kingdom is a weakling. This is a sorry business. There are those who believe that, God willing and we deserving, something of the old authority of the British world will come back into being. Britain is not done. Britain is not dead. If there is a will, and the way can be found, all of us owe a duty, not only to ourselves and to future generations but also to our ancestors who worked so nobly and so successfully in creating one of the finest institutions that the world has ever known - the British Commonwealth of Nations. We may be tempted to-day to despise it, but I hope that history will not despise us for our indifference. {: #subdebate-31-0-s5 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- The honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen),** in the loud ringing voice of the law student, has asked this Parliament to look at the Treaty of Rome, to read it and to digest it. Of course, all of us in our various ways have looked at the treaty. Some of us like to look at human motives, and some like to discover, from the words of statesmen, what is happening. But the honorable member has insisted that we look at the treaty, so, because of his forthcoming examinations, we shall help him by looking at the treaty. However, before doing so let us remind ourselves that in order to get this treaty the Treaty of Potsdam was torn up. There is no question about that. In the twenty minutes that has been allotted to each speaker one cannot analyse the reasons to decide whether that is a good thing. In order to get an effective trade treaty with Japan we tore up the peace treaty that had been made by the Allies and abandoned the surrender directives issued by MacArthur. So, we should not regard a treaty as something sacred. It is a highly perishable commodity. The honorable member for Moreton has asked us to look at the Treaty of Rome, so let us do so. It consists of 248 Articles, and it is tedious, legal, tendentious and hard for a layman to understand. I have performed my darg on many a night on this treaty, and 1 have found that three or four of the easier requirements have been implemented but 245 remain to be implemented. They are the difficult ones relating to farm support in Europe, worker conditions and currency. None of those has been resolved but, curiously enough, the cartelization of Europe in preparation for the British lamb to be shorn has been achieved well in advance. Inside even the dry-as-dust treaties which bring such lyrical phraseology from the honorable member for Moreton may be found some of the reasons why this matter has to be looked at most critically. Unfortunately, twenty minutes does not give any one sufficient time to discuss what the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** described as one of the most important documents ever to come before us. He took his leisurely time on it but gave the rest of us poor mortals only twenty minutes to make a case. The honorable member for Phillip **(Mr. Aston),** who is interjecting, is a better hand at life saving than participating in a debate of this kind. 1 suggest that he be careful lest he be caught by a dumper on about 9th December next. There will be a time lag of three years in the full implementation of the Treaty of Rome. Who will tell me that this thing will sweep Europe and be so effective that we will be caught up immediately? The honor able member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth),** from whom I differ most violently in most things, made a studious and sensible contribution to the debate. He saw the traps and difficulties of the whole situation. This treaty contains a veto which is as damaging and as dangerous as the veto that may be exercised in the United Nations organization. The dominant partner, which was our former enemy and which was rebuilt by the American dollar, has the right of veto. With its new-won friend, the Republic of France, it can say, " We do not like that so we shall freeze it, not for three minutes, not for three days, not until we get sufficient numbers, but for three years ". If we look at the treaty, as the honorable member for Moreton has asked us to do, we shall see a lot of rather frightening things. We have to face a fait accompli in Europe. We have to support it or, as the Prime Minister has said, at least give it tacit acknowledgment because a sovereign country can do as it wishes and therefore the matter is not essentially our business. When we come to look at the situation which surrounds the treaty we will have moments of misgivings. But there are also moments of hope. I pass from this dry-as-dust treaty by reminding honorable members that treaties are scraps of paper. We have learned from our history books - we must take painful looks at history - that the label " a scrap of paper " was put on Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg's treaty between Imperial Germany and Belgium. That treaty was torn up. The democracies have scattered scraps of paper all over the world because of our fear of the resurgence of Russia and have signed military security pacts because of our inability to do anything except impose economic sanctions on a country. The honorable member for Moreton was sincere and correct in his statement that the European Common Market arrangement is not a trade pact so much as a political pact. Let us consider what statesmen - the weak and the strong, the vocal and the silent - say and think about the situation. Coming back to Australia after having had a vision of Britannia as a glamorous and Junoesque figure in red, white and blue raiment with a crown on her head and a trident in her hand, the Prime Minister descended from cloud cuckoo land and found that Britannia in reality is a bunch of bank directors, cartel directors and a lot of other people, and that the bonds of empire are the 6 per cent, negotiable ones. He admitted this in effect. On 30th July, with tears in his eyes he said, referring to the British Commonwealth - >I used to think that I knew all about the Commonwealth, now I am not so sure. That is the comfort that the country receives to counter the worry that exists. Who can put a time limit of three, four, five, ten or twenty years before we shall get new markets and ease the burden that has been imposed upon us? We are a primary producing country. We were safe in the belief that the Motherland would take our exports; we were safe in the security of the Ottawa Agreement, and we were safe in the belief that whatever happened our economy was secure. But those beliefs disappeared overnight. The Prime Minister wept in his beard before us and said, " I thought I knew all about the Commonwealth ". He decides that he does not know anything about it at all. That is the No. 1 man on whom we have to depend. Let us have the quote of his deputy. He said on 21st June - and I believe that the words of men are more than the evasions of a treaty - >It would be unthinkable for Australia to contemplate that foreigners- Mark the word " foreigners ", after all this lick and spittle about our friends and neighbours, and all the people of the free world, including our sworn and detestable enemies, gathered together because they are frightened of the future. He said - >It would be unthinkable for Australia to contemplate that foreigners should obtain a preferred market in the United Kingdom. Well, of course, that is exactly what happens, and on 21st June he said he did not know a thing about it. So those are the slender reeds of support for our case against the Common Market - a,' Prime Minister who weepingly says, " I thought I knew all about the Commonwealth ". But in Britain they were only duchessing. They will not take any notice of our people. They probably say, " There is a Prime Minister from Austria, or Baluchistan, or Afganisstan, or perhaps Australia, due on the 3rd of the month. Give him the rounds, and get him back on his plane as soon as you can." So he does not get to the general essence of what this problem is. The second reed is the Australian Country Party leader, the leader of the people euphoniously known as the denizens of Possum Paddock, who do not know where they are in this thing. They should be in alliance with us at this moment in order to try to fight for their markets and the preservation of the things that they stand for because they, in turn, as has the Briton, by urgent and horrible necessity, have had this case whimsically handed to them on a plate and have been told, " It will be all right in the sweet by and by ". The Russians, the greatest literary race in the world, or level with the British in that respect, have a saying that a warm man does not fear the snow. To-day, the warm man with a job to go to cannot visualize what a lower standard of living would mean to this country. I do not entirely disagree with some of the long-range principles of the Common Market - but people cannot live on longrange plans when they have short-range bellies. They have to be fed and looked after, and the concern of the worker is my concern. I want to know what has really happened in Britain in regard to the Common Market, and how it will affect the British working man and the British people. It is true, as the honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** said, that Britain's entry into the Common Market will represent a loss of sovereignty, will represent a loss of prestige, will represent in the long run a loss of Dominion status as we know it. How else could it be? Is the prize of a share of European trade a big enough prize for Britain to justify her entry into the Common Market? Britain must decide that for herself, certainly. We cannot do it. But I suppose that there is nothing more sardonic in history than that Britain, the architect of victory against Hitler - and here I agree with the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** - should have to be a suppliant, almost on all fours, to get into the Common Market as a junior partner. How did that come about? That did not come about through any great inefficiency on the part of Britain. It came about through this mad economic aid which is not social aid, but is only a pouring out of money. American aid to Europe, which excluded Britain, meant new tactics. For every bomb we dropped we built a new factory. For every car that was destroyed in the horrors of war there were more cars. For every tram destroyed there were more trams. All these things that were destroyed were built bigger and better than before. So Krupps is smoking again. The Aktien-Gesellshaft Farbenindustrie is going on with its chemical production. All the things that were proscribed and destroyed by the whole of the civilized world during the Hitler regime are flourishing in Germany to-day, and we have to accept it because our friend has done this thing to us. The United States, in its desire to move the menace of the Russians, economically, politically and militarily ever further back, has built up Western Germany, and you have the astounding anomaly that the people we defeated are in their present position - and 20,000,000 people died in the war in which we defeated them! The poppies bloom on Flanders fields, but I wonder whether the men and women who think about these things think that the sacrifice was worthwhile, when in sixteen years we can forget all that happened and cheer the new alliance. It is necessary. We must survive. A cynical attitude, but nevertheless one we have to take. Britain goes into Europe as a partner in this economic set-up in the hope of surviving. They talk about the new concept. There has not been a new concept. Britain, with her isolation policy and her balance of power policy, has for centuries been playing giant Europe against the tight little island - and winning. There was the Hanseatic League of the eleventh century which broke up; there was the Triple Alliance which broke up in war; there was the Entente Cordial which broke up in war. I fervently hope that a treaty of this dimension does not break up. Do not run away with the idea that there is a classic formula for the preservation of these things, because there are too many things involved. Let us look at this from the point of view of the British worker. His mines could be closed down, his social services could be lowered and his basic wage or average wage certainly could be lowered. His social service conditions will be policed by the Europeans rather than by himself. This is a tragic loss of sovereignty not only on the political level, but also on the social level. Then, of course, you have to remember that his hands are tied when he goes into the new world as a competitor. The British have not been able to re-gear and re-tool to produce the sort of modern techniques needed in a new world that wants gimmicks and different cars and new patterns and different styles in the rush for trade, because they have not had Yankee dollars pouring in to help them as Europe has. The lion and the lamb lying down together - France and Germany - will dictate the terms to the Briton who, in the long run, and in the hard run, did hold the world against the perils of Hitlerism. We may dismiss those things, and say that they no longer matter. If sixteen years makes complete nonsense of all we believed in for 600 years, then let us accept the new situation happily, but if we want to go cautiously we can still do a great deal for ourselves and for civilization by watching the position. I hear of the new techniques of these new countries, and of our trade with them amounting to £170,000,000 or £200,000,000, and I am interested and pleased. But I know the old trick that has been played in this country, and that is being played now in Europe. While all the conditions relative to the worker are still to be decided, the conditions relative to the boss have long since been recognized and observed and approved. The cartelization of Germany is complete. As I said, the Krupps factories are smoking, the A.-G. Farbenindustrie is going on, and all the German industries are going full steam. You bet that when you run into the solid wall of cartelization, that is where the worker is going to get into trouble - the German worker, the French worker, and even the British worker, who is an interchangeable commodity. There is the question of currency. Currency to-day will have its players - Britannia, De Gaulle and Adenauer. It is better than two-up as far as I can see. But, returning to the urgency of the situation in regard to labour, the worker in Britain, unless he can fight it out, as we will have to fight it out, will get another issue of blood, sweat and tears. If that is inevitable we have to be with him. Perhaps he can work it out oh a basis of compromise - but compromise is only a slogan. There is no compromise with the bosses. However, I do fear for the British working man, who may have to .accept lower standards so that the Germans, the Italians and the French can sell more goods, lt does not .seem feasible. One cannot go on all the .time about the Australian point of view. Perhaps I will *be able to* talk about that during the Budget debate. But what about the political implications? We have the rather woolly statement of the Prime Minister, and the statement of his colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Government. But when you come to Adenauer, the President of the West German Republic, we find that he makes no bones about it. He said that this was much more a political treaty than an economic or trade .treaty. I accept it as such because, being closer to the Russians, he wants a barrier. Even when we look at it objectively and not politically, we can see the inherent dangers. Will this arrangement make for peace, or may we be thrust .unexpectedly into a war? I do not know. All .of us axe thinking in space on this matter. We are the victims or the beneficiaries of .good public relations and research. Known facts are as scarce as possible in this debate, and most of your conclusions .and mine are educated guesses or conjecture. I have only about three minutes to go, and I have mentioned the position of the British worker and the workers .elsewhere. But what about the Australian worker, and the Australian farmer, who *is* a worker? Wool is duty free, wheat is sold under an international agreement which could .be torn up like the Potsdam agreement and the Japanese Peace Treaty. The meat agreement, which should r.un to 1964, could .be ripped up and a 20 per cent, tariff imposed. Import duties, tariffs or quotas and the internal support for meat in Europe act to the detriment of Australia, and Australian meat ,could have a 20 per cent, tariff imposed on .it. Sugar .could have a 20 per cent, tariff or a 10. per cent, tariff imposed on it. The tariff on frozen meat could be 20 per cent., and there could be 19 per cent, tariff on lamb and mutton. The butter market is gone with the wind, no matter what the members of the Australian Country Party over there may say. The Danes already dominate the British market. Our butter comes to .the British consumer as a blended low-grade commodity, and when the Common Market is a fact you can forget about your butter unless y.ou can sell it to China or somebody else. So what happens? We have to get a breakdown there somewhere, and we might get it through people who are able to grow things. I believe that people who are .able to grow things can eventually sell them; but the trouble is at what price. And if the price is not favorable our standard of living falls; no matter how rhetorical the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** is about it. And in the awful interregnum how far do we go down before we get back to the peak again? What is the quick answer? We must live in our own hemisphere and trade with Asian countries which have 'no money, and with Communist China - let us face it - and with Japan and with all the other Asian countries. When you trade with them and sell them your primary products you have to be prepared to take capital goods from Asia rather than from Europe. If not, you are kidding yourself; because if y.ou have a solid economic bloc in Europe you have not got to have the same thing, because it is not feasible, but you must have -the same moral obligation of doing the best for your own people in the nearest market. In doing that you have to give massive credit. The Labour Party could contrive it. We would use the Commonwealth Bank and our .national revenues and security and the potential of the people to .underwrite our markets rather than let our products rot. 'We do not want piles of unsold primary products. We want to sell -them, but if we cannot sell them what better than give them to .the thousands of starving Asians who .are without food. Twothirds of :the world is hungry and yet we talk about economic blocs. We have to grow up and become a nation and do these things. We have to have our own shipping line and our own international credit. As the member for Yarra **(Mr. Cairns)** said so cogently on another occasion, we must have a new economic set-up to protect ourselves. Any nation that is based on a strong rural economy with a growing secondary economy, in the long run has nothing to fear. We have 3,000,000 square miles of country and a population of 10,000,000 people, and yet what foolish things we have done. If we wanted to trade to-morrow and all European trade was thrown away and we had nothing left, we would not have even a bum boat to put our products in to take them to China, Madagascar, or South Africa or any other of our nearest potential markets, because of the utter and degrading stupidity of the national governments of to-day and yesterday. If the Government wants a policy for the country we will be glad to take it to the hustings on the question of the Common Market and the way in which the Government has fallen down in this matter because it does not know what happens. To-day the Government does not realize the position, and the remedies we suggest are ones it dare not undertake. There is no question, therefore, that this agreement has to be taken as a dramatic change. In the days of Eureka we tried to become a republic. {: #subdebate-31-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-31-0-s7 .speaker-KDS} ##### Mr FAILES:
Lawson -- I would not attempt to reply to the. speech of the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen),** for two reasons: First, I did not understand what he was talking about and secondly, with the exception of what he said in the last few moments I could not relate any of his remarks to either the statement of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** or to the amendment which was moved by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** last night. The people of Australia have shown an intensive interest in the application of the United Kingdom to become a member of the European Economic Community and they have no doubt appreciated the Prime Minister's frank statement last night. It must, however, have been a blow to supporters of the Opposition to hear in place of an equally frank statement an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to divert the issue to a plain party political attack on the Government without even the support of constructive criticism. The Leader of the Opposition indulged in levity and personalities on a subject which may, and in fact will, I think, have very long-term effects on the nation. It seemed to me that the opportunity existed last night for the honorable gentleman really to give a lead in his speech in reply to that of the Prime Minister. Instead, it appears as though the issue has been put aside and that plain party politics has been made of it. The Leader of the Opposition made certain assertions to support the amendment he proposed. Those assertions were founded on misconceptions, many of which were replied to earlier, in anticipation, by the Prime. Minister. To my mind the subject of the European Economic Community is both complex and simple. I say " complex ", because of the ramifications of history, politics, economics and trade. It is not just a simple Common Market discussion that we are indulging in, but a discussion on a matter of tremendous importance, to people in the Old World. It is a matter which will uproot many of the old historical conceptions of the unity of nations or, conversely, their disunity. It is an organization which envisages changes in the politics of Europe, changes possibly for the good and benefit of Europe as a whole and also of the economics of European countries. Of course, trade is one of its associated parts; and the trade aspect is attracting more attention in Australia than any other aspect. While it is a complex subject, at the same time I consider it is a simple one because the decision is for the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom alone. The things that have been said in this House by some members of the Opposition in criticism, as I take it from some remarks of the honorable member for Parkes, of the action of the United Kingdom Government, have overlooked the basic fact that the Government of the United Kingdom alone can make the decision as to whether she will join the community which has been formed among these European nations. Australia has made her position quite plain in the communique which was issued after the visit of **Mr. Sandys.** It is that whilst we do not raise objection to the United Kingdom applying for membership of the Common Market, at the same time we do not thereby imply approval. That is obvious, because there are great considerations affecting us which have to be given considerable thought before we can say straight out, " Right. We do not object to your joining the Common Market, and we give our approval." So we have withdrawn that part which we were entitled to withdraw, and have said that some part of the proposition might affect us and we therefore make that reservation. The point is that the United Kingdom may withdraw its application or may proceed with or without protection for Commonwealth interests. In the first case, if it withdraws the application, our position is still not what it was a month or six months ago. But there is, from our point of view, a considerable difference in our position according to whether the application is proceeded with on the basis of protection for Commonwealth interests or without the protection which we have envisaged. It is our duty as representatives of the people of Australia, insofar as we can reconcile the protection of Australia's interests with the great concern that we have for the United Kingdom's problems, to attempt to bring about some reconciliation of that type. We have a very great appreciation of the problems of the United Kingdom, particularly since the introduction a short while ago of the United Kingdom Budget, which showed the unfortunate position in which Great Britain stands at the present time. We also have an appreciation of the resultant problems for Australian trade. As I said before, whether the application is completed or not, various opinions exist as to the magnitude of its effect on Australian trade, but it will unquestionably affect our primary industries, which are the most vital industries in our economic life. The point should not be overlooked that the great burden of anything which may result from the course which the United Kingdom may pursue will inevitably fall principally on our primary industries. Little or no concern seems to have been shown by the public about the direct effect on secondary industry. Possibly that is because our secondary industries are thriving under tariff protection and have priced themselves out of world markets. But it should not be forgotten that secondary industry depends upon primary exports to supply the credit for the purchase of much raw material and a great amount of the machinery required to produce goods, even for our own use in Australia. That is bornt out by facts and figures issued by statisticians from time to time and it is one of the cardinal things that we should keep in mind. The protection of primary export industries is of vital importance not only to those industries but also to Australia as a whole because of the great dependence by secondary industries and the consumers of this country on farm commodities for credits overseas to enable us to play our part in the scheme of things. The Opposition has charged the Government with lack of foresight, dilatoriness and failure to appreciate the real issues involved. These are the charges which form the basis of the amendment which has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and which one would expect members of the Opposition to endeavour to substantiate in this debate. So far, I have not heard any reasonable substantiation of those charges. I say that the amendment appears to spring from these charges because the first statement on this subject by the Leader of the Opposition which I saw appeared in the "Sydney Morning Herald" of 13th July, 1961. According to this report the Leader of the Opposition said - >Australia should have sought alternative markets immediately the Common Market was first proposed in 1952 but nothing was done. There is absolute silence from the Opposition benches because members of the Opposition know that they cannot substantiate that statement which was made by their leader. That is why they do not refer to it either now or when they are speaking in this debate. How ignorant is the Opposition of what the Government has done in promoting trade relations with overseas countries! Last night, the Prime Minister gave brief details which are worth repeating. I shall repeat them with some additions which he obviously did not have time to supply. In 1949, when a Labour government was in office, there were seventeen Australian trade posts in twelve countries. In 1961-62 there are 37 trade posts in 28 countries. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- What results have been obtained? {: .speaker-KDS} ##### Mr FAILES: -- I shall cite them, shortly. In 1949 the trade publicity vote provided by the Labour Party, which is always talking about the need for new export markets, particularly for primary industries, was £16,000. To-day, it is £1,000,000. That money has been well spent. In 1956 the Department of Trade was created and it set out to expand export trade, not only for primary industries but for the products of Australian industries generally. The department has been responsible for a tremendous expansion of our trade. The Opposition is also silent on this point. Every honorable member receives a copy of a book entitled " Overseas Trading " every month. No doubt a large proportion throw them into the waste-paper basket, but if the honorable member for East Sydney, for instance, were to look at the book he would find the answer to his question about the extent to which trade has increased. This book contains a great number of interesting figures and facts concerning overseas trade and export opportunities. It is a compendium of information of value to the producer, primary or secondary, who may be interested in export trade. The Export Payments Insurance Corporation which was also referred to by the Prime Minister was established in 1956. To-day it has Current policies valued at £26,000,000, spread over 120 companies. Because of lack of time, the Prime Minister did not mention the Export Development Council. This council was established in 1958 to advise the Government on the development of export trade. It is a most authoritative body comprising representatives of commerce, manufacturing, banking, grazing, farming and the Department of Trade. In fact it represents the cream of the people who are able to advise the Government on export trade opportunities. It is a very old story that England is a nation of shop-keepers, lt is time that we, too, sent our men out into the world to sell our goods. We are producing the cheapest wheat in the world and we should get out and sell it. We are producing various manufactures and we should get out and sell them. The Export Development Council has fostered a great number of promotion plans to help us to get out and sell. Our new trade programme will be built on the foundations of work which has taken place over recent years. A tremendous amount of work has to be put into this task. Since 1954 the government has sponsored thirteen missions overseas including those to Africa, India, Singapore, Malaya, Bangkok, Rangoon, South America and the Pacific Islands such as Fiji and the French territories. To-day, I believe, a mission leaves for Canada and the United States of America. These are only some of the things that have been done or which have been sponsored by the Government to try to build up our export trade. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has had the audacity to say that, since 1952, nothing has been done to promote our export trade. He is blind to all the things that have been done by the Department of Trade. I am speaking of the Government instrumentalities that have done these things. These things have been done by the government on its own initiative, not by industry although industry also has played its own part. We have engaged in trade fairs in Auckland, Tokyo, Toronto, Vancouver, Milan, Lausanne, Hong Kong and Singapore. Australian products have been demonstrated at each of those fairs. People came from all over Europe to Lausanne and were impressed by the products from Australia. England did not build up its reputation of being a nation of shop-keepers in a day and Australia cannot do it in a day. But in the twelve years since this Government took office we have expanded our trade by an amount of which I will tell the House shortly. We have arranged commodity agreements concerning wheat, sugar, tin, meat and flour. We have agreements with the Federal Republic of Germany and with Ceylon. We negotiated the Japanese Trade Agreement which was scathingly referred to by the Opposition in the House last night. Last year, that agreement was worth £162,000,000 to Australia. In 1949-50 Australian trade wilh Japan amounted only to £24,000,000. Iri 1949-50, the total exports from Australia amounted to £617,000,000. Since then, there has been an increase, not due entirely to trade missions, but largely as the result of work done by this Government, and, by 1960-61, the total value of our exports was £917,000,000, or over 50 per cent, more than in 1949-50. Since 1949-50, our trade with foreign countries has increased from £259,000.000 to £536,000,000. I have made no reference to sales by the Australian Wheat Board, which set out to sell a staggering carry-over of wheat over the last few years. The board has achieved remarkable results. Yet, in the face of all this evidence, the Opposition persists in its assertions, and has put forward the amendment under discussion. The Leader of the Opposition claims to have a solution to the problem. For instance, on. 12th July, 1961, he is reported in the Sydney " Daily Telegraph " as having said - >Britain's entry into the Common Market must be made at the expense of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth. He then adds - >Maybe we could find our own common market in association with America. That is the sum total of the Opposition's proposals for meeting this situation! America is self-sufficient in most commodities. Indeed, she has an over-supply of wheat, and although she is short of wool, that is one product about which we are not greatly concerned. In common with other rapidly developing countries, we have the problem that we must sell our primary products if we are to import. In all forums of the world, we have put up the proposition that rapidly developing countries must be given markets for their primary products if they are to buy the manufactured products of the older countries of the world. The Leader of the Opposition need have no doubt that the Prime Minister will have excellent, solid lieutenants behind him in his negotiations, for he will have the benefit of the support of the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** and the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann).** The Leader of the Opposition need have no doubt, also, that we shall be kept fully informed of the progress made iti the negotiations. Whatever the consequences of the ultimate decision of the United Kingdom, I am confident this country will rise to the occasion and continue to grow as a world power in the Pacific. {: #subdebate-31-0-s8 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
Blaxland -- We have just listened to a most remarkable contribution to the debate. At a time when Australian primary producers are faced with the most difficult situation that has ever confronted them one who is supposed to represent primary producers seeks to make a comparison between the exports from Australia in the years 1949 and 1961. I might mention that the figures he quoted do not support his argument, because the actual increase amounted to less than 50 per cent. He asserts that Britain's entry into the Common Market is a simple proposition, that it ought not to worry us very much because, according to him, it is a matter for Great Britain to decide what she will do. That is the kind of woolly headed thinking that leaves this country stranded in a time of crisis. And this is a crisis! Now the honorable member for Lawson **(Mr. Failes)** criticizes us for submitting the amendment. We have proposed the amendment because the Leader of this Government has no answer to the difficulties confronting Australia at the present time. Unlike the honorable member for Lawson, I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition not only because of its political implications, but also because I believe that this Government is incapable of dealing with the difficulties which are emerging for Australia, and because it is incapable even of thinking in terms of how best to protect the future of Australian industries, both primary and secondary. The most amazing feature of all this maneuvering that has been going on for some time now is the failure of the Macmillan Government in Great Britain to publish a White Paper on the issue. The public of Great Britain has been kept in the dark deliberately, as has been the public of Australia. Plainly, neither the public of Great Britain nor the public of Australia can form a considered judgment on this allimportant national and international problem unless the alternatives are clearly hammered out in the traditional manner - by democratic argument in the Parliament. I wonder just how few or how many people in either Great Britain or the Commonwealth know the terms of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market? I had hoped that the honorable member for Lawson would indicate where he stood on that subject. But I was disappointed. Instead of indicating where he stood, he ran round the question and left it for dead. On the other hand, how few or how many people are prepared to reject the proposal out of hand? The honorable member for Lawson sits on the fence and says, " I leave it to somebody else ". I venture the opinion that very few people, either in Great Britain or in Australia, would be prepared to reject on principle an arrangement which fully safeguards the political as well as the economic future of the Commonwealth, the interests of agriculture and Britain's right to determine her own economic structure. 1 offer that opinion as food for thought for those who are not prepared to think for themselves in connexion with this matter. I suggest that it can be truly said that there is no clear thinking on the part of either the Macmillan Government or the Menzies Government, and that is the main reason why the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition has become necessary. The British Labour Party is clear in its thinking and, after all, it is right at the doorstep of this problem. As with the Australian Labour Party, there is full recognition of the fact that we should not oppose the entry of Great Britain into the Common Market on principle. Like the British Labour Party, the Australian Labour Party believes that we must safeguard the political as well as the economic rights of the British Commonwealth as a whole, and we believe that the interests of our agriculture must be protected and preserved. We believe, too, that Commonwealth governments must at least formally consent before Britain signs the treaty. When it became known that the Prime Minister proposed to make a statement on Australia and the Common Market, the Australian people, and this Parliament in particular, had every reason to look upon the occasion as one of real national moment, as an occasion upon which the possible difficulties would be surveyed and the importance of the proposal underlined, and a national lead in thinking and planning given by the head of the Australian government. Whatever expectations the people had, it is certain that the nation was left bewildered and floundering by the lack of leadership displayed by the Prime Minister last night. I ask this House and the nation to pause to-day and reflect upon what happened last night. The times of broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings over the national network were altered to meet the convenience of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister had given evidence in his statement of any real leadership, there would have been no quibble about that, but when the use of a national hook-up in this way leaves the people only more bewildered than they were before he spoke, I suggest that it would have been far better to have kept the Prime Minister off the air. I knew we might expect members of the Australian Country Party like the honorable member for Lawson to pick out little bits of the Prime Minister's speech like sparrows following a horse when making their contributions to this debate, because they have not the capacity to think on this subject themselves. What did we get from the Prime Minister? In his opening remarks, the right honorable gentleman said - >The decision of the Government of Great Britain to negotiate for admission to the European Economic Community is one of enormous political, economic , and historic importance for Great Britain herself, for Europe, for the Commonwealth in general and Australia in particular, and for the world. The honorable member for Lawson said today, " It is a simple proposition. It is a matter for Great Britain herself." Does he not believe his Prime Minister? Does he not understand what the Prime Minister said in his opening remarks? If he does not understand, it is time this Parliament, in the national interest, had a look at some of its members. The Prime Minister continued - >It is, therefore, essential that, at this first opportunity after the visit of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, **Mr. Duncan** Sandys, and after **Mr. Macmillan's** announcement in the House of Commons I should, on behalf of the Australian Government, set out in this Parliament the nature of the action proposed or taken, and of the issues involved. I did not interject while the Prime Minister was speaking; the subject before the House was too serious. The whole future of the Commonwealth of Nations and Australia's rural and secondary industries might well be bound up with what happens in the next six months. It might well affect generations yet to be born. The future of this nation itself could well be determined by the vital decision of the United Kingdom. So I listened intently to the Prime Minister. I was silent at meetings of the executive of the Parliamentary Labour Party and our party caucus because I understood the importance of this matter and its implications. In the second last paragraph of his speech, the Prime Minister said - >We pronounce no dogma. We do not seek to turn back the great tides of international affairs. > >We do not say that the British view of the effect upon the Commonwealth of a decision by Great Britain to go into Europe is demonstrably wrong. In the present state of the world, with bullying and bluster our daily diet, it may be that the Commonwealth must once more change for the common good. That is the leadership you get from the No. 1 political leader of Australia. It must leave every parliamentarian and every John Citizen wondering whether we have any leadership at all. This matter was not dealt with in that way in the House of Commons. Any one of any significance in the Commonwealth of Nations perceived the attitude of the British Prime Minister, the House of Commons and the Labour Party in Great Britain on this subject. But we had no lead, no comment or thought as to where we might go. Our Prime Minister knew quite well that when the British Prime Minister, **Mr. Macmillan,** submitted a resolution to the House of Commons stating what he proposed to do if the House supported his decision, he stated the case in terms which made it clear that they had thoughts in the United Kingdom that there should be consultation with other Commonwealth countries by whatever procedure might be agreed upon. One would have expected that the Prime Minister of Australia would have brought down a resolution stating specifically just what Australia expected in respect of the negotiations. Instead, the right honorable gentleman spoke in general terms for 45 minutes and then moved a resolution, " That the paper be printed ". Parliamentary debate on an important national issue that might well affect the lives of every Australian was never brought to a lower level in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** correctly moved an amendment expressing lack of confidence in the Government's ability. The Government had the opportunity at least to indicate the formula it wanted to be established concerning further consultation on a Commonwealth of Nations level. We do not want a repetition of what happened when **Mr. Duncan** Sandys ran around the world attempting to gather the views of the individual sectors of the Commonwealth of Nations. That was fatal. Here was an emissary from the United Kingdom going from one section of the Commonwealth to the other gathering individual opinions when not one section that counted knew what the other section was doing. I do not know of any better method of splitting the Commonwealth of Nations. At least, the Prime Minister could have said, " No more of this nonsense. In future, the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth must meet in conference from time to time. We will have no more of this divide and conquer nonsense among the Commonwealth of Nations." But we did not hear one word along those lines from our Prime Minister. He simply moved, " That the paper be printed ". I do not think this House has ever been put into such a position before. At least, the Prime Minister could have told us the factual position. The honorable member for Lawson could have said something constructive instead of examining what happened in 1949 and drawing comparisons which are always odious anyway. The Prime Minister and his supporters could have looked at the opportunities for our agricultural industries outside the European Common Market if Great Britain joined it. The thirteen nations in the region - The Six and The Seven who will join the European Common Market with Great Britain - obtain only 28 per cent, of their imports of food, beverages and tobacco from each other, leaving 72 per cent, to be obtained elsewhere. There is a ready market of 200,000,000 people. But we did not hear one word about it from this Government. The Country Party members blindly follow the blind Prime Minister at a time when Australia wants leadership. I am proud te support the amendment because last night we had the greatest display of lack of foresight and frankness in the history of this Parliament. After discussing an important national issue, the Prime Minister merely moved, " That the paper be printed ". That is not national leadership at a time when so much could have been said that would have been printed in every section of the British press. Only 28 per cent, of the primary products they require are now produced within the boundaries of the thirteen nations which might be expected to join the European Common Market. We of this country should let it be known that we are prepared to shoulder our responsibility and provide at least some of the rest. If, at its lowest level, this is a political question that is forcing Great Britain to seek to join the Common Market, can any one say that, whatever political belief may be held, Australia is not just as important with its position in the Pacific as Great Britain is in the European bloc? If we are not just as important, let us know now. Do not leave it to the day when we find that we are no longer the wanted child of the British Commonwealth. I do not believe that we are an unwanted child of the British Commonwealth, but I believe that if the present type of leadership continues in this country, it will weaken the strings that bind the British Commonwealth. We should be big enough to give leadership in our own right and should not merely tender a report and move that it be printed. I listened very intently to the speech of the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen).** It contained a tremendous amount of meat. But having in mind all that he said and the knowledge that he brought to the House to-day, I wonder how he felt last night when his Prime Minister merely moved that the paper be printed, without giving any national leadership, without any national thought for the future and without any recommendation as to what ought to be done. The Australian Prime Minister, iri this hour of crisis in -the British Commonwealth, had a responsibility to Austrafia if not to his party before he resumed his seat last night to have moved a resolution that would have given, within the framework of the British Commonwealth, a national lead which could have been accepted as a guide by other nations. Either he is not big enough for the job or he is too tired to care. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- You could not have listened to him. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON: -- Read the penultimate paragraph of his statement and then read his resolution. If you are satisfied with that, I am surprised even at you. {: #subdebate-31-0-s9 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! The honorable gentleman's time has expired. {: #subdebate-31-0-s10 .speaker-KWR} ##### Mr TURNER:
Bradfield .- The honorable member for .Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison)** is, .of course, a member of the Opposition front bench. Therefore, he has to make a -.party political speech full of sound and fury signifying nothing. If I may permit myself one comment, it is simply this: The Opposition has complained that the Government has not kept at informed on this important matter 'and has given no lead. The negotiations regarding the Common Market have been continuing for some time and all this has been an open book to anybody who- cared, to read of it. What interest has the Opposition taken in this mmomentous matter? All the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** was able to say was that a rather unimportant member of his -party in another place had asked a few questions about it. I do not want to make any further reference to the party political aspect of the matter, because this matter is much too important to be treated in that way. The question that the British are asking themselves and that we are asking ourselves is whether Great Britain's entry to the European Common Market, if it should occur, is a good thing - a good thing for the world, for western Europe, for Great Britain, for Australia. If we think it is not a good thing, perhaps we should join forces with those elements in Great Britain that are opposed to her joining the Common Market. They are die industrialists who feel that their industries may be trampled under foot in competition with the industries of Europe; the farmers who may suppose that their interests will be disadvantaged; the trade unionists who may feel that in some ways their employment may be endangered; the socialists who may suppose that nationalization will not be so easy under the new dispensation as in the past; the empire loyalists of one kind and another; and the intellectuals who see great danger in the loss of sovereignty to Britain. Should we or should we not join forces with .these people? I believe that these matters are somewhat irrelevant. I believe that the die is cast already. Of course, we are called upon to look into the seeds of time and to see which seeds will .grow -and which will not. We .ace .not yet certain what the situation is that we have to face, hut nevertheless we must make some estimation of it. As J said, I believe that .the die is cast already and I hold this belief for four reasons. First, Great Britain would have preferred a free trade area in Europe - free trade in industrial goods between the members of the union and the retention of protective tariffs against or special arrangements with the outside world by the members of the association. But Britain failed in this. On the other hand, the European Economic Community has prospered enormously. My second reason for believing that Great Britain will join the Common Market is that she has applied to do so. This she would not have done lightly and without calculation as to all that was involved. My third reason is that she knows that a single member of the European Economic Community can veto her entry, and therefore, if she applies for entry at all, she knows that she must go in accepting very largely the conditions that are laid down. Fourthly, she. knows that at least one member, France, is not willing to make any substantial concessions to Great Britain if she enters. She knows quite well that the French would be happy to see her remain out of the community. For these reasons then, I believe that Great Britain will enter and that she will receive very few concessions. This is, of course, a mere guess. It can be only a guess, but I believe it to be true. What we must do is to look to the possible consequences of an entry into the Common Market, which, for the reasons 1 have stated, I believe to be inevitable. The consequences, of course, are political, strategic and economic. They are consequences for Great Britain and they are consequences for us - indeed, they are consequences for the whole world. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I accept the view that has been put by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** and that has been elaborated with great force and eloquence by the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** this afternoon. I believe, that entry into this Economic Community does mean a loss of sovereignty for Great Britain. This is not merely a matter of trade. It involves also specifically the movement of people. It involves the 'assimilation of social policies. This means social services, matters of wages and hours and so on. It means a new institutional framework. The rudimentary framework is there. No doubt that framework will grow and the institutions to which Great Britain has become accustomed - Parliament and her conception of the reign of law - in the long term will be greatly modified, no doubt greatly to the loss of European civilization. Ultimately, the protection of all these interests will mean a common foreign policy. I do not propose to spend a great deal of time on this matter, because I believe that the entry of the United Kingdom into the community is inevitable. I believe that, just as the Australian colonies entering into a federal form of government and just as the American colonies before them entering into a federal form of government sacrificed a degree of sovereignty for a common purpose, so also over the long term must Great Britain. This is no doubt a calculation she has made. Whilst there are losses in this, there are also gains. I could not entirely follow the reasoning of the Prime Minister on this matter when he spoke about the abandonment by Great Britain of her traditional policy of isolation from Europe in order to preserve a balance of power. The balance of power that Great Britain has sought to preserve by its isolation has been between France and Germany whose animosities have plunged Europe into fratricidal war on two occasions. What is the balance of power in Europe to-day that Britain has to protect? The balance surely is between Western Europe on the one hand and the Communist bloc on the other. Is it conceivable that Britain would wish to stay aloof in order that she might throw her weight into the Russian scale rather than the Western European scale? Of course it is not, and the reason for that policy of isolation disappears, to my mind, in the modem world. As long ago as 1938 **Mr. Baldwin,** as he then was, referred to the British frontier as being on the Rhine. If it was on the Rhine then, it is a lot farther east to-day. General de Gaulle, who has shown a good deal of statesmanship, I think, in his rapprochement with Germany - as also, indeed, has Chancellor Adenauer - has said that a united Europe had been the dream of the wise and the ambition of the powerful over the centuries. I have no doubt that he had in mind the dream of Charlemagne and the ambition of men like Napoleon, and, later, Hitler, in Europe. A united Europe could, of course, immensely strengthen the Western world and the kind of world for which we stand against communism. This, of course, is one of the reasons why the Communists will oppose the move, and why those who sympathize with the Communists will oppose it. The countries of Europe have much in common. Their civilization is derived from Greece and from the Christian tradition. In the best of the European traditions there is another common thread - the system of government and the system of justice that has been evolved in Britain. Perhaps it is not inappropriate that this new constitution is established by what is called the Treaty of Rome, because it was the dream of the Holy Roman Empire - which was centred, of course, on Rome - that Europe should be united. I have referred to one most important consequence of Britain's entry into the Common Market. 1 have not time to refer to the defence aspects so far as they affect us. Suffice it to say that a trend that has been evident for some time will be intensified, and that our defence arrangements will be more and more integrated with those of the United States of America, and less and less with Britain. That this must occur has become more and more evident since Britain lost control of India, with its vast man-power and its famous fighting men, strategically placed between the Middle East and the Far East, and to the north of Australia. What are the economic effects of the proposed move? The United Kingdom will have access to a large market, and therefore will have the opportunity to benefit from large-scale, and consequently cheaper, production methods. This aspect of the matter was elaborated, I think, by the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** last night, and there is no time, nor any need, for me to go into that matter any further, lt is the enormous strides that the European Economic Community has made in the last four years, since the establishment of the community, and the prospect of these wider markets, that have brought Britain to its present position. Any one who has appreciated what was going on - as the members of the Opposition in this Parliament apparently did not - must have realized that such a situation would lead to the application that the United Kingdom has now made. So far as the economic effect upon Australia is concerned, we are mainly affected in connexion with sales of agricultural products and raw materials to Europe. Our products that will be affected include commodities like wheat, dairy products, meat, sugar, fruit - whether fresh, canned or dried - in fact, a range of temperate zone products. Here I may quote a relevant provision of the Treaty of Rome, which says - >The common agricultural policy shall have as its objectives: > >to increase agricultural productivity by developing technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, particularly labour; > >to ensure thereby a fair standard of living for the population, particularly by the increasing of the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture; > >to stabilize markets; > >to guarantee regular supplies; and > >to ensure reasonable prices in supplies to consumers. Those objectives are perfectly clear. Indeed, there has been much discussion, in a committee set up by the European Economic Community, as to how effect could be given to them. That committee, or commission as it is called, has recorded certain matters of consequence to us. It has pointed out that agricultural production in Europe already covers 87 per cent, of European requirements, and that the main deficiency is in tropical products, which, of course, do not particularly interest us. It has also pointed out that production of cereals, sugar and pig meats is rising faster than the demand. Then it has put forward a tariff proposal for the protection of agriculture in Europe. There are two aspects of this. The first has reference to a tariff being the average of the tariffs of the members of the community; the second refers, in addition, to levies equal to the difference between the world price for a given commodity and a target price set by the community itself. That target price will be set with a view to giving protection to the agricultural producers of Europe. Everything depends, of course, on the price that is set for a given commodity. If it is a high price, to meet the requirements of the agricultural producers in Europe, we shall not be able to export that commodity to the European Economic Community. If it is a low target price that is set, then there will be some exports into the community from the outside world. Let me read to the House an opinion given by a British expert, outside the community, on the consequences of this. In an address given to the Agricultural Economic Society in July, 1958, entitled, " Agriculture in the E.E.C.", this authority said - >The possibility cannot be ignored that if total agricultural production were to retain a rate of expansion of about 3 per cent, per annum, this would, before long, yield supplies which would be more than sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the community in all except irreplaceable tropical products. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade organization was also concerned with the possible consequences of these measures, and it obtained a report, which is known as the Haberler report, in which the following comment appears: - >The present increase in domestic production (of The Six) which is a natural consequence of policies of agricultural support and development, is likely to continue, thereby limiting the scope for increased imports of foodstuffs from outside the Community. It might be thought that this would raise the costs of producers of manufactured goods in the community and put them at a competitive disadvantage in exporting to the outside world. Well, Colin Clark, the wellknown Australian economist, estimates that in Britain, if the same target price principles were applied as already obtain in the community, the new system of agricultural support would raise the cost of living by less than 1 per cent., or ls. per person per week, without making allowance for price reductions in manufactured goods. This would not be a very serious handicap. My conclusion is, then, that we shall be in great difficulty in regard to our food exportsbearing in mind that £170,000,000 worth of them go to the United Kingdom and Europe, out of a total of between £800,000,000 and £900,000,000 per annum - if the primary producers of Europe succeed in gaining the protection they will seek. If there were, say, a Herr Macarthur in Germany and a Monsieur Mallee in France, supporting the interests of the primary producers of those countries, there would be a strong probability that agricultural protection would be at a very high level indeed. Britain's entry into the European Common Market would have other effects, of course. There would be no tariff against our raw materials. This might even help our wool, although the Prime Minister sounded a cautionary note on that last evening. This might help our metals in due course as industrial production in the countries of the European Economic Community increased. This might help us with respect to other raw materials which we export. But there would be other effects, also. Capital would be employed in Europe to a greater degree and therefore might not be available in Australia in the same volume as before. Migration might be affected. In the first instance, some workers might be displaced from jobs in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and if we could get them at the time when they became unemployed, we might be able to bring them to Australia. But once they settled down in Europe and Europe became more prosperous, they would be less willing to come to Australia. What can we do, Sir? First, we must use every endeavour to preserve what we can of our markets in Europe. But what we may be able to preserve may provide us with little more than a brief breathing space during which quotas for our goods in Europe would diminish, and this breathing space might enable us to adjust to the new situation. I believe that there is a need for a complete re-appraisal of our whole production pattern. We must look to those things which may be able to find a market and determine those which we cannot export under the new conditions. We need, first, a careful study by an economic committee of the aims and objects of our tariff, because we must consider what import replacement is possible and what manufacturing industries may be able to build up export markets. We must look to the principles on which our tariff is based. Secondly, we need an equally careful economic inquiry into the pattern of rural production, because, as I have pointed out already, this might be greatly altered. Thirdly, we must re-appraise our marketing methods. At present, we have under the control of primary producers marketing boards which have been conducting fairly easy business by entering into agreements with the United Kingdom. We may need something with much sharper teeth in the future, and I think that we have to consider whether a trader-to-trader system might result in a more active sales policy than, was necessary in the past when the methods of marketing were so much easier because of the conditions which we found in the United Kingdom market. I regret that I have not had time to go into these matters in as much detail as I would wish. I believe that the entry of Britain into the Common Market would be of advantage to the Western world as a whole, including ourselves. I believe, also, that there are very great problems of re-adjustment ahead of this country and that those problems should not in any circumstances be minimized. As the negotiations go on and the picture becomes clearer, the time will be ripe for the Government to consider ways and means of adjusting ourselves to the new situation. {: #subdebate-31-0-s11 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
Hughes **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** at the outset, I should like to state that I fully support my leader, who last evening so successfully indicted the Government for its ineptness and its failure satisfactorily to anticipate the questions arising from this tremendously important matter of Britain's admission to the European Common Market. I believe that a great idealistic concept is about to materialize in Europe as a result of the fusing of a number of European countries into an alliance designed for mutual benefit. I believe that this aspiration revolves around a general idea which is concerned with the lifting of living standards for the people of Great Britain and of other countries. It comes back to fundamental things, such as the question of whether one eats roast beef or a sausage for one's Sunday dinner, perhaps; what kind of clothes one will have to wear; what sort of schools one's children will attend; and whether families will live in decent houses or in the slums and hovels that have characterized the older countries in the past. This sort of motive is a good one and is worthy of examination by us. There has emerged from the fervent nationalism and concern for national selfinterest which in the past have involved Europe in dissension and disaster, a plan which can break down the barriers between peoples. We have some cause to hope that in Europe at least we may see real progress towards the realization of the universal brotherhood of man as an existing fact. I was intrigued to hear the honorable member for Bradfield **(Mr. Turner)** imply that the application by Britain for admission to the European Common Market had some connexion with the cold war. I do not believe that, from the stand-point of the British people, this move represents an aggravation of the cold war. I am not terribly enthusiastic about those in this Parliament who hope that this move is a facet of the cold war. The Leader of the Opposition last evening expressed the hope that the day may come when all Europe is united, including The Six and The Seven, and Russia as well. He continued - . . the sooner we have a bloc of European nations 500,000,000 strong then the sooner we will have no more wars, the sooner the European community will be able to balance itself against other peoples and the sooner will other people not be able to play us European or European descended people off, one group against another. To my way of thinking that was a statesmanlike utterance. What a shocking thing is the attitude of Government supporters. What a terrible reflection on them were their sniggering and sneering at this sort of wonderful aspiration concerning the survival of mankind. Last evening, Government supporters sneered and sniggered at that aspiration because some of them are hoping to high heaven that the proposal for the entry of Great Britain into the European Common Market is a move in the cold war and will aggravate the present dreadful situation. The honorable member for Bradfield emphasized the hopes of so many Government supporters in this regard. Honorable members opposite may be interested to know that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has an idea entirely different from that of Government supporters in this Parliament. I believe that he leads a peace-loving people, just as we on this side of the House speak for a peaceloving people. **Mr. Macmillan,** in a speech to the Assembly of the Western European Union on 29th May last, according to an information pamphlet which I have received, stated his view, which is reported in thefollowing words: - > **Mr. Macmillan** ... set out to show that Britain's goal is clear and firm, and that the- Government is moving consistently forward, consulting all friends and partners and seeking to serve their interests along with British interests. The goal, **Mr. Macmillan** said, is to create the maximum unity in Europe, in all fields of human activity. Some day, by peaceful evolution, this will mean all Europe; . . . So the Leader of the Opposition last evening was echoing the sentiments of the leader of Great Britain. Government supporters show themselves to be merely outmoded remnants when they take the attitude that they have adopted in this matter, which is of great concern to us all. In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ceylon, India and other Commonwealth countries, particularly, and also elsewhere throughout the world, speculation over the possible consequences for Britain of such a new alliance is rife. On 3rd August, 1961, the House of Commons agreed, by 313 votes to 5, that the United Kingdom Government apply under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome to open negotiations for entry to the Common Market. So there is a considerable measure of agreement on this- matter in the House of Commons. In recent history, Europe came closest to becoming one entity in the short period df its domination by Napoleon. It was not until the middle of the last century, however, that there was developed a proposition which involved the industrialization of Europe and the establishment of a protective tariff wall, which is one of the main features of the European Common Market. Friedrich List, a German, put forward the proposal for a customs union, about 1828, as a challenge to the trade supremacy of Great Britain. The unification of the separate German states resulted and their powerful union ultimately came to threaten not only the United Kingdom but also most other countries. The aims of the visionaries of the past have now, ironically enough, developed into a twentieth century dilemma, especially for Great Britain and the Commonwealth countries, including Australia. Many of us have much cause for concern. The signing of the Treaty of Rome' in 1957 by the group of countries commonly known as The Six has given rise to a new economic community in Europe. It involves six countries, the first of which is West Germany. Let us look at this country which emerged after the war with powerful United States financial backing. It has a very favorable distribution of resources. It emerged after the dismemberment of Germany with a great predominance of resources of coal and steel as well as primary industries. It was off to a flying start and then the great power of monopoly capitalism came in to support it. Those are the two most important factors that conditioned West Germany. Then there is West Germany's comparatively inexpensive dependence on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Because its defence has been taken care of largely by the United States, its defence expenditure is much lower than that of many other countries. These factors together have caused West Germany to assume a powerful position in the economic life of the new Europe. Chancellor Adenauer has been intent on consummating his country's marriage to Nato, the western anti-Communist alliance, and to international monopolies and cartels. His motives at least might be called into question and I suggest that we give them serious consideration. That is the story of West Germany, the motivating power in this agreement. The second country is France where General de Gaulle has consolidated in recent times both his prestige and the national economy. Of course, he has been unencumbered by the excessive trappings of democratic government. He has assumed something akin to a dictatorship and to-day a puppet government does his bidding. But he has made very rapid progress with his aim to prevent the re-unification of Germany and to restore his country's former grandeur. We can see the mistrust that exists between these two countries, the different motives that each has. One, West Germany seeks to build an alliance with the anti-communist capitalist world and the other, France, hopes to prevent the reunification of Germany so that she may be able to avoid being plunged into another world catastrophe. Together with West Germany and France are the remaining four members of The Six - Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg - each having its own motive for becoming a foundation member of the European Common Market, but together aspiring to build up a single common market rivalling for size even the United States. They hope to have a collective population of 167,000,000 eventually and, with The Seven added, the total population could reach 250,000,000. The organization aims at progressively strengthening the bonds of membership, breaking down customs barriers, facilitating unrestricted movement of money, people and goods and, in the long run, developing a compatibility in relation to a thousand facets of life. This is a good thing, and no one can deny it. Some day these countries may speak with one voice on matters of trade and foreign policy and together share the cost of, perhaps, investigation into space travel, scientific research into nuclear power, Chresby's hovercraft and a host of economically conducted co-operative ventures. There is a lot to do in this direction. Can Great Britain afford to disregard such enticing prospects? Perhaps the Channel can be bridged; perhaps a tunnel can be built under the Channel from Great Britain to Europe; perhaps atomic power from Calder Hall can be fed into Europe's throbbing electricity stations. Britain cannot close its eyes to these things. Who can quibble about that? We may live to see a similar kind of magnificent conception in relation to Australia and an Asiatic common market, so that we can live in a neighbourly way with those around us. Obviously that is a good thing. The alternative for Britain is a loose alliance with a rival group called The Seven which besides the United Kingdom includes Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, and Portugal, many of them separately and collectively nervous of Germany. This group is not building up tariff walls against the rest of the world. It is a comparatively free organization, and its failure lies in the fact that it is free and undisciplined. Instead of having 167,000,000 people in the group, it has only 90,000,000. Britain could stay with this group and maintain its preferential trade with Commonwealth countries, but the alliance of The Seven is not proving successful when compared with The Six. The importance of the Commonwealth is thought by many to be diminishing and 1 am not quite sure whether Britain is taking the matter as seriously as some of us would hope. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Have you considered the views of She British trade union movement on this matter? {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- Yes, and I shall refer to them if I have sufficient time. The diminution of value placed in the Commonwealth has, in the opinion of some, been contributed to by the inclusion of republics which do not have to show any loyalty to the British monarchy. Many people feel that the real value of the Commonwealth is diminishing. Then there has been the admittance of a number of Asian countries which have very little in common with the other members. Where is the real value of Britain? Many countries were prepared to retain South Africa in the Commonwealth despite its shocking policy of discrimination against its indigenous people. The value of the Commonwealth is diminishing at a rapidly increasing rate. Weighed in the balance, Britain undoubtedly will choose membership of the European Economic Community even though in the short term the British Commonwealth could suffer, lt is interesting, therefore, to consider some of the factors that I shall mention. A brief examination of export figures will indicate quickly one of the reasons why Britain wants to enter into this new arrangement. Over the past seven years Britain's exports increased by 28 per cent, whereas West Germany's increased by 156 per cent., Italy's by 180 per cent., those of The Netherlands by 92 per cent., and of Switzerland by 67 per cent. World exports increased by 50 per cent. Another factor is that while Britain's economy showed signs of stagnation in 1960 countries in the Common Market were very buoyant. The European Economic Community increased its gross national product by 6.5 per cent, in 1960 whereas the United Kingdom's increased by only 3 per cent. Those are some of the practical reasons why the British House of Commons gave such overwhelming support to the proposition - trade union representatives, Conservatives and Liberals alike, only five members dissenting from the resolution. On present rates of progress Germany and France are overtaking the United Kingdom's living standards, and even Italy will draw level with it by 1980. Many assurances have been given by such people as **Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Gaitskell, Mr. Maudling,** who is the president of the United Kingdom Board of Trade, **Mr. Heath** and **Mr. Duncan** Sandys that the interests of the Commonwealth will be considered seriously. Some contend that Commonwealth countries might successfully apply for associated overseas territory status, which is provided for in the Treaty of Rome. This proposal might have succeeded if Britain had become a foundation member and thus in a strong negotiating position or, alternatively, if the Australian Prime Minister, the great white father of the Commonwealth, had given some lead in the matter back in 1957 when these things were being talked about in serious vein. Why has Britain vacillated in getting into a good bargaining position? Why has our Australian Prime Minister been so slow and lethargic in taking up this matter, which has been talked about seriously in Europe since 1957, and also in this Parliament at the instigation and direction of the. Opposition caucus? A Labour senator and a Labour member in this House put a number of serious questions on the notice-paper about it, and to this day there has been no answer to them. So we indict you gentlemen opposite for offhandedness, tor carelessness in connexion with a vital matter which could contribute to unhappiness in Australia and to a fall in our living standards. We think that you have something to answer for in this regard. One thing is certain - for Australia the horse, has already bolted. Our Government has failed to anticipate and act on this matter, which could threaten the Australian people very seriously. With our traditional trading arrangements threatened several definite courses of action could have been pursued. I shall enumerate them in the short time at my disposal. First, the Government, having regard to the apparent likelihood some years ago that our overseas balances and reserves were in jeopardy, removed import restrictions in February last year. How can the Government justify such an action? It would be impossible for it to do so. The first thing that the Government should have done, having regard to the precarious position for Australia which could result from Britain's entry into the Common Market, was to retain import licensing and so protect our overseas reserves. The second thing that the Government should have, done was make sure that such economic action as it took was the correct action. But what did the Government do? It introduced a credit squeeze - but it was a nondiscriminatory squeeze. It did not have regard to the value as export income earners of the various industries affected. The credit squeeze was a wet blanket, a retarding thing, superimposed, dropped in a choking sort of way over the economy. It affected all industries whether or not they were superfluous, whether they were, luxury industries, or whether they were unessential industries, or industries which could earn us money from exports and so facilitate our expansion. There was a need for a discriminatory approach. There was also a need to give a stimulus to industries that could help us to reduce our imports. But all these industries - essential and non-essential alike - were similarly affected by the credit squeeze. The Government could have anticipated the great trade disturbances which could result from Britain's entry into the Common Market, and it must now confess, if it has any sincerity or honesty of principle, that it has blundered badly. There are several other matters with which I should like to deal. First, I should like to refer to the diminution of our capacity for self-dependence. We can produce many of the most important commodities that we require, but the Treasurer's information bulletin shows that we have imported great quantities of steel, for example. Tobacco imports increased to the tune of £7,000,000, yarn and fibre imports by £9,000,000, and textiles and piece goods by £5,000,000, other textiles by £3,000,000, and iron and steel imports by- {: #subdebate-31-0-s12 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-31-0-s13 .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr FORBES:
Barker -- At least the honorable member for Hughes **(Mr. L. R. Johnson)** will not now have to make a speech on the Budget, because he has, in effect, made it already. That is my idea of how much relevance what he had to say has to the topic under discussion. I want to take up one point. I refer to the fact that despite the handsome apology by his own leader in the House to-day, he repeated the statement that the Government had taken no interest in the Common Market position until the last few months. The admission by his leader that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** had made a statement in which reference to the Common Market was made, as far back as 1957, was ignored by the honorable gentleman, who went along on the same old line. I can clearly remember the Prime Minister dealing with the problems of the Common Market in the report that he made after he came back from a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. He told us what would be involved in Britain's entry into the Common Market. I cannot recall one member of the Opposition, in the debate on that report, dealing with that particular aspect of the matter. In the years I have been in the House I cannot remember a member of the Opposition raising this question of the Common Market until this side of the House brought it right into the picture. Time and time again, the honorable member for Darling Downs **(Mr. Swartz)** discussed this problem in the House during one debate or another, and the only effect was that honorable gentlemen opposite left the chamber. My honorable friend from Moreton **(Mr. Killen),** in making his characteristically thoughtful, and I might almost say, brilliant contribution earlier on, expressed a good deal of concern that Britain should enter the European Common Market. I must confess that I disagree with him on that. He looked meaningly at me when he suggested that people who differed from him had not read the Treaty of Rome. I wish to place it on record that I have read the Treaty of Rome. The honorable gentleman, in referring to the Treaty of Rome, pointed to specific institutions and practices set up under the treaty. He pointed to a particular one which he found undesirable, and which would involve changes for Britain. I would say that one thing which the six countries have shown in their approach to these matters ever since the beginning has been their capacity to find institutions to fit their particular purposes, and I believe that they will go on adapting their institutions to suit the purposes which they desire to achieve. For that reason, I do not believe that there is a danger that parliamentary government will disappear. I have always believed that institutions are the means to an end and not an end in themselves, and so I find myself at variance with my friend. Indeed, I find it difficult to understand that any one can fail to respond with all his heart and mind to the vision of a united and integrated Western Europe. Not since the break up of the Holy Roman Empire and the consequent emergence of the national state has a more hopeful vision come to the world. Western Europe, it appears, has done with nationalism in its more extreme form. The aberration of nationalism, which replaced the unity of Western civilization that existed prior to this development, brought the world great advances but at the same time great misery. To-day, those countries which have had the longest experience of its working are determined to have done with it, at least in its more extreme forms. They are determined to have done with it, first, because of an inspired recognition of the miseries which excessive nationalism has wrought on the continent of Europe in two world wars and for 100 years before that secondly, because the growth of monolithic Communist power has shown quite clearly, and without a shadow of doubt, that a Western Europe fragmented into compartments will not in the long run have the strength to preserve the values of inherited Western civilization. Thirdly, the Europeans have seen clearly that in an age of automation and mass production the key to rising living standards is the creation of a super mass market. Every one of those reasons which make it desirable for the European countries to join together applies equally to Britain and, if I may say so, in the long run to this country. Britain, even though she is the centre of a world-wide Commonwealth, is as much a part of Europe as are the countries of The Six. The essential values on which her civilization is based, however much some Englishmen may delude themselves to the contrary, are the same in essence as those of the countries of Western Europe. She has, moreover, just as big a stake in their preservation against the Communist enemy which is implacably determined to destroy them, let us remember, as those countries themselves. By the standards of the modern world she is just as lacking in power against the Russian colossus, both economic and military, as is any one of The Six. Let us not delude ourselves that the existence of the Commonwealth, given the variation in attitudes between members of the Commonwealth on vital world questions and the relative strengths which they can throw into the scale with the Commonwealth, can redress the balance in this respect. What goes for Great Britain in this respect goes also for Australia. However much we may talk of being physically a part of Asia, we stem from Europe to no less a degree than the European countries themselves. The values on which we have based our civilization in this country are the same to a greater or lesser extent as those of the western European countries. We have as great a stake in their preservation against a Communist aggressor as those countries have. I believe we should look squarely in the face the facts of power in the world, because in an imperfect world in which one-half is actively dedicated to destroy the other half by force if necessary, power is all-important. Whether we in Australia can survive depends in the last resort upon whether that section of the world which holds the same values as ourselves can survive. Whether that section can in fact survive depends on the basic strength it can create, as a deterrent or, if. necessary, to meet force with force. Gone is the day when Britain, situated as an island on the flank of Europe, could throw her weight into the scales of continental Europe to prevent the undesirable hegemony of Europe by any one power. This was not even possible in 1914, let alone to-day. In both world wars it was necessary to bring in the new world to redress the balance of the old. And although it gained some breathing space, the existence of the Commonwealth did not make an atom of difference, despite what the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** has said, to the necessity for United States intervention if Fascist Germany's expansionist aims were to be contained. If this was true in relation to a bid for hegemony by a single national state such as Germany, how much more true is it in respect of a colossus like Soviet Russia? Indeed, it has become clear and is recognized by the formation of such organizations as Nato and the Western European Union that the power and policies of Russia make it no longer possible to rely on intervention by the United States after a conflict in Europe has broken out. Much has been spoken about the effects on the Australian economy of Britain's entry into the Common Market. I agree that these factors are vitally important and I' will have something to say about them before I sit down. My concern here is to emphasize that by concentrating unduly on this aspect of the problem we take the risk of not being able to see the wood for the trees. Surely it is our duty as members of this Parliament to see the implications of this move in correct perspective. And from that point of view nothing can be more important than the question of ultimate survival and the preservation of the basic values which we hold dear. It is by that criteria that I have examined my own conscience in respect of these great events, and by that criteria I believe we should give the move our support and encouragement. I do not believe that many people in Australia really comprehend the change wrought by the war on attitudes in Europe. Many of us have been inclined to see the moves made in all sorts of directions almost since the end of the war, towards integration and the fashioning of common institutions, as the work of a few dedicated cranks. We have said to ourselves cynically that it will not work. How could a Europe, which for hundreds of years has led the world in the more extreme posturing of nationalism, take unto herself these harebrained schemes? Well, **Sir, this** view, I believe, underestimates the changes wrought by the devastation of the war and by the sickness of Europe in the aftermath of war. It is as if the more extreme fires of nationalistic fervour had burnt themselves out with raining bombs and burning cities. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the European movement has gathered force ever since 1945, despite the remarkable economic recovery that has taken place in the meantime. And the movement will undoubtedly go on. Perhaps we in this country have some excuse for not discerning the changes that have taken place in European attitudes, but Britain, situated as she is so close to Europe, should have been able to discern them. Yet, she did not. Nothing is more remarkable than Britain's consistent failure to comprehend the spirit that was moving in the new Europe. All attempts by the Europeans themselves to gain the sympathy, encouragement and leadership of Britain in what they have been doing, have been consistently rebuffed, almost ever since 1945. The time was not so many years ago when a devastated Europe looked to Britain as its natural leader. It implored Britain to give the lead which would spark off recovery. These overtures were consistently spurned by successive British governments, and by none of them more brutally than by the Labour Government which was in office up until 1950. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- What do you know about it? {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr FORBES: -- I was living there at the time. Their only concession to involvement in Europe came not from an understanding of the forces at work in Europe, but from the threats of Russian expansion. Even then, Britain's involvement in Europe was on a limited and concessional basis. In the earlier period, right up until a few years ago, Britain could have entered the European Common Market or any of the other arrangements made for European cooperation, on her own terms, such was the desire for British participation and leadership. Instead, she took refuge in the delusion that she still had the power to play an independent role. In this, she was encouraged by what she regarded as the special relationship she had with the United States of America. She failed to realize that any special relationship which did exist with the United States rested on the facts of power. As such, this special relationship was bound to change and to be transferred to Europe as the countries grew in strength and unity. In spite of these reasons, together with a traditional reluctance to become involved with Europeans on anything like a permanent basis, Britain has consistently given the Commonwealth as an excuse for not encouraging and leading the European movement. As the leader of a world-wide Commonwealth, and in order to protect the interests of the countries of the Commonwealth she could not come in, it was said. As I say, I believe this to have been an excuse and not the true reason. Much as I hate saying it, I believe that in this case the Commonwealth has been used by the United Kingdom to rationalize desires and policies which she wished to follow for other reasons. As so often happens in such cases, it will be the Commonwealth countries, and not Britain herself, who will suffer as the result of that. As I said, such was the regard for Britain in Europe after the war, and such was the desire for her participation, that she could have entered on any terms she liked to dictate. These terms could obviously have included protection of the trading rights of the Commonwealth countries, not only in the United Kingdom, but in the countries of The Six as well. At that time, there would have been no difficulty whatsoever in securing the preferential position which our major exports enjoy. Now, because of British procrastination, Britain is the supplicant rather than the sought, and it is obvious that our major export commodities will have a difficult battle. For this reason, I believe that it is vitally important that the Australian Government has taken its present action in order to let Europe and the British Government know where we stand. I would like to congratulate the Government on its determined, unequivocal stand in the interests of Australia and, in particular, of our great export industries. The Prime Minister, in opening this debate, gave clear notice that we have legitimate interests which cannot be pushed aside. Not only Britain but the European Economic Community countries have been told that although we fully appreciate the contribution that the integration of Europe will make to the defence of the free world, we are part of the free world, too; that we contribute to the defence of the free world; and that in the interests of the free world as a whole we are entitled to consideration. I believe, for the reasons I have given, that it is vitally important that we conduct our own negotiations, as the Prime Minister has stated we will do. The countries of western Europe must have our views represented to them by the Australian Government. Because of Britain's record in relation to Europe in the last fifteen years, if for no other reason, we cannot rely on Britain to represent our case for us. The final point I wish to state is that if for any reason, as a result of Britain's going into the Common Market, some of our major export industries suffer, it appears to me to be quite wrong that the export industries of this country- {: #subdebate-31-0-s14 .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Chaney:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: #subdebate-31-0-s15 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .- The debate now in progress was initiated by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** on Wednesday night when he addressed the Parliament on the subject of Australia and the European Common Market. After the Prime Minister's outline of his and his Government's opinion of the Common Market problem as it affected Australia, the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** moved the following amendment to the motion " That the paper be printed " - >That all words after " That " be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - " this House, while declaring that the United Kingdom's move to join the Common Market requires the strongest action to protect Australia's interests, expresses no confidence in this Government's ability to provide it because of its lack of foresight and frankness in the matter, its dilatoriness now, and its continuing failure, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister's speech, to appreciate the real issues which are involved ". I support the amendment. As I proceed with my speech I hope to advance sufficient reasons to justify that support. During the course of his speech on Wednesday night the Prime Minister said that Britain's declaration that she would apply for admission to the European Economic Community was the most momentous peace-time decision in living history. Referring to Britain's decision to enter the Common Market or to stay out, the Prime Minister said - >Upon its wisdom and success probably the future of the free world and most certainly the future of our own family of nations will turn. That statement indicated that the Government - its Ministers and its supporters - viewed Great Britain's decision with the utmost gravity. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition likewise indicated that Her Majesty's Opposition in this Parliament viewed the situation with the utmost gravity. We take that view because it is almost certain that if Britain enters the Common Market, some of the reciprocal preferential tariff arrangements that Australian primary products and minerals enjoy will disappear. Britain's entry into the Common Market will also almost certainly mean, as the Prime Minister suggested, that reciprocal preferences that Australia has accorded to goods which the United Kingdom has poured into this country for generations will disappear. As with other members of Her Majesty's Opposition, who spring from British stock, I have very great pride in the quality of the goods that the United Kingdom has poured into Australia over many years. We hope that the people of the United Kingdom hold the same sentiments about the goods that we in turn have poured into Britain. The Opposition's quarrel with the speech delivered by the Prime Minister on Wednesday night is that it came too late. We have been presented with a fait accompli. In our view Britain's application to join the Common Market will be granted. I have sufficient respect for Britain's diplomatic personnel to believe that the United Kingdom Government would not apply for entry to the Common Market without first having made a thorough survey of all the implications involved and without having probed and ascertained the prospects of her application being granted. To think otherwise would not be paying a well-earned compliment to the ability of the United Kingdom negotiators. I do not think that Australia, which is part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, has been kept sufficiently well informed or has been frankly advised of the true position by the Government that controls our economy and the nation. During the past twelve months conversations must have been taking place between the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government. That has been admitted. The Prime Minister told us that at the Prime Ministers' Conference prior to Christmas he had arranged for departmental officers, who had either accompanied him to London or whose presence there could be quickly arranged, to have consultations about the Common Market and possibly Britain's entry. I think it is fair to assume that the Prime Minister, during his visit to London, had conversations or that some of his Ministers had consultations with United Kingdom Ministers, just as Australian officials had conversations with very competent officials of the United Kingdom Government. But this Parliament received no report of the nature of the conversations that took place either at the ministerial level or between officers appointed by the Prime Minister to confer on this matter. We have not been told anything about cables that must have passed between the United Kingdom Government and this Government at least during the last twelve months. It would appear to me that the ground was fallowed and the decision made, possibly with the full knowledge of the Prime Minister and his senior officers, with the full knowledge of the United Kingdom Government and its senior officers, and with the full knowledge of the other dominion governments concerned. But no public announcement was made until Wednesday night, by which time the whole matter, as far as I can ascertain, was sewn up. Britain will undoubtedly enter the Common Market. It is too silly for words to suggest that when Britain has applied to join the Common Market, any doubt exists in the mind of the Government - and governments do have minds - regarding Britain's entry if her application is granted. » We all know that if an individual or an authority, even one that may have been expelled from an organization, contemplates making application to join or re-join an organization, the individual or the authority fallows the ground first. If it is found that the numbers are likely to be against the applicant, if it is felt that the application is likely to be refused, no application is made, because if one is made and rejected, the applicant is humiliated and his judgment frowned upon. That is how I feel about this matter. I believe that this Parliament and the people of Australia have been treated with less frankness than was their due on such an important matter as this. I also believe that there have been engaged on this particular problem more people than the members of the United Kingdom Government and the members of the Common Market organization. There is not a shadow of doubt - it is on record to any one who reads extensively - that the United States of America has been interested in this matter. Some say that America was rather keen on, and in fact played a very prominent part in founding and establishing, the European Economic Community. If that is so, then America would be keen for the European Economic Community to suc ceed. There must have been consultations between the American Government and the United Kingdom Government on this subject. Some say that the United States of America frowned upon the establishment of the European Free Trade Association because, so it is said - I cannot vouch for the truth of this - exports of American primary products to Europe would have been adversely affected. 1 feel that we were entitled to receive much earlier more information than the Prime Minister gave us on Wednesday night. We are entitled to know the nature of the negotiations, if any, between the United States Government and the United Kingdom Government, the extent to which consideration was given to the financial impact of this move, the extent to which this move has any association with the International Monetary Fund and its governors, and the possibility of the United Kingdom again devaluing her currency as she did in 1948. She did that after giving Australia a mere 48 hours' notice, even though, as was well known, negotiations and conversations had taken place between Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom for over a fortnight. At that time the United Kingdom devalued her currency from, I think, 4.03 dollars to the £1 to 2.8 dollars to the £1, which meant that, for every dollar we had to buy in order to purchase our requirements from the United States, we had to pay, in round figures, 9s. instead of 6s. No details of the conversations and negotiations which have undoubtedly taken place between the Ministers of the respective governments I have mentioned have been revealed to us, even though, as the Prime Minister admits in the opening passages of his speech, this is one of the most serious and most important matters with which this Parliament and the people of Australia have ever been confronted. I say to the Parliament and the people of Australia that were were entitled to have this matter treated in a much more serious fashion than it has been, and at a much earlier date than this. What are the possible effects of this move? I believe it will succeed, because I have a great respect for the ability of the people of the United Kingdom to negotiate and to carry out diplomatic manoeuvres. Let me mention some of the implications. First, those people in Australia who depend for their incomes upon the sale of primary products could receive a very serious setback. It has been suggested that wheat will be quite all right. It might be. It has also been suggested that the products most likely to be adversely affected are butter and other dairy products, wines, sugar, dried fruits, canned fruits and a wide range of other primary products, including meat and minerals. Under existing arrangements we are assured of a market at reasonable prices in the United Kingdom, but in the future there may be very grave doubts as to where and at what price our primary products can be sold. It is regrettable that we should be told this in what is, in effect, the Prime Minister's swan song. Make no mistake about it, his speech on Wednesday night was his swan song. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- Is that a promise? {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- Work it out for yourself. I repeat that when referring to Great Britain's ultimate decision, the Prime Minister said - >Upon its wisdom and success probably the future of the free world and most certainly the future of our own family of nations will turn. Momentous! Stupendous! That, in a few words, is what the Prime Minister tells us is the Government's attitude. During that speech, he referred to the visit by **Mr. Sandys** and to the issuing of a communique at the end of the talks with **Mr. Sandys.** He claimed that in that communique were three passages which deserved special mention. He said - >The first showed that the Australian Government took a view of the impact of Great Britain's membership of the Common Market upon Commonwealth relations different from that of Great Britain. How emphatic! How very important! What a startling statement! Then he went on to say, and I ask the Parliament to note this because it indicates the strength of the Government's objection - >The second showed that we refrained from giving approval to the opening of negotiations. I read in the press that Canada objected and that New Zealand made very strong protests, yet all the Prime Minister says is, " We refrained from giving approval to the opening of negotiations". Certainly there was a refraining from approving of the opening of negotiations, but why was there no strong protest about the end result of opening those negotiations? There has been no protest whatever. On the contrary, there has been an acceptance of the situation. I firmly believe that if the written documents which preceded this announcement by the Prime Minister on Wednesday night were produced we should find that, tacitly at least, some members of the Ministry had given the wink to indicate that the road was straight and open for a clear go so far as they were concerned. It is a remarkable thing that in international negotiations - indeed, in all matters of international concern - the Prime Minister has always failed. He failed in World War II., he failed in connexion with the Suez crisis and he failed shamefully to protect Australia's vital interests in this case. He has failed shockingly. Until I had made a closer examination of the position, I had hoped- **Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).Order!** The honorable member's time has expired. Suspension of Standing Orders. Motion by **Sir Garfield** Barwick - by leave - agreed to - >That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** each speaking for a period not exceeding 40 minutes. {: #subdebate-31-0-s16 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade. · Murray · CP -- **Mr. Speaker,** the point which the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** was making during his speech will be dealt with in the context of my remarks. Last evening, the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** gave a very lucid and full explanation of the circumstances leading up to the present issue for Australia in the European Common Market. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** has challenged the Government on two points. The first is that the Government has been negiligent in not pursuing what he described as the inevitability of Great Britain joining the European Common Market on terms which would impair our trading opportunities. The second charge is that the Government has failed over recent years to seek other markets. The Leader of the Opposition is completely without warrant on each charge. The United Kingdom Government consistently over a period of several years has declared that she would not and could not join the European Economic Community if agricultural policies were involved. She sought arrangements with the common market which would be consistent with that policy, This staunch attitude, maintained over a period, was, of course, taken at its face value by this Government, just as it was declared in good faith by the United Kingdom Government. The Prime Minister made it clear that not until the visit of **Mr. Sandys** last month were we told that the United Kingdom was on the point of making a decision whether she would enter negotiations to join the European Common Market, notwithstanding the involvement of agriculture and Commonwealth trade. More has been done by this Government in the past five years in the search for wider marketing opportunities than has previously been done by all Australian Commonwealth Governments since federation. The old agreement has been re-negotiated on better terms. The Japanese Trade Treaty, which the Australian Labour Party vigorously denounced at the time, has brought us trade which was worth last year £160,000,000. It has converted Japan into our biggest buyer of wool and a top-level buyer of many other important products. A string of other trade treaties commodity arrangements and international commodity agreements has been concluded in the life of this Government. There have been also huge expenditures on overseas promotion and publicity, a great expansion of our trade commissioner services, and the establishment of a working partnership for export between the Commonwealth Government, its Public Service and private commerce and industry, the like of which has never been attempted before in this country. Against this background of partnership, trade exhibitions, trade missions and special trade ships have been a constant feature in the trade drive, and hundreds of private businessmen have been going overseas in groups at their own expense on the initiative of this Government. Facilities never before available have been provided for ensuring payment for overseas sales by the establishment of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. We have introduced taxation incentives and incentives to search for new markets, and rewards of very farreaching character for exploiting them. More recently, we have turned to the aid of the States with public works which will generate still further ability to export coal, beef and minerals and similar products. Our record in this regard stands as the reply to the charges by the Opposition of failure to be active in pursuit of new market opportunities. I would not have been spending my time in reminding the House of these activities but for the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. My primary purpose is to speak of the problems raised for Australia by the decision of the United Kingdom Government to seek membership of the European Common Market. One Labour member, in this debate, contrasted our unfavorable trade balance with the United Kingdom with our sizeable surplus with countries of the European Economic Community in trade. Therefore, he felt that neither the Government nor the country should be worried about our United Kingdom market. What that honorable member totally failed to comprehend is that 85 per cent, of our exports to the common market countries comprised wool and sheepskins and some other raw materials. We cannot accept the loss of our United Kingdom markets for butter, sugar, fruit, wheat, lamb and other products on a proposition that our money earnings can be sustained merely by earnings from wool sales. We have consistently said that we have seen value to the free world in a closer economic relationship in Europe leading to closer political cohesion, but we have never failed to add that our final attitude to such a proposition must depend on how the terms would affect Australia's own vital interests. The Treaty of Rome of 1957 is the basic document establishing the European Common Market, and continuing to determine the trading conduct of its members. The essence of the European Common Market is that over a period of years the members will progressively remove tariffs and other barriers to trade between them, and will aline their separate external tariffs into one common tariff wall against all outside countries. In addition, and of particular importance to Australia in the case of basic agricultural products, the countries of the European Common Market will adopt common policy with respect to production and marketing and a guaranteed level of returns to their producers. In the case of these commodities they will protect their own agricultural industries against imports by a variety of measures, principally in the form of valuable import duties but including in emergencies quantitative restrictions. With the common tariff wall I have referred to applying to our goods, we. would lose our preferences and our duty-free entry into the United Kingdom if Great Britain joined the Common Market. As producers inside the group would eventually be getting duty-free entry into the United Kingdom whilst we paid duty, we would find not only that we had lost our preferences against outside countries like the United States of America, for example, but also that continental suppliers of a product like butter would be getting preferences against Australian shippers of that product. Britain has hitherto said that she wanted to join the European Common Market, but with a big departure from the existing terms. The six countries of the market have said that if the United Kingdom wants to join, she must apply to join the community of The Six as it exists, and in the course of her application seek to secure modifications. This is the course now to be followed. How, then, am I to describe the implications for Australian trade? We all know that the United Kingdom has said she will seek to procure modifications in the interests of her own agriculture and in the interests of Commonwealth trading partners. I do not know whether the modifications will be approved by the Common Market countries. I do not know, of course, what modifications would be judged by the United Kingdom herself as sufficient to justify her joining. No one has suggested that Australia, or any other country, has the right to tell Britain that she should not join. So at this juncture I can discuss, in a positive sense, only the implications for Australia if there were no departure from the existing Treaty of Rome terms. Discussing our situation along those lines to-night is not to be interpreted as indicating that this is what we expect. It is the only way that I know of bringing out a clear picture of what we have at stake in this issue. One aspect of this to my mind is that, without doubt, if the United Kingdom does join The Six, other European countries will also join or will become associated with The Six. We can thus contemplate a situation in which most western European countries would in due course operate under uniform trading conditions. Greece would become an associate member, and Turkey would be likely to follow. The British Prime Minister has spoken recently of a market comprising a population, to use his own words, approaching 300,000,000 people. The only other comparable internal free-trading bloc of people of a high standard of living is the United States, with a population of fewer than 200,000,000 people. Able and sophisticated propagandists for the Common Market in this country and elsewhere have sown the idea that if the establishment of this great trading bloc in Europe leads to a greater level of prosperity, then clearly the market for Australia must be improved. Many in this country have blithely accepted that plausible proposition and have therefore tended to disparage the warnings of those who see possible dangers in the outcome. That high prosperity for a great group of people necessarily leads to the establishment of better selling prices for outside world producers can be exploded in a sentence. In modern history the United States is the classic example of the establishment of an enormous market demand and high purchasing power and, with them, such limited opportunities for Australian products as to amount to almost total exclusion. There is no market in a country that does not need your products and which, at the same time, is determined not to permit you to undersell its own domestic producers. That is our position vis-a-vis the United States. That readily could be our position vis-a-vis Europe under the terms of the Treaty of Rome as they now stand. The United Kingdom is our greatest market. Indeed, many of our industries have been deliberately geared to supply its requirements. All our products have unrestricted right of entry in quantity. Overwhelmingly they enter duty-free, but our competitors pay a heavy import duty. We pay none. At the same time, British agriculture is able to survive, and indeed, to thrive and expand under the policies by which home producers sell their wheat, barley, dairy products or meat in open competition with the products of Australia and others and have their returns made up by the British Treasury to a guaranteed price. The Treaty of Rome, however, has an entirely different concept. It is designed to encourage local agricultural production in another way - by setting high prices for both their producers and consumers, and ensuring that those high prices prevail by preventing import competition. That is the concept of the Treaty of Rome. The policy is to- establish, over a period of years, an agreed selling price for wheat, butter, *Soc.,* which will be sufficiently high to encourage production under European conditions. For example, the export price for French wheat is to-day about £20 sterling a ton, but the price inside France is about £30 sterling a ton. In West Germany the price for wheat is about £39 sterling a ton. Applying that situation to our market opportunities in the United Kingdom if that country joins the Common Market under the current Treaty of Rome conditions, let us examine the position. Already France exports some 300,000 tons - the equivalent of 1 1,000,000 bushels - of soft wheat to the United Kingdom, currently at a price about £2'0 a ton. Together with Germany, France has been exporting more than 1,000,000 tons- that is, upwards of 40,000,000 bushels - of wheat, or wheat equivalent, a. year to countries outside Europe at an export price which is currently about £20 a ton. Of course, France and Germany would be expected to seize the opportunity to switch immediately to the United Kingdom a large portion of these present exports of 1,000,000 tons, in order to take advantage of the higher internal price of about £30 a ton, which would then be applying in the United Kingdom market if the United Kingdom were inside the Common Market on the current Treaty of Rome terms. At present Australia supplies the United Kingdom with about 750,000 tons of wheat a year- about 28,000,000 bushels. There is not the slightest doubt that if France and other continental countries were free to sell in the United Kingdom, not at £20 a ton but at £30 a ton, and we had to get over a tariff wall to get in, our trade would disappear: The continental countries already have the capacity in their production of surplus wheat, to drive us out of the United Kingdom market. Worse still, the higher returns to producers, as a result of France and Germany getting £30 a ton instead of £20 a ton for the wheat they now export to the United Kingdom and to countries outside Europe - 1,300,000 tons or more than 50,000,000 bushels - would clearly produce an incentive to generate a greater production of wheat in Europe. Without that incentive France is already increasing her production by almost 200,000 tons - that is about 7,500,000 bushelseach year. Over the last couple of years I have had to negotiate special arrangements with both France and Germany in order to gain some protection for our flour trade against their subsidized exports to the Middle East, Malaya, Ceylon and Indonesia. If to-day, in the present situation, we can encounter French flour in Malaya I would expect that in the future we would encounter surplus European flour and wheat perhaps as far abroad as Japan. Given a sufficient price incentive, and a protected right to sell untroubled by outside competition, Europe, including the United Kingdom, will undoubtedly be able to produce vastly increased quantities of foodstuffs. It is not commonly understood that already, as a result of the agricultural policy they have followed, European countries are to-day tremendously large producers of foodstuffs. The countries which I shall call the prospective enlarged Common Market area already grow 42,000,000 tons of wheat - seven times the total produced by Australia. The same countries produce to-day 7,500,000 tons of sugar. That is more than five times the total quantity of sugar produced by Australia and is more than is produced by Cuba. These prospective Common Market countries already produce 1,500,000 tons of butter. That is more than seven times the quantity of butter produced by Australia. They grow the staggering quantity of 380,000,000 bushels of applies - 30 times the total Australian apple crop. These figures show clearly that only a quite marginal increase in European production would be enough to exclude completely the necessity for the area as a whole to import a number of our most important exports. The United Kingdom alone produces as much beef and veal as does Australia and half as much milk again as does Australia. The United Kingdom has achieved its spectacular increase in agricultural production under the stimulus of price supports and aids which currently cost the United Kingdom Treasury £A. 325,000,000 a year. The present practice of The Six has been estimated as providing protection to their agricultural industries within their own area equivalent to a value of £1, 250,000,000 per annum- not in that case paid out of their treasuries, but the equivalent protection achieved by other devices. The illustration I gave a moment ago to show the damage that will occur to our wheat exports to the United: Kingdom should she enter the Common Market and French and German wheat take our market from us could be repeated for a number of other commodities. As examples, 1 mention butter, cheese, sugar, coarse grains and meat. Similar serious results could befall the whole range of our food exports. For instance, our dried-vine fruit industry, which sustains complete communities in Australia, would be hit. Instead of enjoying a preference over American and Mediterranean fruit, as now occurs, in that situation the preference would be accorded to Greek and perhaps to Turkish fruit. The canned fruit industry, which looks to the United Kingdom for 90 per cent, of its export market, would no longer have a preference over United States canned fruit. No doubt both they and us would pay a duty. Similarly, most of the rest of our exports of foodstuffs would be affected. In such a situation, I could see nothing but havoc for many industries of Australia, New Zealand and like countries. I am not declaring that this is what will happen; but I am portraying precisely what the position would be under the existing Treaty of Rome terms, and illustrating thereby the magnitude of the task that we and the United Kingdom have in securing a sufficient modification of the terms to enable our industries to survive as suppliers to the United Kingdom or the Common Market area. I am sure that the United Kingdom will try to negotiate modifications of the Treaty of Rome terms against such devastating consequences as 1 have been illustrating. But do not let us forget thai modifications which would substantially maintain our present position would in fact represent a major part of the case which Great Britain unsuccessfully pressed over a period of four years - the case which shehas now apparently been brought to believe is hopeless of achievement. That is why I regard the present position as mom serious. It is not serious in the sense that our trade with the United Kingdom would be; wrecked overnight if she joined the Common Market. It is contemplated in the Treaty of Rome that it will take quite a number of years to achieve the full operation of the Common Market. But we cannot think only of the well-being of Australia to-morrow; we must think in terms of the capacity for expansion of the nation in the years ahead. The responsibilities in this situation are not to be carried alone by the United Kingdom and her Commonwealth trading partners. Countries like Australia and New Zealand must not be grievously damaged as part of the price to secure greater political and economic cohesion in Europe. To whom do our friends of the Western world expect us to sell? United States policies of protection prevent us from making any worth-while sales into that great and rich area. Without sufficient modification of the Treaty of Rome, I see the stage set to exclude substantially most of out products from Europe and the United Kingdom. Are we to become predominantly dependent upon sales to Japan, to the Communist countries and, for what sales- we can achieve, to the great array of under-developed countries, all of which have desperate balance of payments problems? The United States of America has been the world's leader in preaching, if not precisely in practising, the need for freer world trading, and also the proponent of the doctrine that whilst existing preferences are regrettable, no new preference should be established. This is one of the fundamentals of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The concept of some 300,000,000 people of Europe establishing for the first time in modern history free trading between themselves, with a towering tariff barrier surrounding them to keep the rest of the trading world outside, represents through Australian eyes a picture of the most gigantic obstacle to international trading in world history, and certainly a massive new preference area. We do not want to be obstructive. We do not want to be dog in the manger; but we do want to be allowed to live and to expand. Australia is not going to be quietly brushed off by trade policies on the part of industrialized countries which cripple her markets for such an important part of her exports, which strangle her development and which frustrate the plans for our economic growth. So our fight is a fight for stakes which for us are very very high. It is a fight for the very right to live and to grow in a prosperous, free *world,* a fight for Australians to enjoy the rights laid down so expressively by President Roosevelt and **Mr. Churchill** at the time of the Atlantic Charter. They referred to the objective of furthering - the enjoyment by all States, great or small, of access ... to trade . . . needed for their economic prosperity. These rights have been talked about from time to time since then, at the Bretton Woods conference, at the Commonwealth Montreal conference, in Gatt and so on. But I repeat that this is not a matter to be solved alone between us and the United Kingdom. The United States must take an interest in this situation. The great Western nations of Europe must see that there is an economic survival problem for free countries outside Europe. With all my perturbation about this situation, I am still sure that there could be great good come of the economic and political integration of Western Europe. But as I see it, Australia, New Zealand and other exporting countries in and out of the Commonwealth must be assured, at the time that the United Kingdom and other European countries join in a larger Common Market, that we will be permitted to sell adequate and continuing quantities of our traditional items of trade in that area. By adequate quantities, I do not contemplate that the quantity would have to be unlimited in relation to the reasonable needs for protection of member country producers. However, in such a situation I can see no argument against Australia being allowed to enjoy, for the reasonable quantities that we sold, the same prices as those that the Common Market countries considered appropriate for their producers, but not artificially depressed prices. The world prices of wheat and butter, to take two examples, are set by open market prices in the United Kingdom. These prices are already artificially depressed by exports from countries which heavily subsidize their production. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom is the major constant world import market for many of those products. If the United Kingdom joins a great new economic bloc, that major market could be greatly reduced for outside suppliers, and, for some products, it could even disappear. The displaced supplies of outside countries would then be in bitter competition for the remaining markets of the world. Beyond that, this competition would be still further intensified if the agricultural policies of the new, enlarged Common Market tended to thrust added export surpluses on to the remaining markets of the outside world. I am sure that in this setting we cannot get away from the prospect of surpluses of foodstuffs above the quantities that can be sold commercially. Here again, it is essential that there should be sanity in the treatment of such surpluses. For as far as we can see ahead, there will continue to be hundreds of millions of ill-fed people in the world. The use of surpluses so generated must be accepted as a problem that is not confined to those who happen to produce the foodstuffs in surplus supply. It is a problem which demands the co-operation of all countries of goodwill throughout the world which have a capacity to contribute to the cost of making them available - free, or at concessional prices - to those who need them but cannot afford to buy them at a fair and economic price. Here is a wider scope to co-operate with the United States of America in an extension of its existing policies under the Food for Peace campaign that was established a year or two ago by President Eisenhower. The problems created for Australia out of Britain's desire to join the Common Market must not be examined by the countries directly concerned merely to discover by how much our sales to the United Kingdom can be reduced and still allow us to survive. That would not solve our problems or leave us feeling that we have been justly dealt with. More important, it would, in my opinion, miss an opportunity that undoubtedly exists to think big, to act constructively, to generate more goodwill and to promote greater economic strength within the free world. This can be done, I am sure, by seeing to it that the producers of food and raw materials, wherever they are, get reasonable access to commercial markets at fair prices and, beyond that, are able to dispose of surpluses in a manner that harms none but aids millions, with the cost equitably borne by all who can share the burden, and with no political tags attached to the disposal. I believe, **Mr. Speaker,** that there are great dangers in this concept. But T also believe that countries of goodwill, which are prepared to see the problems for free countries such as ours and other Commonwealth countries, will be able to devise means to permit and even encourage the greater economic and political cohesion of Europe and at the same time take the opportunity out of what results to achieve a better understanding amongst the wealthier countries of the world, so that surplus food that undoubtedly is being produced and, in my judgment, under the Common Market arrangement could be increased, could be used to the advantage of hungry mankind and as an enormous and massive contribution to the greater political stability of the free world. {: #subdebate-31-0-s17 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** and the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** would have us believe that Australia was confronted by a sudden and critical problem when Great Britain decided to apply for admission to the European Economic Community. They have to exaggerate the suddenness of the problem in order to extricate themselves. They have to exaggerate its seriousness to ingratiate themselves. They must try to persuade the Australian people that they are in no way to blame for the position. They also have to try to persuade the Australian people that theirs is a regime which can cope with the situation. First, they cannot claim that this was a sudden position. They should not have been caught flat-footed, as they were, because the Prime Minister has made four trips to Europe since the first reduction was made in the tariffs which operate between the Common Market countries. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has made two trips abroad in connexion with the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council, and I presume that the Minister for Trade also has informed himself on the development of the Common Market. This situation has been developing for some years, **Sir, and** our senior Ministers have been on the spot to see it for themselves. They did not read the signs, they did not think to ask about the position, or the people they were visiting did not deign to tell them about it. The Prime Minister, in particular, has visited not only the United Kingdom but every country in the Common Market except Luxembourg. We have top diplomatic representatives in the United Kingdom and in every Common Market country except Luxembourg. The whole of the ministerial visits and the diplomatic representation have gone for nought. Yet, the position has been accelerating there all this time. The Prime Minister made a somewhat glancing reference to this position. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** suggested that the Government had been shortsighted in the matter. The Prime Minister traced the history of it and of the proposals which Britain had made - all, be it understood, unsuccessful- in 1957, 1958 and 1959. He told us last night - >We have for some time known that attempts would be made to bring The Seven and The Six together. I myself had some purely general talk about this with both Chancellor Adenauer and President de Gaulle in 1959. He visited them, honorable members will remember, on 18th and 19th June, 1959. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- Which trip was that? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It was his subantepenultimate one to Europe. Reporting to the House in August of 1959, he said - > **Dr. Adenauer** seemed to me to feel that in the course of time, Great Britain and other countries should be associated with the main original European arrangements ... In spite of what I believe to be the erroneous impressions entertained by **Dr. Adenauer** - honestly entertained, I agree, of course - about British policy- And so on; that is, the conversation he had with **Dr. Adenauer** in June, 1959. If he had heeded that conversation he would have been forewarned concerning the position which has now arisen. But he chose to disregard **Dr. Adenauer's** advice. He thought **Dr. Adenauer** was misinformed about it, although he had the grace to say that **Dr. Adenauer's** impressions were, though erroneous, " honestly entertained ". No wonder that in July this year, just after **Mr. Sandys** had left these shores, the Prime Minister confessed in a rather crestfallen and pathetic manner - >I used to think 1 knew a lot about the Commonwealth. I am* not so sure now. It is quite plain, **Sir, that** the German Chancellor knew more about the likely course of events in Europe, and particularly as they concerned the senior member of our Commonwealth of Nations, than the Australian Prime Minister knew. Our Prime Minister was told, but he did not believe the man who told him and he has told us of no subsequent talks. Is this Prime Minister competent to see the country through its present position, if it is as critical as we have been led to believe? Has the position really arisen suddenly, or has it only appeared to arise suddenly because the Prime Minister did not foresee it and did not read the signs? He did not take the Australian public into his confidence on this matter. He also told us last night that **Mr. Sandys'** visit produced, for the first time on the political level, a specific exchange of views. What was our Prime Minister attending Prime Ministers' Conferences for, what was he making visits to the Common Market countries for, what was he visiting the United Nations for, if not to consult on the political level with regard to matters which concerned his own country? He told us, admittedly, in August, 1959, that he had given President de Gaulle the benefit of his views on Algeria. He did not tell us then that he had discussed the Common Market with President de Gaulle. He would have us believe that the visit of **Mr. Sandys** produced suddenly what he has called the first exchange of views on the political level. He made some point of the fact that there was an arrangement whereby Australia would be effectively consulted in this matter, yet the first political consultations were held when **Mr. Sandys** visited Australia early in July. Did **Mr. Sandys** visit Australia to exchange views or to convey news? If the purpose was to exchange views, then the views on this side were very summarily dismissed by the British Prime Minister and his Cabinet, because only three weeks later the Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons that application was being made by the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community. He did not say that this matter had arisen suddenly. **Mr. Macmillan** said to the House of Commons, " During the past nine months we have had useful and frank discussions with the European Economic Community countries ". During that period of time our Prime Minister had made a visit to the United Nations, and also to London to attend the Prime Ministers' Conference. Probably it was also within that period that the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** made a visit to the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council. What did they discuss? Did they not ask **Mr. Macmillan** how the proceedings were going, and what the prospects were of Britain joining, or having to join, the Common Market? Were they not told, or did they fail to ask? The Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann)** told the press a week before **Mr. Sandys** arrived, " The Commonwealth Government has not been told where the British Government stands on this issue ". What is the position? We have accused the Government of lack of foresight and lack of frankness. There can be no doubt about the lack of foresight, and at this stage there can be no doubt about the lack of frankness. The Government has not told us yet what negotiations took place. Are we to be fobbed off with the impression that between this purely general talk with Chancellor Adenauer on 18th June, 1959, and the first exchange of views on the political level, with **Mr. Sandys** in Canberra at the beginning of July of this year, no negotiations had taken place? Perhaps they had not taken place, but are we to believe that none could have taken place? There can be no greater demonstration of the ineptitude of this Government. It is true that in the short run some interests in this country, particularly some primary industries, can be gravely affected, and all these Ministers, after their years in office, have proved themselves incompetent to anticipate a position of this kind or to deal with it. The Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** addressed himself partly to the Australian electors and partly to the European negotiators. I will come later to the effect his remarks are likely to have on the European negotiators, but let me say now that he has made no proposal which would tread on their toes in any way. In other words, he has continued with the laissez-faire attitude which has left the shipping, the insurance, the processing and the marketing of Australia's products in the hands of its customers, so far as primary products are concerned, and in the hands of its rivals as regards manufactured goods. If we are to look after ourselves and get a better return from our existing markets, while building up new markets, if we are to increase our income and diversify our markets, we will at least have to take the steps that every other country in our neighbourhood has taken, and which only the controlling regime in our own country refuses to take. One of the diverting features of **Mr. Sandys'** visit was the by-play between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade. The early running was made by the Minister for Trade. He got all the headlines in the Sunday newspapers, and he got them in the Monday newspapers too. Then the Prime Minister, realizing that he had been caught flat-footed, not only by **Mr. Macmillan** but also by **Mr. McEwen,** sent out his press agents to convene the press conferences, and accordingly on Tuesday and Wednesday of the week when **Mr. Sandys** was departing, the newspapers were full of the story that the Prime Minister had adopted an even tougher line than the Minister for Trade, the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** and the Minister for Primary Industry. In other words, they were playing to the gallery, competing for local audiences, having the Australian public believe that they were belatedly and suddenly solicitous of the people's interests. Of course, it is unfortunate for the British Government that the conservative governments in Canada and in Australia are faced with elections this year. There can be little doubt that the conservative governments in Canada and Australia had a fair idea of what was likely to happen, and that they let the matter develop without a word of warning to the British conservative government. But of course, when the crisis arose elections were at hand, and we find the Australian Government making a big demonstration, looking for local publicity. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- What does the Labour Party think about the problems concerning the Common Market? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- You will have your opportunity on Tuesday to tell us what you discussed at the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council with regard to this matter, with all the other finance Ministers of the Commonwealth. Did the British Chancellor of the Exchequer and the various trade Ministers at that meeting tell you about it? Did you ask about it, or did you simply fail to read the signs? Were you caught flat-footed, as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade were caught? Britain will sooner or later join the Common Market. I do not think anybody doubts that. The longer she delays in joining the Common Market the higher the price she, and her principal trade partners, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, will have to pay. But if Britain joins the Common Market the position will not be beyond hope. There are articles in the Treaty of Rome which do in fact permit arrangements to be made for some of our products to be exported to the Common Market countries. I refer honorable members to Article 25 of the treaty. In paragraph 2 of that article are detailed the arrangements which can be made for the admission to any member State, such as Britain, of commodities listed in a list numbered G, which include commodities in which Australia would be interested, such as cheese and wine, and lead and zinc ores. Again, paragraph 3 of Article 25 provides that similar arrangements can be made with regard to products listed in Annex II. of the treaty. Among those products in which Australia would be interested are meat, dairy produce, cereals and beet and cane- sugar. The principal products with which we are concerned: can in fact be dealt with under the: Rome Treaty as it. stands, and one would hope that Britain's prestige and experience in negotiation would enable some arrangements in respect of these products to be made. Again, the position will not be completely critical for a year or so. The meat agreement which we have with the United Kingdom does not expire until 1967. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement does not expire until 1968. And the International Wheat Agreement is to be re-negotiated next year. **Sir John** Teasdale, for instance, does not believe that our wheat will be in any more difficult a position after Britain enters the Common Market than it is in at the present time. I am not suggesting that there will not be a difficulty for Australia in regard to the other products. For instance, the Common Market tariff on Australian cheese would be about 23 per cent., on butter 24 per cent., on meat 20 per cent., on sugar 80 per cent, and on our various fruits between 8 and 14 per cent. Therefore, there is no question that in due course the position can become difficult with respect to the products concerning which we have agreements. For the other products, the position can be more immediately difficult. It is unfortunate that no anticipation has been exercised and no preparation has been undertaken in respect of these products. The Minister for Trade emphasized the very great production of all these primary products in The Six. It is true that production of these commodities in those countries is very great. Nevertheless, The Six are by far the largest importers of foodstuffs in the world. They import more foodstuffs than does Britain. Insofar as, for some years of transition, Australia's export income must depend on the export of primary products, there is some hope for us in Europe, because Europe is an expanding market. Britain, unfortunately, has been a declining market. Our arrangements v,ith her have tied us to a declining market. Furthermore, the arrangements which we have made with Britain - the Minister referred to the 1957 re-vamping of the Ottawa Agreement - have in fact steadily gone to our disadvantage. The reason is that the preferences which we enjoy in the British market, in general, involve an advantage of a specific sum of money compared with products coming from other countries. This means that as the price of the product goes up the value of the preference to us declines. If the price in the United Kingdom market of any of these products of ours doubles, the value of the preference to Australia is halved, because the value to Australia of the preference in pounds, shillings and pence remains the same. The British, however, have the advantage in our market of having an ad valorem preference and thereby, even if the price at which British products are sold in Australia increases, the advantage to Britain compared to other countries from which we import remains the same. As other honorable members have pointed out, the United Kingdom is a declining market for Australia, its share of our exports having fallen from 50 per cent, to 30 per cent, in the last twenty years. The advantage that Australia enjoys in that market is steadily declining, whereas the advantage that Britain has in the Australian market remains constant. I shall refer now to an attitude which is a somewhat longterm one to take, but, nevertheless, it is the one which we now have to build on. I quote from an article on the subject, " Australia and European Free Trade ". by **Mr. W.** M. Corden, which appeared in the " Economic Record " three years ago. The passage is as follows: - >A subsidy of a few million pounds would offset the effects on the export industries concerned. Because our import preferences are probably more effective in raising our import prices than the preferences in Britain are in raising our export prices there would be a net gain to us from an all-round ending of the whole preference system. Furthermore, in return for agreeing to a reduction in preferences we may be able to obtain from Community countries either preferential entry into their market or concessions to our viewpoint when their agricultural arrangements are discussed. We do not have to be mute or absent during the negotiations for Britain's entry into the European Common Market. We have diplomatic representatives in all the countries of the Common Market except Luxembourg, whose international arrangements are handled by her neighbour. All those countries have diplomatic representatives in Australia. We have trade missions in all those countries. Therefore, we can look after ourselves in our relations with those countries. Surely we are adult enough, internationally, to make known our attitude in these things. It so happens, of course, that if Britain goes into the Common Market her attitude towards the import of agricultural products will tally more with ours than, say, the attitude of Germany at present. It may be inefficient for such highly-industrialized countries to subsidize their agriculture too much. At the same time, there is surely an anomaly in Australia and New Zealand being British farms on the other side of the world. We must make some alternative arrangements. And we ought to have been making them for a long time before this. The position that has arisen has not suddenly come about. In the 1930's, the balance of Australia's trade with the United Kingdom averaged £38,000,000 a year in our favour. In the 1950's, it averaged £62,000.000 a year in Britain's favour. Last year, of course, it was in Britain's favour to the extent of £76,000,000. Those figures take no account of invisibles, but allow just for the goods which each country sold to the other. Preferences have increasingly worked against us. I mentioned earlier that Ministers were talking partly for the Australian electors and partly for the European negotiators. In fact, the only sort of talk that will impress the European negotiators will be talk relating to matters in which their interests will be affected if Australia looks after itself primarily, as Britain, quite understandably, is now looking after itself primarily. We have been told this, year in and year out, in annual reports which have to be made to this Parliament by marketing bodies and the Tariff Board under the provisions of the acts of this Parliament. Honorable members will recall the damning indictment which the Tariff Board a few years ago made in respect of British suppliers concerning the charges which they made to their Australian subsidiaries and customers. The board said, quite frankly and explicitly, that these suppliers will charge what the traffic will bear. The board quoted a letter from the United Kingdom Board of Trade - a government instrumentality - to the managing director of a supplying company in the United Kingdom, setting out what attitudes British suppliers should adopt to Australian purchasers. The passage which the board quoted from this letter referred to the policy of the United Kingdom Government, and stated - >The Government's policy on this (export policy on prices) is that they like to see industry get as much for its exports as the traffic will bear. Our balance of payments position is so critical that the more we can earn with our exports the better. This does not mean that one should risk losing long-term goodwill by charging exorbitant prices while a> short-term scarcity exists. These are the Tariff Board's comments on that attitude of the United Kingdom Government - >United Kingdom manufacturers of goods competitive with those produced in Australia when exercising their "full rights of audience before the Tariff Board " have some difficulty in supporting a claim for " full opportunity of reasonable competition " when their own Government instrumentalities are parties to an arrangement which imposes a competitive penalty on the Australian industry. The Board in its findings must take notice of handicaps of this kind. No doubt those responsible in the United Kingdom have considered that the short-term advantage of taking " what the traffic will bear " is more important than the long-term advantage of an Australian Tariff level based on norma] trade practices. The Tariff Board has reported to us that that is the attitude that the United Kingdom Government encourages its companies to take in supplying goods to this country. The same principle, " what the traffic will bear ", has consistently been followed over the decades by the British shipping companies. We are one of the principal trading countries in the world. There would be only ten other countries that trade as much as Australia trades, and there are only two of them, the United Kingdom and Japan, that depend as we do entirely on shipping for their trade. Every export and import has to move by ship, and they all move in foreign ships, and in ships owned in the United Kingdom, the Common Market countries, or Scandinavia. The transport of our exports and imports is in ships owned by our customers for primary products and by our rivals in the sale of manufactured goods. How, in those circumstances, can we maintain existing markets and promote new ones? The countries which own the ships do not want us to establish new markets for manufactured goods in places where they themselves are selling. They do not want us to have alternate markets for our primary products. They want our primary products to be available in a few countries only so that they will be cheap. Therefore, they provide the services to those countries where the shipping services are owned. The Tait Committee of inquiry into the stevedoring industry reported to us in 1957 in these terms - >In the absence of disclosure, during negotiations, of the financial results of the ship-owners' operations, we find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate determining factor in the setting of freight rates in this trade is " what the traffic will bear " having regard to such alternatives as are available. In one sense the manner in which the system has worked in practice is the cause of the increases in freight rates. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- What was the increase last year? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Last year the amount which Australia paid for transportation as a whole overseas was £173,000,000. Of that amount Australia would have paid about £150,000,000 for overseas shipping. I know that the shipowners do have repairs made in Australian ports, and that they buy stores in Australian ports, but the amount which we pay overseas is £150,000,000 for shipping alone. If one looks at our invisibles one finds that for some years past more than 40 per cent, of our export income has gone in invisibles, shipping and insurance dividends paid overseas, personal remittances, travel costs of Australians, and other forms of invisibles. This position has been getting worse and worse. Not only has the Tait committee reported on it, but also all the marketing boards have reported on it. The Australian Canned Fruit Board reported - >Australian exporters of canned fruit already are at a serious disadvantage on the score of marine freight charges in comparison with those payable by their main competitors on the United Kingdom and Continental markets. The sharp downward trend in prices obtainable on these markets, in evidence during the past two years, unfortunately has not been arrested, consequently any rise in freight rates would be a matter of considerable concern to this industry. The Australian Egg Board reported in the same way. The Australian Apple and Pear Board reported - >The 1960 United Kingdom-Continental freight rate of lis. 6d. (stg.) per box represents close to 40 per cent of the c.i.f. value of the product. The Dried Fruits Control Board, similarly, has told us already this year of our dependence in these matters. What is the Govern ment doing about them? The Government has recited matters such as the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, the Trade Commissioner Service, taxation incentives and credit sales of wheat to China and a few other Communist countries - but not India - and so on. What of a positive nature lis being done really to strengthen our hand vis-a-vis the negotiators in Europe? Let me suggest a few things that can be done. We should establish a Commonwealth shipping line. We are one of the largest trading countries m the world. All our trade goes by sea. Honorable gentlemen opposite cannot cite another significant country that does not operate some overseas ships. Australia is the only trading country of any significance at all which does not operate a single overseas ship. Why has nothing been done about it yet? We can build the ships. We can operate them. New Zealand operates some, and its crews are paid just as highly as are Australian crews. The United States, in its own shipping and in the shipping lines that are registered under flags of convenience, pays its crews about twice as much as we do. The excuse of high wage costs will no longer hold water. We should operate our own shipping line. Until we do we are completely in the hands of our customers and our competitors. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- We actually subsidize aviation transport overseas. Why not shipping? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Actually, we do not directly subsidize our overseas airline, because Qantas Empire Airways Limited is one of the few international operators in the world that are not subsidized. The establishment of an overseas shipping line is one thing that we clearly should do. The Government, for purely doctrinaire reasons, refuses to establish an Australian shipping line. It is neither prudent nor patriotic to deprive Australia of a shipping line such as every other trading country has. It does not matter so much whether it is a government or private line, but if private people will not operate one there is an obligation on any patriotic or prudent government to operate such a line, as the United States Government and many other governments do. Even .the trade missions about which the Prime Minister spoke last night go overseas in ships that we charter from other countries. What about our insurance? Most of our general insurance - fire, marine and accident - is with foreign companies. The sale of our wool is in the hands of a small group of organized overseas wool-buyers who send the wool overseas for processing. The sale of our supplies of oil at a reasonable price depends on the goodwill of a small group of international oil companies. Overseas companies buy up our bauxite deposits and the development of those deposits will be determined by the state of the world supply of aluminium and demand for it. Australian lead, copper and zinc exports are largely controlled by an overseas company. Some British companies are notorious for refusing to allow their Australian subsidiaries to export. Not one Australian subsidiary of a motor car company controlled or owned in the United Kingdom is allowed to export a single vehicle from Australia. We can correct that situation. We could have insisted, when the investors came here, that these businesses had to pay their way in a certain number of years or that they had to export a certain percentage of their product. A certain number of parts is imported for Australian cars. Therefore, even after the companies were established here we could have regulated their subsequent conduct by laying down the conditions on which they could import such parts. Australia is one of the largest motor car manufacturing countries in the world, and the only one besides Britain which manufactures cars with right hand drive. The motor car manufacturing industry is an efficient, entirely post-war industry, which ought to be able to compete overseas. The subsidiaries of British companies are not allowed to export to the small number of countries in the Commonwealth which still buy cars with right hand drive. What has the Government done about this? Nothing at all! The plain fact is that the only countries that are expanding their export incomes are those which sell manufactured goods. We must accelerate the trend towards export of manufactures, and if private companies will not use our products in our country the Government should see that plants to use those products are set up. The Bell Bay aluminium plant clearly demonstrates that Commonwealth and State .governments in co-operation can, if they wish, set up any industry in Australia. The Bell Bay plant was established at a time when we imported bauxite. We now have found that we have the largest resources of bauxite in the world, but very little is being processed in Australia. We have in Australia all the coal and the iron ore that are needed to meet our own demands for steel. As we produce 'the cheapest steel in the world we also could produce steel for export. All our neighbours import steel but, instead of importing it from Australia where it is cheaper, they import steel from countries which make it with the coal and the iron ore that they import from Australia. We have in this country not only primary but also mineral products which other countries process. We ought to set about processing them or more of them ourselves. We have in this country the most technically-advanced population in an area of thousands of miles. We are thousands of miles closer to all the emerging countries in the Indian Ocean and in SouthEast Asia than is any European country. We are closer to most of them than is Japan, the only country which has competitive industrial skills. Until we export manufactured goods, as well as primary and mineral products in their raw rudimentary condition, our overseas markets will continue to decline. The only countries which have a rising export income are those which charge not only for the raw rudimentary materials but also for the human skills that are applied to processing and manufacturing those materials. Until we do that we shall continue to go down the drain internationally. There can be palliatives. For a certain time we can subsidize the primary products that other countries process. For a certain time we can impose import controls to assist our balance of payments, but we shall not finally pay our way until we- {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr Forbes: -- Then you agree that import controls are necessary? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- For the time being one must have import controls, as I thought every one in this House would have realized following the disastrous experiment of February last year. Until we are in an equal bargaining position with other countries, we must have import controls just as most other highly industrialized countries of the world have. Japan, for example, has import controls. Import controls are only a temporary measure. They are not ideal. The ideal position is reached when trade throughout the world is free, but that cannot come about until all countries are in an equal bargaining position. Australia is not yet in that position. For the twelve years that this Government has been in power it has done nothing to improve our international bargaining ing position. We are still drawers of water and hewers of wood so far as our exports are concerned. We live internally mostly on manufacturing employment. Externally we still have the same kind of economy as have the emerging countries of South America, Asia and Africa. If we are to keep our heads above water we must increase our exports of manufactured goods. That is how we shall pay our way overseas. That is how we shall obtain a higher income for our primary and mineral products. That is how we shall be able to cope with the position in relation to the Common Market which has arisen, not suddenly but inevitably and inexorably. What is the Government's plan? The Prime Minister stated that he was setting up a special committee of Cabinet to discuss the position. In other words, he is appointing to discuss the position the very people who have not seen what has been coming for the last four years. It will be a case of the blind leading the blind. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- The Prime Minister said that they would be able to meet quickly if need be. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Yes, but they could have met quickly, if need be, at any time in the last four years; and the need was coming ever closer during that period. {: #subdebate-31-0-s18 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-31-0-s19 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The closing remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** were relevant only to a time of low commodity prices and relatively high prices for secondary industry manufactures and exports. If he had tried to advance this same argument six or seven years ago when commodity prices were much higher than they are now it would have been completely irrelevant. His argument is relevant only to a short period, and who knows but that in a short period we may well find that commodity' prices have increased greatly and that prices for manufactured goods have declined. If that were so, his argument would fall completely to the ground. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition began and closed his speech on the note that the Government has been short-sighted and dilatory in its assessment of events in relation to trading conditions in Europe. That is completely and demonstrably untrue. In a magnificent speech earlier this evening, the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** demonstrated how untrue is the Opposition's claim. In 1956 the Department of Trade was established for the very reason that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** foresaw the grave trading difficulties that would confront Australia. Since the establishment of the Department of Trade, the Japanese Trade Agreement has been negotiated, the Ottawa Agreement has been revised, the Export Payments Insurance Corporation has been established, and the Trade Commissioner Service has been extended to many additional countries. There have been positive results from the policy that has been pursued for the last four years. At present, Pacific countries absorb 33 per cent, of our exports whereas only a few years ago they absorbed only 14 per cent. That is evidence of an awareness of the dangers that can follow moves in Europe towards closer integration. To consider some specific commodities, let ustake beef. Only three years ago Europe imported £29,000,000 worth of our beef but last year it imported only £9,500,000 worth, a drop of almost £20,000,000. However, whereas three years ago Pacific countries imported £20,000,000 worth of our beef last year the value was £28,000,000, an increase of £8,000,000. This also indicates that the Government has been aware of world trading conditions and has done a great deal to cope with the dangers that could confront Australia. Discussion on the European Common Market can fall into two categories, one- dealing with the historical and political aspects and the other with the economic aspects. Of course, these two categories interweave but to some extent they can be dealt with separately. From Australia's point of view the economic aspects probably are the most important, but any person who tries now to take a firm view of any aspect of this matter is either naive or a charlatan because too much about it remains unknown. We do not know whether She level of protection for the Common Market countries will be relatively low, as France would appear to wish it to be, or extremely high as Germany wishes it to be. The answer to this question could gravely affect our trading prospects in Europe. We do not know what concessions may be obtained by the United Kingdom and by ourselves in negotiations that will take place shortly. We do know, however, that the policies that have been pursued by European countries for the last fifteen or twenty years will be carried forward so that those countries will reach a higher degree of self-sufficiency and a higher standard of farming. If Australia had been invaded and if our people had been nearly starved in two world wars we would not argue with the policy that has been pursued in Europe. In the last resort we cannot argue with it. We must accept it. The policy is not something new. It has been pursued for at least fifteen years. I support most strongly the Prime Minister's statement that the first duty of the Australian Government is to safeguard the legitimate interests of our own exporters. He, and the Minister for Trade, have shown how that is being done. I believe that the most important aspect of this matter is the determination to negotiate on our own behalf when commodities that concern Australia are under discussion between the United Kingdom and the Common Market countries. But I should like to add one point: If and when the United Kingdom joins the Common Market certain producers in this country may be gravely harmed. If this happens, they should not be expected to carry the burden themselves. The nation should carry the burden of any hardship that is inflicted on producers by these direct moves. If we make too much of our own particular difficulties in this matter without looking at the broader aspects, we are likely to misconceive the nature of the Common Market and of the United Kingdom's motives, and as a result possibly cause serious harm to Commonwealth relations. For that reason I want to try to cover a little more broadly some of the political aspects and, if it is not impertinent to do so, to try to add something to the understanding of this matter. Four years ago the United Kingdom rejected membership of the Common Market. Some wonderment has been expressed about her change of mind. The United Kingdom rejected membership for several reasons. She wanted cheap food for her own consumers; she was fearful of losing imperial preference; she did not want to have to choose between Europe and the Commonwealth; she felt that it would embarrass her own farming interests; and she felt also - this is a legacy from the war years - that she had a special position in her relationship with the United States of America and did not need, for any reasons, to join in more closely with Europe. She may have felt, too, that some unwanted derogation of her sovereignty would be involved. For those reasons the United Kingdom sponsored the European Free Trade Association. That was done quite plainly and obviously as a counter-attraction to the Common Market. But E.F.T.A., as it came to be known, or The Seven, failed, because England had to deal with the nations in Europe that could be called the left-overs in terms of power, population and prestige. The association failed to offer the attractions of the Common Market for the very reason that it did not set out to achieve the unifying effect that the Common Market was set out to achieve. Sponsorship by the United Kingdom of The Seven was perhaps England's last manifestation of her old attitude to Europe in the pursuit of which she practised the balance-of-power technique, about which we have already heard something during this debate. As I have said, she tried with The Seven to counter-balance the influence and power of the Common Market; but quite plainly the United Kingdom did not have the power to do so. The Common Market was going ahead, and it will dominate Europe whether England joins it or not. But this policy of the balance of power has never been conspicuous in maintaining peace in Europe. In the ultimate it has led to serious wars. By now the United Kingdom must realize that a united Europe offers the best and possibly the only chance for peace in that area and for establishing a much stronger bulwark against the spread of communism. There are important political and economic factors which apparently have compelled the United Kingdom to change her mind about negotiating for entry to the Common Market and once again to go through a most serious heart-searching in regard to this movement; I hope she believes that the unity of Europe is now a much more important factor in ensuring peace and the strength of the free world. If England, France and Germany, which have rent themselves in wars in past years, can be tied together in a union - I do not mind if a word of that strength is used - that will bind them to the defence of freedom and democracy, they must be a real power for good in the world. If the United Kingdom is in this organization, she may help to guide the new force. Therefore, I believe it will have a much greater chance of success. Large markets will be available to United Kingdom industries. Britain's entry to the Common Market will offer a great challenge. It will offer, not the certainty, but the chance for a real industrial resurgence in the United Kingdom, which does not appear to be in the offing at present. There are other factors that must have influenced Britain. Trade between the industrial countries of Europe or industrial countires in general is expanding much more rapidly than is trade between industrial and primary producing or primary produce exporting countries. If time permitted, that statement could be proved by statistics. Again, Britain must have thought that Western Europe was the only large economic unit that she could join. Furthermore, the markets of The Six have been expanding more rapidly than any other markets in the world. There are alternatives to the United Kingdom entering the Common Market, but I do not really believe that in the present circumstances any of them are realistic. Perhaps they would fail, because the old idea of imperial preference is doomed as a result of action taken by the United Kingdom, and by ourselves, Canada, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries. The old idea behind imperial pre ference was that the United Kingdom, a manufacturing country, could import cheap food from the Commonwealth countries. But we have erected a tariff wall and are establishing our own industries, thus restricting our market for United Kingdom goods. Britain, for her part, is trying to establish a greater degree of agricultural self-sufficiency, thus denying us a market in the United Kingdom which, under the old idea in its original simplicity, would have been ours. I believe mat is one of the reasons why trade within the Commonwealth itself has not expanded as rapidly as trade within Europe has expanded. The Common Market is the final embodiment of the European idea of unity and cohesion, which came into being in the immediate post-war years. It lends strength to the democracies of Europe. Several abortive attempts were made to give expression to this European idea. First, there was the Council of Europe. Then there was the Organization for European Economic Co-operation, which was designed to administer Marshall aid. It is worth noting that at this early stage soon after the war the United Kingdom prevented a greater integration of European countries by preventing the fulfilment of the wish of the Americans and the Europeans to have an integrated recovery programme for the nations of Europe. Then there was the European Defence Community, which was approved by France in 1950 but which was rejected two years later after **Sir Anthony** Eden, on behalf of the United Kingdom, had refused to have anything to do with it. Finally, in 1950 there was the European Coal and Steel Community, which was founded by Robert Schumann and Jean Monnet of France and which came into full effect in 1953. It really led the way to the grand design of the Common Market. The United Kingdom's relationship to Europe in this grand design for European unity is worth examining. It is unfortunate that the relationship has been marked by misunderstanding and distrust. England is not blameless in this regard. Churchill said, in 1946, " We must create a kind of United States of Europe ". But he did not explain sufficiently fully that England intended only to stand on the sideline and to cheer, but did not intend to get into the scrum as part of the United States of Europe. When Labour was in government in England, John Strachey described the European Coal and Steel Community as a plot against the United Kingdom. Bevin, who was the responsible Minister, said he would have none of it. The Conservatives, when in office, were no better. It was **Sir Anthony** Eden who rejected the European Defence Community. Then we come to the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Common Market and Britain's efforts to counter-balance the strength of the Common Market by organizing The Seven - the organization that failed. This is the United Kingdom's last chance to join the Common Market - to negotiate with the European countries, and to play a part in shaping their affairs. If Britain had not taken advantage of this chance to join the Common Market, the common agricultural policies would have become so formulated and so fixed that it would have become very difficult for her to join later if, indeed, it is not difficult for her to join now. The United Kingdom has been so dilatory in this regard and, in a way, so off-handed in dealing with Europe, that it is absolutely essential that the Australian Government's resolution to negotiate on its own account be carried out to the full. It is my belief that the political importance of the Common Market is very great and that the organization will add immeasurably to the strength of the free world. Of course, there are objections to this view. It has been said that England will lose some of her sovereignty. " Sovereignty ", in a way, is a magic word which arouses emotional feelings in us. But if we analyse the word we find that it means little more than power. If, instead of using the word " sovereignty ", we use the word " power ", most of the emotion and magic is taken out of the term. I do not object to the grand design, even though the pursuit of this idea of a united Europe involves some derogation of sovereignty, because it is only a simple act to say: " We want to get out of this. We have not got to be in it again." The real division of opinion on this point is between people who seek to advance what >may be a full nationalist point of view and those who, for want of a better word - I do not like the word - believe in some kind of wider internationalist outlook. The day has gone when we could have a completely nationalist point of view. Europe, a continent which has been disturbed by world wars more than any other part of the world, has come to realize that, and I believe we could profit from her example. The United Kingdom has persisted in its attitude towards Europe because, to use **Sir Winston** Churchill's words, he thought she was the centre of three concentric circles. One was the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, the second was the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the other was the United Kingdom and Europe. But the United Kingdom is finding that she is no longer the centre of any of these circles. She is being left a little on the sidelines. When the Common Market comes to greater fulfilment, the United States of America will have to give a greater degree of attention to the Common Market countries than to the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom stays out, she will become just another country in Europe instead of the great power she once was. The United Kingdom is beginning to realize that she is being left to some extent on the sidelines and therefore has decided to try to negotiate with the Common Market. If she had decided earlier, she could have shaped the policies of the Common Market to her advantage and to ours to a much greater extent. I may be naive, but it is my belief that the six European countries of the Common Market will be so well aware of the great political advantages in the defence of freedom of their grand design that, if possible, they will make concessions to the United Kingdom which will make her entrance to that organization reasonable. I only hope that our negotiators can add to the arrangements so that outside Commonwealth countries will not be left on the sidelines. It has been said that the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market will affect the Commonwealth. It most certainly will, -but we should remember that the Commonwealth of Nations has already changed. In defence we do not look to England. We look to the United States of America, for reasons of .power .and of geography. I have demonstrated how we are trading more wtih Pacific countries than we were, and less with Europe than we were. This is because of changes in power and because of geography. It is because we are beginning to grow up as a nation and are taking our natural place in the world. The entry of the United Kingdom to the Common Market would give new impetus to the weakening of these traditional ties. Under those circumstances, it will be a supreme task for United Kingdom diplomacy to retain a real meaning for the Commonwealth, and also for our own diplomacy to maintain that meaning. We should remember that the United Kingdom, strong and influential inside the Common Market, can be of great benefit to the world and to the other nations of the Commonwealth. If the United Kingdom does not join, the Commonwealth of Nations will still be changed. The United Kingdom will become weaker, with a colossus growing on her doorstep. She will have to pay great attention to that colossus and will have less time to devote to the Commonwealth of Nations. The United Kingdom would not have the resources, under these circumstances, necessary for the full development of the Commonwealth. I believe we of the Commonwealth should remember that we do not serve our own interests well by requiring our strongest member to weaken herself on our account, and that is what, in my understanding, our asking the United Kingdom to stay out of the Common Market would mean. Europe has waited for over 1,000 years for unity and cohesion. This may be her last chance for the next 1,000 years, or in this civilization, to achieve it. {: #subdebate-31-0-s20 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports .- I desire to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** to the motion for the printing of the paper tabled by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies).** In that amendment, moved on behalf of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition expressed our lack of confidence in the ability of the Government to handle the delicate and significant problems that arise out of the intention of Great Britain to negotiate with the Common Market. There seems to have been an attempt to suggest that the Government has been well aware of all the difficulties, that it has had negotia tions in hand for quite a long time, and that the news ought not to be as sudden as it seems. When **Mr. Sandys,** representing the Government of Great Britain, came to this country in July of this year, an attempt was made to suggest that he was out here more or less to say, " It is still not too late ", rather than to warn Australia of the dangers that would possibly face it. In this connexion I would like to quote from an article which appeared in "The Economist", of London, on 17th June, 1961. It was written at about the time that **Mr. Sandys** had left Great Britain on the visit which, I think, took him successively to Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The article in "The Economist " " - a journal of international repute - is entitled "Roads to Rome". It states - >Only if **Mr. Sandys** is both informed enough and brusque enough to tell his hosts - Which were, of course, successively Canada, New Zealand and Australia - - which concessions Europe is unlikely to grant will his visit be fruitful; it will be a misfortune if he encourages some new Commonwealth objections that will really be bargaining bids to be specifically formulated, and thus allows a new quota of difficult questions of saving face to become involved. Further on, the article refers to a debate which took place in the House of Commons, presumably in June. It refers to a revealing incident in the House of Commons on the previous Tuesday, when **Mr. Macmillan,** apparently in answer to a request to publish certain information, said that he would not. The article states - >There was a revealing incident on Tuesday when **Mr. Macmillan** rejected the idea of publishing a white paper that would spell out the advantages and disadvantages of Britain joining the EEC, because he thought that Britain's bargaining position would be impaired if all cards were laid on the table before negotiations with Europe begin; what this presumably means is that the advantages, when spelled out, look so overwhelming that he fears that some Europeans might conclude *from it* that they need to offer us no concessions at all. That was the feeling of informed opinion in Great Britain before a Minister of Her Majesty's Government in that country came to this country, yet the Australian Government has attempted to fob us off with the suggestion that these discussions were significant at that stage for Australia, rather than merely paving the way for the British Government to indicate that it was then prepared to take the step which has since been announced. I quote that article just by way of introduction. In a rather interesting speech this evening, the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** began by stating what steps his Government had taken in recent years to promote Australian trade. He did not refer to a document that the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** had produced the evening before, the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure for 1960-61, which shows that in the last trading year - the year ending in June, 1961 - Australia had what must be for it, an alltime record trading deficit. Allowing for invisibles, there was an adverse trade balance of £369,000,000. In a moment, I will indicate briefly how that sort of deficit has been breached in recent years. In the previous year the deficit was £219,000,000. In the year prior to that, 1958-59, there was a deficit on current account of £185,000,000. In other words, in the last three years, the Australian deficit on current account has reached the enormous figure of nearly £800,000,000. Yet we have been told by the Minster for Trade that the Government has been zealous in improving Australia's trade position. He did not refer, of course, to the catastrophic decision taken in February, I960, to lift imports control which allowed a flood of goods to come into this country with the disastrous results that we have seen. He went on to give some very interesting information about the operation of The Six as it is called in Europe. I suggest that this information certainly should have been given by the Prime Minister last night and it should have been given to this Parliament many months ago and possibly more than a year ago. The Minister finished by implying that after The Six got going, not only would it be a stronger unit itself but it would also be a bigger exporting unit and would reach out into new markets - even into the areas of Asia which some members have contemplated as our new markets in future. He finished at that stage with almost a plea for mercy to The Six to do something about Australia's position, not so much in the name of trade but in the name of the free world. Towards the end of his speech the right honorable gentleman went into a peroration of a kind that 1 have no heard from that side of the House previously. He said that the Government should endeavour to assist what might be called the less fortunate nations of the world to improve their lot and, incidentally, ours. Why should the development of a freetrade area in Europe throw the Australian economy into confusion? Have we not argued in the past that trade barriers have led ultimately to disputes between nations? Should not the removal of trade barriers be welcomed rather than be regarded with apprehension? There is a suggestion that the immediate effect of the operation of the Common Market might be to exclude Australian goods from markets which we at present enjoy. A week or two ago, the " Financial Review " put the value of trade which would be lost in this way at about £170,000,000. Why should the loss of £170,000,000 - approximately one- fortieth of the gross national product of the Australian economy - be regarded as destructive to the Australian economy? When you ask that sort of question you begin to reach down to the roots of problems that have not been grappled with by this Government and which this recent move only serves to accentuate. A very interesting document has been prepared by the Australian Industry Development Association for use at an international industrial conference to be held in San Francisco from the 11th to 15th September. It is called " Development in Australia ". On page 38 of that document a table shows Australia's imports and exports position, assuming that the prices which were current for imports and exports in 1949-50 had continued until 1959-60. The table shows the money value of imports - that is the actual current values in the year concerned. Then it uses what the economists call a " deflate, " to bring the sum down to what it calls " real " terms. In 1959-60 the money value of Australian imports was £925,000,000. In real terms - that is, treating the price in 1949-50 as having been standard - it would have been £677,000,000. Exports in the same year in money value were £926,000,000, but in real terms their value would have been £940,000,000. In other words, instead of Australia just breaking even by having imports to the money value of £925,000,000 and exports to the money value of £926,000,000, which does not allow for invisibles, Australia would have had a trade surplus of £270,000,000. This analysis shows that what the economists call our terms of trade have deteriorated. Our imports have become dearer but the prices received for our exports have become lower. The result has been that we have exported nearly 50 per cent, more in volume of goods but have received only the same amount of money as we received for the lesser quantity exported in earlier years. That is one of the seats of Australia's economic difficulties on the international plane. The same sort of point is made very effectively in the April issue of the " Quarterly Survey " of the Australia and New Zealand Bank Limited in an article headed " Exports Buy Less ". Referring to the variations in terms of trade, the article states - >This in turn reflects the fact that the countries of the world with high living standards dominate world markets. Their demands are concentrated on the products of manufacturing industries, by comparison with the weaker demands of countries with lower standards, often concentrated on the necessities of life. This is the pregnant comment which is made finally - >In other words, demand is a monetary phenomenon, expressed in purchasing power, and does not necessarily mirror human need. That, unfortunately, is the tragic comment that has to be made in regard to the Common Market. The Common Market is an organization of stronger nations and, in the final analysis, the victims will be the weaker nations. It has been said that political considerations, and not economic considerations, are the motivating force behind the Common Market. Political considerations are defined by those who so want to define them as being the extension of freedom or the creation of a bastion against communism. Why should we be so concerned at the loss of a market of 200,000,000 people - a market that absorbs £170,000,000 worth of our raw materials and foodstuffs a year - when we have almost on our doorstep a potential market of 2,000,000,000 people who to-day go to bed hungry and walk the streets during the day cold because they do not have sufficient clothing? Is that not a problem to which we should give political consideration even if we cannot give it economic consideration? It is easy to say, of course, that the people of Europe have money in their pockets and that many of the 2,000,000,000 people on our doorstep do not have money, or .enough money, in their pockets. We must grapple with this problem. Conditions would be far different to-day in India, Pakistan, Indonesia and certain other parts of the world if as much effort had been put into .developing those areas as was put into rebuilding a defeated Germany, a defeated Japan, a humiliated France and a devastated Great Britain. Is that not the approach that should be made to this matter? Why should the economy of Australia, which, with her comparatively few people, is so far from Europe and so close to Asia with its teeming populations, be thrown into confusion because of political and economic events that are taking place in Europe? That should not be our problem, but, unfortunately, as the free enterprise Australian and New .Zealand Bank Limited points out, monetary phenomena, rather than human needs, determine issues. Despite what people may occasionally say about the Australian Labour Party and its divisions, I always maintain that any political party that does not have divisions is well on the way to being dead. At least the Labour Party is pledged to solve the great human problems that exist in the world to-day. The Labour Party stand's for the removal of misery wherever it may be found. There is plenty of misery in Asia - an area that badly needs the food and materials that we can sell, as well as our assistance to develop industrial potential in the area. The present Government has done nothing at all in that direction. This Government has removed all incentives that Labour governments introduced in order to .expand our secondary industries. This Government has allowed imports to flood into the country. It is laughable at times to see the types of things that are being imported into this country following the removal of import restrictions. Every Friday, when I have the opportunity, I go into Myer's, that large department store in Melbourne. I go to the food basement. Last week when I went there I .saw on the shelves jars no bigger than an ordinary drinking glass. They were fitted with a plastic lid and contained iguana meat in mole sauce. They came from Mexico, and were priced at 35s. each. That is the type of thing that we are importing. The sum of 35s. probably would feed an Asian family for a week. Australians are allowed to fritter away their money in places like Myer's on things like that, thus helping to deteriorate our trade -position. Yet, despite what is happening here, the Government is worried about what is happening in Europe. If that is the Government's attitude, it is not worthy of success. {: #subdebate-31-0-s21 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Hon. N. J. O. Maida -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-31-0-s22 .speaker-LLW} ##### Mr DEAN:
Robertson .- Last night the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** made a very important statement to the House concerning Great Britain's proposal to negotiate for membership of the European Common Market. Following the Prime Minister's speech Kbe Leader of the Oppositon **(Mr. Calwell)** broke Labour's silence on this matter. Despite the amendment that he finally moved, the Leader of the -Opposition had not made any comment whatsoever in past weeks about Britain's proposal and the effect that it might have on Australia and our export commodities. Nor had any of bis supporters made such a comment. After listening to the Leader of the Opposition I am still at a loss to know what the alternative government would do about this matter, and what its firm proposals would be if it were faced with making a decision. Because of the trend the -debate has taken I think it would be appropriate before proceeding with my remarks ,to summarize the Treaty of Rome. I remind (the House that the Treaty of Rome, which came into being in 1957, had as its main objectives first, the progressive removal of all barriers .and restrictions on trade between member countries, and secondly, the setting up -of a common agricultural policy. Its third objective was the establishment of a single common tariff -for the entire group against countries from the .outside world. Its fourth objective was the harmonization of policies in a number of other fields including, for example, social services, mobility of labour and transport. I will refer in greater detail a little later to some of those objectives. I propose to answer the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, which he moved as a censure on the Government. In it the Leader of the Opposition alleged that the Government had been guilty of lack of foresight and frankness in this matter, dilatoriness and continuing failure, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister's speech. I -thought that allegation came well from the honorable gentleman, because in his speech the only example that he could give of the Opposition's interest in this matter was nhat an honorable senator of his party had asked a question on the subject in the Senate in 1957. There are two aspects of the problems posed by Britain's probable entry into the European Common Market. The first aspect is the economic one, the second is the political one. I believe that all of us in this place -have a fair appreciation of the benefits that Australia has gained as a result of the preferential trading arrangement that we have enjoyed over a number of years with Great Britain. We want to know what will happen to our primary exports should Great Britain decide to become a member of the Common Market. A number of examples of export commodities that could be effected have already been given by other speakers in the debate. I should like to refer to a commodity that, so far, has not been mentioned by way of illustration. Let me direct the attention of the House to the poultry industry, which has increased in importance in Australia particularly during the last two or three years. In 1960-61 the number of cases of shell eggs exported to the United Kingdom was 77,255. That was an increase of 67,000 compared with the previous twelve months. In the same year, 10,317 tons of frozen egg pulp was exported to the United Kingdom. When we realize that the total exports of shell eggs was 166,000 cases of which 77,000 cases went to the United Kingdom and that 10,300 tons out of a total of 10,400 tons of frozen egg pulp went to the United Kingdom we have some appreciation of the type of problem with which we will be -faced should Great Britain decide to enter the European Common Market unconditionally. I do not think she is -likely -to enter unconditionally; I believe that she will enter the European Common Market, but with some conditions attached to that entry. Upon considering the examples to which I have referred, together with others mentioned in this House, we appreciate that our primary industries make the greatest contribution to our international trade and our national solvency. That is but a short introduction to the first aspect to which I have referred. Any one listening to the speeches delivered by honorable members opposite might be pardoned for believing that Britain's announcement is something quite new, and that it has come as a surprise to this Government. Of course, that is not so. The Treaty of Rome actually comprises two individual treaties. One establishes the European Atomic Energy Commission and the other the European Economic Community. The European Economic Community covers the former European Coal and Steel Community which was established in 1950. The history of this matter goes back even further than that. No doubt it will be remembered that proposals were made by Allied statesmen during the closing years of World War II. that some of the countries of western Europe should form some co-operative organization. These proposals were brought forward again after the war and culminated in the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community to which I have referred, and finally in the formation in 1957 of the European Economic Community. Great Britain quite obviously considered joining at that time but, for reasons which have been well explained to the House, she decided not to do so then, although she did take the lead in forming the European Free Trade Association. As that association has been discussed to-night, I do not propose to describe it in any further detail. The formation of these associations shows the great desire of the European countries to come together voluntarily in some form of a united states of Europe. Great Britain's decision to negotiate now for membership of the European Economic Community cannot have been an easy one for her to make, for reasons which have already been mentioned, but we have to realize that the final decision will be hers and hers alone. As I understand the position, she will, within a reasonably short time, become a member of the European Economic Community. If she does, we shall have to realize that, amongst other things, a membership will mean that the participating countries will have a common agricultural policy and that there will be a progressive elimination of trade duties, and trade restrictions. So far as Australia is concerned, I believe that the possibility of the United Kingdom joining the European Economic Community on some conditions has been in this Government's mind for some time. I know very well that the Opposition has tried to prove that this has not been so, but if one has observed what this Government has been doing, if one has considered what has been said, if one has studied the communiques that have been made, it has been quite obvious that the Australian Government has realized this possibility for quite some time. The steps taken by the Government in promoting the present export drive and the other actions taken by it during the last five years to seek new markets overseas are well known to everybody. As examples, I instance the sending of trade ships to Asian ports, including ports on the Malayan Archipelago, Indian ports, and Hong Kong, the signing of trade treaties such as the Japanese trade treaty, the Malayan trade treaty and the Indonesian trade treaty, the increase in the Australian Trade Commissioner Service not only in European and Asian countries but in Africa and South America, and. the promotion of individual missions, to which the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** referred earlier to-night. We know full well that these overseas markets are very competitive and for that reason the economic measures which this Government has taken, and which have been criticized often, become more and more important, and the reason for taking those measures become more and more understandable. We quite understand that the economic measures that have been taken were taken because a brake had to be applied to the economic boom which Australia, in common with other countries was experiencing. Cost increases had to be restrained so that we might be in a position to compete with the products of other countries on overseas markets. We are very fortunate that in our Prime Minister we have one who we know will get the best possible deal for Australia. To indicate what is in the Prime Minister's mind, and to illustrate his positive programme - this also answers some of the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** to-night - I propose quoting very briefly from a speech made by the Prime Minister only a week or so ago. Speaking of the effect that the proposed entry of Great Britain into the European Common Market would have on Australia, he said, amongst other things - >We are interested from the point of view of negotiation in two ways. In the first place a lot of these negotiations must affect our export industries. There will be negotiations about whether for example some Australian product is to pay a duty while a European product runs free. In other words, whether the preferences that we have enjoyed are to be capsized and operated in favour of a European country. These are great questions . . . We know our industries. And we have made it quite plain that we are not prepared to leave to somebody else the defence of Australian dairy exports, or of Australian cereal exports, or of Australian meat exports, or sugar, or whatever it may be . . . The first duty of an Australian Government - and it will certainly be carried out by me - is to defend the interests of our own industries and to preserve the future of our own country. That is a complete answer to the accusation by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to-night that the Prime Minister and this Government have no positive programme for meeting the situation that could arise as the result of Britain's entry into the European Common Market. The second thing to which I referred in my opening remarks was the political aspect. I believe that the form of the British Commonwealth will be changed should Britain become a member of the European Economic Community. By that I do not mean that the Commonwealth Wl necessarily be weakened. I do not think it will be, but I do believe that its present form will be altered. This is only to be expected should the United Kingdom decide to enter as her trade associations would result in her becoming more intimately connected with the member countries. History has proved that. The traders have always gone first, the diplomats have followed afterwards and made treaties, and the closer association of participating member countries has come about. We saw that even in our own federation. When our States voluntarily relinquished certain powers for the common good, a more intimate association was established between the States and certain powers were vested in the central body. I believe that will progressively happen with the European Economic Community with Britain as a member. Indeed, as we have shown, the Treaty of Rome itself offers this, and provides for the closer association of its members in regard to mobility of labour, working conditions and social services and the setting up of supra-national legal and political institutions. I just give as examples the provision that is made for an assembly with 142 elected members from participating countries, the Council of Ministers, the commission, which I think will probably be the most important of the administrative organizations, the court of justice, the investment bank, the committee formed in relation to economic and social conditions and so on. What I have tried to say in my remarks to-night, **Sir, is** that Britain's proposal is not new to us as the Government of this country. I believe I have shown that the action we have taken, especially over the last five years, shows that we can cope. It will not be easy. We know what problems there will be, but because of the leadership we have in the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, we believe they are men who can put forward the very best case for Australia, and that we will be able over the years to compete and obtain our share of the world's markets. Therefore, there is no truth in the Leader of the Opposition's claim that this Government has shown lack of foresight. We have been planning for a long time. There is no truth in his statement that we have not been frank in this matter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition contradicted his Leader because he referred to the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and others during and after the conference with **Mr. Duncan** Sandys. We have not been dilatory. I have quoted the actual positive actions of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade in this matter; so it is completely incorrect to describe the actions of this Government as a continuing failure. I believe that while we, as the British Commonwealth, will find we will lose some of the benefits which have been described by other speakers in this debate, there is also a great possibility of our getting great gains from Britain becoming a member of the European Common Market, and being a link between the Commonwealth of Nations and what may one day become the United States of Europe. I believe also that the Commonwealth of Nations will remain the greatest voluntary organization of the free world, and that Britain will continue to take a full part and be a leader in the formation of this long-visualized ideal of a co-operative union of European states. {: #subdebate-31-0-s23 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- This has been a very interesting debate. We have heard remarks from both sides of the House which, if uttered five years ago, would have branded the speakers as being unpatriotic, un-British and not fit. to be in the Parliament. In those days - a short five years ago - a speech such as that made by the honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. Malcolm Fraser)** or the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** would have condemned the speaker, one would' have thought, for ever as unworthy of this Parliament. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- I did not say the same as the honorable member for Moreton. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- What you said was the same in this respect that, in the terms of 1956, it was an anti-British speech. It was the kind of speech that would never have been made five years ago. That shows a rapidly changing pattern of world affairs. Honorable members from both sides of the House not only feel able to make such speeches freely, but also feel compelled, in the interests of their own country, to make such speeches. The Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** made a speech which contained quite a good deal of truth. So also did the honorable member for Wannon. The Minister for- Trade pointed out some things about this European Common Market which, I think, should make it clear to us all that Great Britain has no alternative but to enter the Common Market. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- That is nonsense, and you know it. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is notnonsense a.t all That. is. the jingoistic think ing of the honorable member for Moreton who lives in a fool's paradise. He believes that so long as his thinking does not change, the world will remain the same also. The world's thinking is not tied to the thinking of the honorable member for Moreton. Fortunately, the world, does not have to. wait until the honorable member changes his point of view before, it changes its, point of view. I think, **Sir, the** honorable member for Wannon stated a lot of good solid facts and plain home truths when he talked to us about this business of sovereignty. Of course, Great Britain must lose some sovereignty by joining the Common Market, and if you attach some magic and some sacredness to this word sovereignty, which, in reality does not exist, the loss of sovereignty becomes a terribly important thing. But as the honorable member for Wannon correctly said, sovereignty is only another word, for power, and in. the terms of world politics to-day, the British Government probably feels: What does it matter if we lose a little bit of individual power if we are to gain the advantage of an enormous increase in aggregate power? That is the position. I believe the world is dividing itself into bigger power blocs. There are fewer power blocs, but they are bigger power blocs. Although other countries like to pretend that there are power blocs within themselves, actually there are. only two real power blocs in the world - the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. At the moment the countries of Europe in particular and, indeed, all countries in the world, have to choose between joining the Soviet bloc or the American bloc. Once they join either of those blocs, they lose altogether any right to determine a middle course between those two great powers. No doubt the European Common Market will lead to a federation of European states ultimately. It must come. Already, a free movement of workers within the States of the European Economic Community is planned. It is true that once any country joins the European Common Market and the federation, it instantly loses sovereignty over the question of: tariffs.. The Minister for Trade, I believe, really, gave us some idea of the seriousness of this situation. What is going, to happen? Clearly, if we believe what *the-* Minister said, it will be wellnigh impossible for Australia to sell agricultural products inside the European federation. We could not possibly surmount the enormous tariff barriers that will be erected against the products of countries outside the European Economic Community. We cannot sell our products to the American bloc, as the Minister has admitted. America will not buy our agricultural products because she already has a surplus of such products herself and does not know what to do with them. Where, then, will Australia find an outlet for its agricultural products if we cannot sell them in Europe or in the United States of America? We shall be left with only one other part of the world in which to obtain an outlet for our products, and that is Asia. That, **Mr. Speaker,** is the area in which, in my opinion, we ought to be moving now in order to establish future markets. {: .speaker-KFZ} ##### Mr Halbert: -- How are they going to pay? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That is a very pertinent interjection. It is true that the Asian buyers cannot pay in cash. If we wait until we find Asian buyers who can pay cash, we may never obtain Asian markets. We must do what the Canadian Government and other more enlightened governments have done - provide long-term credit for Asian countries. Let us never forget that in Asia there are hundreds of millions of people who go to bed hungry every night. Surely it is not beyond the capacity of Australia to provide long-term credit for those countries. Would not it be better to obtain trade under those terms than to lose our foreign trade completely? {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: -- This Government will not give short-term credit to Australians. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable member for Hughes is perfectly correct. This Government will not give shortterm credit even to its own people, so it is really futile to expect it to give credit to other countries. However, unless we face up to this problem we shall find that other countries will push us out of the only possible markets left to us. As the United Kingdom is being forced to enter the European Common Market, I believe that eventually the Communist coun tries of Europe will form a confederation of Communist European countries, linked up probably with Asian countries. If such a confederation decided to erect high tariff barriers around its community, if the members of the European Common Market decided to erect insurmountable tariff barriers around themselves, and if the United States of America continued to do what it is doing now, what possible hope would there be of Australia maintaining its present living standards? It would have absolutely no hope of doing so. Instead of sitting back and hoping that the United Kingdom will do something on our behalf, instead of hoping that somebody will come to our rescue, we ought to tell these great power blocs in no uncertain terms what our policy will be. If the United States of America continues to refuse to take our agricultural products, and if Britain and other members of the European Common Market also refuse to take our agricultural products, we should tell them that we will buy our oil from the countries that will buy our agricultural products. If we can get the countries of Asia to buy our wool, wheat and other products which no other countries will buy, we ought to say to those countries that we will do our buying from them. Australia, which is one of the largest importers of oil in the world, should tell the oil-producing countries - Holland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America - that it will buy oil from them only if they buy the goods we produce. If we were to do that, we would be in a position to do more for ourselves than we could do indirectly by bargaining through the United Kingdom. Let me tell the House what the position of our products is. Do honorable members realize that Australia produces enough wool, not only to meet the whole of its internal requirements, but also to meet the requirements of 190,000,000 extra people? We produce enough wheat to feed ourselves and another 20,000,000 people. We produce enough butter and dairy products for an extra 10,000,000 people, and enough apples for an extra 10,000,000 people. We could produce even more. We could produce more meat. Already we produce enough meat to meet the requirements of 3,000,000 people in addition to the Australian population. {: .speaker-KFG} ##### Mr Griffiths: -- We could sell a lot more. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable member is right. We could sell a lot more if it were not for the situation with which we are faced. We could produce enough sugar in this country to meet the requirements, not only of the Australian people, but also of another 12,000,000 people. Similar considerations apply to dried fruit and canned fruit. However, we have no hope of obtaining markets for these products unless we tell the oilproducing countries that if they do not buy our stuff we will not buy theirs. I believe there is something else that this Government ought to do. We ought not to buy another ship made in another country. Every ship we need in our coastal trade should be built in Australia. There is another way in which we could conserve our earnings. We ought to do more than build every ship that is needed for our coastal trade. Just as every other large marketing country does, we ought to enter the overseas shipping trade. We should be taking our produce overseas in ships that are built in Australia, serviced in Australia and manned by Australian seamen. Moreover, we ought to place an embargo on the importation of residual oil, so that coal-mines in Australia can re-open and give employment to men who are now out of work. In my opinion, it is well nigh criminal for us to be importing residual oil from countries that will not buy the stuff that we have to sell, knowing full well that for every 1,000 tons of residual oil we bring into this country we throw Australian miners out of work. That is something that must be looked into. If it is good enough for other countries to erect trade barriers around themselves in order to protect their internal economies, is it not good enough for Australia to do the same thing in order to protect its workers? I am concerned also with another aspect of this matter. I believe that the Common Market in Europe is being supported by different countries for different reasons. The United Kingdom is supporting it because she realizes that she must do so for economic reasons. She cannot survive unless she does. I believe that the United States of America is forcing the United Kingdom into the Common Market for the purpose of creating a third world bloc to act as a military bulwark against Russia, so that the Americans could carry on an armed conflict with the Soviet Union, if necessary, which would be fought to the last European soldier and to the last civilian European man, woman and child. That is all very well for America, whose defence policy is based upon the principle of having American nuclear bases situated in European countries and not having any nuclear bases situated in its own territory. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Do not be silly. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable member for Morton can laugh. When I say that America has no nuclear bases in its own territory, I mean that it has none that it intends to use, if that can be avoided. It intends, if it can get away with it, to do all its nuclear fighting from foreign bases in Europe, in Turkey and in other parts of Asia in which it has a foothold. Nothing suits America better than to have a European bloc established for that purpose. I believe that the European capitalists, who now fear the rapidly expanding Soviet economy and the threat that the Soviet industries will, in years to come, constitute to the capitalist countries, see in the Common Market an opportunity to protect themselves against an inflow of cheaplyproduced articles and goods from the Soviet by erecting an enormous trade barrier around themselves and saying in effect, " The Soviet can trade elsewhere; we will not have it trading in this area ". Consequently, they favour the European Common Market. The employers in the European countries are greatly attracted to the proposal. They realize that if they can have a free movement of workers from one European country to another they will have a wonderful opportunity to make the lowest possible working conditions in any area of Europe the common denominator for all the countries. Imagine what will happen to the workers of Great Britain! The people of southern Italy who are out of work are prepared to work any hours at all and for almost any wage in order to live. Under the Common Market proposal, they would be allowed to go freely to England in order to enjoy the better conditions there. The employers in England would have a wonderful opportunity to depress working conditions there. They would know that, if there was any industrial strife, they would be able to use European workers from the depressed areas to fill the jobs that belonged to the British workers. {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes: -- That is not worrying the refugees from East Germany. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable member talks about East Germany, but he forgets that West Germany still has a 44- hours week, whilst Great Britain has a 40- hours week. We can imagine what will happen. The British capitalists will say that they cannot compete with the German capitalists and that they too must have a 44- hours week. If the British workers do not like it, their jobs will be given to workers from Germany, southern Italy and other depressed areas. That, of course, would provide a big attraction for this Government. I have given this matter considerable thought and I believe that we have no choice. We cannot tell the United Kingdom whether she may join the Common Market. Great Britain will enter the Common Market if it suits her, just as she has always done whatever suited her. She has never worried about the colonies or other members of the British Commonwealth. Why should we now believe that Great Britain will worry about our interests? Of course, she will not! She will do as she has always done, and that is suit herself. It would suit Great Britain now to join the European Common Market, even if this means losing the markets of the Commonwealth countries. As I said, we must realize that Australia has to stand on her own two feet. We must decide on our own policies and make our own decisions in this matter. We must use our initiative to get ourselves out of the predicament that has been created for us by the decision here- {: #subdebate-31-0-s24 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I wish to make a personal explanation. At the beginning of his speech, the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** suggested that I had voiced some anti-British sentiment during the course of my remarks this afternoon. I want to repudiate that suggestion in the most explicit language. If there is any syllable, let alone one word, in my remarks this afternoon that could be construed as antiBritish by the honorable gentleman, I can only conclude that he is either stupid or mischievous, or a combination of the two. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I think that the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** went far beyond a personal explanation. First, he entered into a debate and then he concluded, adding insult to injury, by casting a reflection on me. I think he should have been stopped at the beginning. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- I wish to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: -- On a point of order, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honorable member for Hughes will resume his seat. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: -- I want to take a point of order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The honorable member cannot take a point of order. The honorable member for Wannon has only just risen to his feet. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: -- I want to take a point of order on what was said by the honorable member for Moreton. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member for Hughes cannot take such a point of order at this stage. The honorable member will resume his seat. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: -- Can I take a point of order? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member will resume his seat or 1 will name him. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- On a personal explanation, I wish to say that when the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** spoke he said that my speech, together with the speech of the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen),** was very strongly anti-British. I wish to repudiate that suggestion. It is only because of my very keen regard for the United Kingdom that I offered some gentle criticism of her actions regarding the Common Market. {: #subdebate-31-0-s25 .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay .- After the- war, the nations of the world, after much trial and tribulation, entered into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It is of interest to quote some remarks made by the British themselves. I shall quote from a pamphlet No. R.4705, produced by the Reference Division, Central Office of Information, London, as part of the United Kingdom Government Overseas Information Services. At page 1, the following statement appears: - >The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) represents the first successful effort in history of countries co-operating on a world basis to lower barriers to trade and to establish a code of conduct and a set of rules in international commerce. Its members include all the world's leading trading nations, accounting for about fourfifths of world trade. The same publication at page 6 contains this statement - >The marked tendency in recent years for groups of countries to join together to form customs unions and free trade areas is of special significance to GATT. Article XXIV. of the agreement lays down the conditions under which these can be accepted as a basis for an exception to the mostfavourednation clause and a series of rules designed to ensure that such regional arrangements shall in effect lead to the reduction and elimination of barriers within the area without raising new barriers to trade with the outside world. The proposition I wish to place before the House is that the step that the United Kingdom is now contemplating is in effect opposed to the spirit of Gatt. Perhaps I should mention the Haberler report. At the twelfth session of Gatt in November, 1957, it was decided to appoint a panel of experts under the chairmanship of Professor G. Haberler, to investigate in particular the failure of the trade of less-developed countries to develop as rapidly as that of the industrialized countries. The report was published in October, 1958. In its general conclusion, it pointed out that the underdeveloped primary producing countries have an interest in obtaining from the highly industrialized countries both aid and easier access to markets for their exports, including industrial goods as well as primary products. The highly industrialized countries have an interest in the effects upon trade of the economic development policies of under-developed primary producing countries. The only chance of a successful outcome is a negotiated settlement involv ing a gradual shift away from undesirable policies on both sides. The recommendations contained in the Haberler report are of interest. The main recommendations were the extension of more economic aid and other measures; a moderation of agricultural protectionism in Western Europe and North America; a shift of methods of agricultural protection in such countries away from price support towards deficiency-payment systems; a reduction of protection against the import of minerals; and the avoidance of tradediverting measures in regional economic arrangements, such as the European Economic Community. The then president of the Board of Trade, **Mr. Thorneycroft,** when addressing the ninth review session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1954, said, amongst other things - . . If I might then summarize the United Kingdom policy. Our policy is to reaffirm and strengthen the GATT. We for our part are prepared to run the risks inherent in this policy. Those were brave words. He went on - >We have powerful advantages and rewards to offer. We are a very large market and we have a world-wide currency. The availability of that market and the strength of that currency are assets for the rest of the world which they cannot afford lightly to discount. **Sir David** Eccles, when President of the Board of Trade, said on 16th October, 1958- >Interdependence is the only policy that makes sense in an age when men can fly round the world almost as fast as sound. On 17th May, 1960, **Sir Edgar** Cohen, the head of the United Kingdom delegation to the sixteenth session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, said - >The General Agreement recognizes that regional trade arrangements are beneficial to international trade provided that they create, and do not merely divert, trade. In short, the aim over the years of the various contracting parties to Gatt, in theory at any rate, has been that trade should be free and not restricted in many directions. Let us see what has happened with regard to trade since 1947. According to International Monetary Fund finance statistics, the value of world exports for the 1947 calendar year was 50,642,000,000 United States dollars, but by 1960 it had gone up to 113,200,000,000 dollars, or an increase of 123 per cent. On examining the figures in relation to the Common Market countries we find that from 1947 to 1960 there was an increase from 5,888,000,000 dollars to 29,735,000,000 dollars, or an increase of 405 per cent., compared with a world increase of 123 per cent, in that period. The United Kingdom, in 1947, exported 4,859,000,000 dollars worth of goods. The value of its exports rose to 10,352,000,000 dollars by 1960, or an increase of 113 per cent., compared with an increase of 405 per cent, in the value of exports by the Common Market countries. It is obvious, therefore, that since 1947 the Common Market countries have been doing very much better than has the United Kingdom. Let us look at the other side of the picture. According to " Time " news magazine of 21st July, 1961, Latin America increased its exports between 1947 and 1960 by only 27 per cent. As I have said, the Common Market countries increased their exports by 405 per cent. We know that recently the United Kingdom has suffered a serious deficit in its overseas trading and has borrowed more than £700,000,000 from the International Monetary Fund to tide it over. On the other hand, the United States of America, after some years of huge deficits, has staged a spectacular recovery. The extent of the recovery is to be seen by reference to the First National City Bank monthly letter of July last, in which the following statement appears: - >In. the past four months, the much-discussed outflow of gold from the United States has come to a halt .. . . the figures on gold and foreign dollar holdings suggest that the U.S. balanceofpayments deficit - momentarily at least - has virtually disappeared . . . The improvement in the U.S. balance-of-payments stems in considerable part from the export trade surplus which; in the first four months of 1961, widened to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.8 billion dollars. The monthly letter goes on to state - >While the rise in our trade surplus has been important, there have been some special factors helping to erase the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit. Germany last April repaid, in advance of maturity, S87 million dollars on account of its 1 billion dollar debt resulting from the settlement for the 3 billion dollars of civilian supplies furnished by the U.S. Army during the postwar occupation. So, we have a situation to-day in which one country, Western Germany, can repay to the United States of America 587,000,000 dollars off a debt. At the same time, it can raise the value of the mark by 5 per cent. On the other hand, Great Britain has suffered to such an extent that she has had to borrow more than £700,000,000 from the International Monetary Fund. At the present time the defeated nations - Japan and Western Germany - have very good overseas trade balances. The United States has got. right back into the running and is no longer losing its gold reserves as if was before. In short, all the big industrial nations except the poor old United Kingdom are doing very well. The United Kingdom is therefore vitally concerned about the future. We can appreciate the reason for her decision to enter the Common Market, having failed to establish another system of trade in the European Free Trade Area whereby she could counter the effects of the Common Market. The Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** made it quite clear in his speech to-night that Australia was vitally concerned with what might happen if the United Kingdom should enter the Common Market without protection for Australia's primary and other industries having been provided. My submission is that if the United Kingdom were to enter the Common Market without protecting Australia's interests she would in effect be breaching the spirit of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade because she would be doing the exact opposite to what she should do if she wished to foster the trade of Australia. Let us take, for example, the position in regard to sugar. All members of The Six are parties to the International Sugar Agrees ment. That means, of course, that they are quite familiar with the working of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and recognized the state of affairs that existed because of it, at the time when the International Sugar Agreement was negotiated. The United Kingdom certainly would not ignore, in her negotiations with The Six, the fact that she has a standing commitment with Commonwealth countries until at least 1968. Last year we were able to negotiate a price for the sale to Great Britain of 300,000 tons of Australian sugar. This year, due to the application of a formula, the figure is 315,000 tons. Our total sugar sales for 1960 are worth mentioning because they are by no means insignificant. We sold to the United Kingdom, 334,023 tons; to New Zealand, 86,587 tons; and to Canada, 174,153 tons- a total of 594,763 tons. To Japan we sold 133,690 tons; to Hong Kong, 39,432 tons; and to Malaya, 1,204 tons, making a grand total of 769,089 tons. One can imagine, therefore, how we will be affected, in relation to the negotiated price in England, and in relation to our sales elsewhere, if the United Kingdom enters the Common Market, and if we have to pay duty on the sugar that goes to the United Kingdom, and which we now have the right to sell there at a very favorable price. If the United Kingdom gives us away with regard to sugar and we have to pay close to 80 per cent, duty on the sugar we supply to that country, we will be most adversely affected. The position with regard to dairy products is also serious. It can be expected that over the next eight or ten years an average of about 60,000 to 70,000 tons of butter will be sent to the United Kingdom each year. The margin for preference for Australian butter at the present time is 15s. a hundredweight. We have a margin of preference of 50 per cent, on cheese and 10 per cent, on flour and barley. Let me give the House particulars of some of the tariffs that we might face if such tariffs were adopted by the United Kingdom after that country had joined the Common Market without giving us protection. On sugar the tariff would be close to 80 per cent., as I have said, on wheat 20 per cent., on flour 30 per cent., on beef and veal 20 per cent., on mutton and Iamb 20 per cent., on canned meat 26 per cent., on butter 24 per cent, and on cheese 23 per cent. I support most strongly, therefore, the view taken by the Government that Australia, in her own interests and in the interests of the smaller nations of the world, cannot afford to have this great motherland of ours, the United Kingdom, leave us in the lurch. It is obvious that we must bend every effort to ensuring that if she enters the Common Market - even if it is in breach of the spirit of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - she will at least protect us and the other Commonwealth countries. I venture to say that the ties that bind us are stronger than pounds, shillings and pence. We have worked together in peace and war, and there is between us a bond that will, I hope, continue to bind us, irrespective of what may happen in the future. I suggest that the remedy for any ills that may exist at the present time is not for the United Kingdom to join the Common Market and leave us in the lurch. The remedy is for all the western industrial nations to adopt a new approach to the matter. They should all be aware of the inequalities that exist at the present time and that will exist to a greater extent in the future unless the present system of world trade is altered. They should see to it that the industrial nations do not become stronger while the principally primary producing nations become weaker. They should realize that destructive trade policies anywhere mean trouble everywhere. I suggest, too, that they should concede that all nations, large and small, deserve recognition. What happened to some of the smaller nations among the group that gained only 27 per cent, in export trade between 1947 and 1960 while the western European nations gained over 400 per cent.? There was a drop of 11 cents per lb. in the price of coffee in 1957, and it cost Colombia 25,000,000 dollars. In 1958, when Russia dumped tin, Bolivia's quota was cut by 31 per cent, by the International Tin Commission, and Bolivia lost 20,000,000 dollars. I suggest, therefore, that this question that is exercising the minds of the nations of the western world to-day involves something more than a mere matter of certain nations entering into a regional pact for selfish motives, or entering a pact in order that they shall continue as strong nations. I suggest that the correct way out of the difficulty is for all the nations concerned to get together and to agree to a system of world trade which will ensure to the smaller nations, as well as the larger, the prosperity and the justice to which they are all entitled. {: #subdebate-31-0-s26 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON:
Fawkner .- This is an amazing situation, **Mr. Speaker.** We are starting a new sessional period of this Parliament, and we are debating a most critical matter, which will affect the whole of the western world. The Opposition has moved what amounts to a motion of censure against the Government. We could suppose that every member of the Opposition would be eager to put his party's point of view, but we find that not one Opposition speaker is prepared to rise in his place and seek to follow a Government supporter in the debate. Is it not rather amazing that not one member of the Opposition is willing, or interested enough, to press the Opposition's point of view in this critical debate, and that it is left to another Government supporter to put the Government's side of the argument? It is certainly strange to see such a lack of interest by the Opposition in what is really a most critical debate on a matter affecting the whole of Australia. Another amazing feature of this debate has been the way in which the Opposition has spoken with so many voices. The speech of the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** this evening surely could not have been approved in any way by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** However, this again, I believe, is a further illustration of the fact that the Opposition has failed to appreciate the magnitude and the importance of the issue that is being decided. Let us consider the main theme of the Opposition, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition last night. It would seem that the Opposition is endeavouring to censure the Government on two grounds. The first is that the Opposition, during the last four years, has been much more aware of the problems we are facing than has the Government. The second is that the Government has been dilatory in its approach to the problem, and has left the country unaware of the magnitude of the difficulties that have to be overcome. As to the first ground, the Government has mainly relied on a few questions that were asked by one senator in another place over a period of a few months in the time that has elapsed since 1957. According to the submissions made by honorable members opposite, it appeared that the Opposition really woke up to this problem on 16th May, 1957. Let me remind the House that some weeks before that date I spoke in this House during a debate concerned with a revision of the Ottawa Agreement. I referred to the Common Market and stressed its importance because the trend that British trade was taking was fairly apparent, and it was necessary to adopt new measures for the diversifying of Australia's trade. The House may remember that at that time, in April, 1957, the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** delivered a long speech, showing how Australia was facing up to that very problem. These things occurred four and a half years ago. If any persons can take credit for having been aware of the danger, surely they are those who occupy the Government benches, and who spoke on this matter long before the Opposition realized the difficulties that we were likely to face. I take credit for having raised this matter on more than one occasion, of which the most recent was in February of this year. What has been said about the history of this problem shows that during the last four years no country in the western world had been more aware of the difficulties than Australia has been. I believe that during the last twelve months we have more correctly apprehended what was likely to happen than have Canada, New Zealand, or even the United Kingdom itself. I was in London last year and had an opportunity to talk to members of the House of Commons. Those with whom I talked were not at the time aware of the dangers that would accrue to Britain's industries, both primary and secondary, if that country joined the Common Market. Most of the members with whom I talked at the time considered that the chance of Britain's joining the Common Market was remote. The change that has taken place since August of last year is amazing. 1 think that at that time we in Australia were aware that Britain would very likely have to join this organization, and the Department of Trade, particularly, had taken steps to assess the problem of the effects of such a move on Australia, industry by industry and product by product, so that the action which would be necessary when the move was made could be determined and planned. The Opposition has tried to establish that we have been dilatory in making known our views on this problem. Could we, last August, have brought this problem before the House, for the first policy of the United Kingdom at that time was against joining the European Common Market? How could we have come out with a statement that there were dangers to Australia when we had no reason at the time for making such a statement? As I have said, the United Kingdom itself had not examined the details of the problem. Could we have forced it to do so at that time when its fixed policy was against making this move? The whole situation has changed and the stage is set for this move by the United Kingdom. Now, without any doubt, the implications for the United Kingdom are known. During this debate, we have shown that we realize the advantages for the United Kingdom and the disadvantages for both that country and ourselves if it joins the Common Market. But, surely, in this debate, we have to consider above everything else the importance of the strength of Western Europe. To my mind, the whole future of the Western world depends on a strong, united Western Europe. We have only to look at the significance of history to see that when Europe has been united it has been a dominant force in the world's affairs. In what has been in reality a short post-war period, during which there has been complete division between the nations of Western Europe, there has been a decline in the importance of those nations. As the decline has become more marked, the threat to world peace has become more dangerous. As the two economic blocs in Europe - the European Common Market and the European Free Trade Association - have grown in their environments with an increasingly marked division into two camps, we have been able to see the danger of a deepening rift between the two. I am certain, therefore, that if the United Kingdom and the other members of the Free Trade Association join the Common Market, Western Europe will be strengthened and the dangers to the peace of the world will be lessened. In a strong Western Europe in which Britain is linked with the other countries of the Common Market, defence strategy and security will be strengthened. This will help Europe and the Western world, and particularly Australia. I am certain that Britain sees the danger that will present itself if that country stays out of the European Common Market. The survival, not only of the British people, but also of ourselves and of the other countries which are allied with Britain, depends on Britain's joining the Common Market. As has been so ably pointed out, the choice must be made by Britain. We can not participate in the decision. We just feel certain that the chances are that Britain will decide to go into the Common Market. I consider, for the reasons which I have already stated, that such a move is essential. Having said that, I say also that there will be dangers ahead for industries, and particularly for many people, in Australia. However, before I deal further with that matter, I should like to discuss the question of sovereignty, which has been mentioned in this debate on a number of occasions. We have been told that Britain will yield some of its sovereignty as it joins in a wider political structure. That view, I believe, is a recognition of a fact. Surely the post-war development of organizations such as the United Nations, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and other international bodies, has demonstrated that the trend is towards the giving up of a certain amount of sovereignty to wider international organizations. Furthermore, many of the policies of the United Kingdom have demonstrated that that country is becoming much more a part of Europe than a part of the Commonwealth of Nations. So the acknowledgment of the dangers that have been envisaged merely represents the recognition of a fact. We cannot put the clock back. We can only realize that these things will take place, and we must take steps to adjust ourselves to the new situation. The European Common Market proposal presents, very definitely, dangers to Australia's trade. I believe that the United Kingdom has not fully realized the dangers to both our trade and her own commerce. Reports of the debates on this subject in the House of Commons over the past few weeks show, I believe, that Ministers in the United Kingdom Government have taken too rosy a view of the advantages of joining the Common Market and have not really faced up to many of the disadvantages. I think that it would have been much better if all the dangers could have been put before the House of Commons so that the people of Britain could have faced up to the situation fairly and squarely. The United Kingdom certainly will lose a certain amount of trade with Australia. If it removes preferences at present accorded to imports from this country, it will lose preferences on exports to Australia. We shall probably see more Volkswagen and fewer Austin motor cars being sold in Australia. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** mentioned this problem in his important speech yesterday, but I feel that he under-estimated the importance of some of these matters. We know that there is a chance that the proportion of Britain's exports which goes to the Common Market countries will increase beyond the present level of 14 per cent. But 40 per cent, of its trade is still going to the Commonwealth. If that decreases, the United Kingdom will need a large amount of extra business to offset the loss. The dangers to United Kingdom secondary industry are more important than the dangers to its agriculture and horticulture. The honorable member for Fremantle talked about the strength of the United Kingdom's agricultural production. I do not think he gave sufficient emphasis to the dangers to the United Kingdom's manufacturing industries in particular. These industries will suffer when they are fully exposed to competition in the European Common Market. The honorable member also referred to the deficit in Australia's trade with the United Kingdom and the surplus in its trade with countries of the European Common Market. The goods that we sell to the Common Market will still be bought, whatever happens under the new arrangement. The goods we sell to the United Kingdom are likely to be replaced by goods from the Common Market. The products of our efficient primary industries will be supplanted by those of less efficient industries in other countries that are members of the Common Market. I should like to put to the House the view that if the future of Europe and Australia depends upon the United Kingdom's joining the Common Market, as I believe it does, and if part of the price is the replacement of some of our products by products produced in the Common Market, we shall have difficulty in demurring. If, for instance, we can be persuaded that a textile worker in Manchester will have to buy bread made from wheat grown in the valley of the Loire, instead of from wheat grown in the Wimmera or Manitoba, I suppose we must agree, but, above all things, we must ensure that questions of this sort are asked during the negotiations. We must agree that some {: .page-start } page 289 {:#debate-32} ### F.6363/61.- R.- -[10] people are going to be hurt as a result of this move. Above everything else, our job is to ensure that Australia's interests will be damaged to as small an extent as possible. I feel certain that as a result of the policy on which our Government has operated in the last four years, and particularly during the last few months, that objective will be achieved. It is important, above all, to ensure that the entrance fee for Great Britain's joining the Common Market is kept as low as possible. If it is of advantage to the United Kingdom to join the Common Market, it is of advantage to the Common Market that the United Kingdom should join, and therefore it is in the interests of everybody concerned that the price paid be as low as possible. Our Government has been very wise in giving such a strong lead in this matter. That lead having been given, we hope that it will be followed by other nations such as New Zealand and Canada. In accordance with the policy that has been adopted by the Department of Trade, and the Minister in particular, we have taken tremendous steps in the past few years to diversify our trade, not only in products but also in markets. As a result of the foresight of the Government and the Minister for Trade, Australia is well placed to face the future with confidence should the decisions expected in Europe eventuate. I believe that there is every reason for this country and its people to have confidence in the lead that the Government has given and to reject out of hand what is, in effect, the motion of censure launched by the Opposition in such a haphazard manner. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Ward)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 289 {:#debate-33} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Repatriation - Security - Tobacco Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** proposed - >That the House Jo now adjourn. {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- I want to return to a case that I raised in the House some considerable time ago - the case of an injustice which is being suffered by an ex-serviceman and which has now been aggravated by a later decision of the Repatriation Department. It relates to a man named Henry G. Alderton. I shall run through the history of the matter to refresh the memories of honorable members. His services as a clerical assistant in the Taxation Branch were terminated after 27 years. After he had been refused retirement on the ground of ill-health, he resigned in May, 1957. After his resignation, he was obliged to apply for employment to the Commonwealth Employment Office. His application was rejected, as also was his application for unemployment benefit, on the ground that he was permanently incapacitated. He was then advised to apply for an invalid pension. He followed this advice, was granted an invalid pension, and has been receiving it ever since. For some time, he had been in receipt of a 100 per cent, war pension. On the advice of his local federal member, the honorable member for Phillip **(Mr. Aston)** he applied for a pension as a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman. On the review of his case, his 100 per cent, war pension was reduced to 80 per cent. Lately he decided to apply for a service pension because of certain advantages attaching to it. He is a married man with two children, and he believed that if he could obtain a service pension he could be covered in regard not only to hospital attention for himself but also to medical services. Strangely enough, although he has been in receipt of an invalid pension for a considerable period, his application for a service pension has now been rejected on the ground that he is not permanently unemployable. I wrote to the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Osborne)** at his Sydney office, asking to be advised what degree of disability must exist before an ex-serviceman is eligible for a service pension on the ground of unemployability. That is a simple question and it ought to have received a quick answer, but I am still awaiting a reply from the Minister. As the degree of incapacity necessary to qualify for an invalid pension must be at least 85 per cent., the degree of incapacity to qualify for a service pension must be higher. This appears to be an act of complete injustice against an ex-serviceman. He has been pursued by this sort of thing for the past few years and all efforts to get some consideration of his case have failed. I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether he can now give me the information that I previously sought as to the degree of incapacity that must exist before an ex-serviceman qualifies for a service pension and whether the degree of unemployability applicable to qualification for a service pension is higher than that for an invalid pension, which this exserviceman receives at present. The second matter to which I wish to make reference concerns the AttorneyGeneral **(Sir Garfield Barwick).** I raise it merely to indicate the methods employed by the Attorney-General's officers, and his department. No doubt the AttorneyGeneral played some part in this himself. As a matter of fact, I understand from my information that he was one of the chief negotiators. Honorable members will recollect that not so very long ago an announcement appeared in the press to the effect that the Commonwealth intended to change the style of number plates on government cars, and there was some speculation in the press as to the reason for this. No doubt the newspapers thought that there was some story in it. The " Daily Mirror " newspaper sent one of its reporters and a photographer to the Commonwealth car pool in McElhone-street, East Sydney. After they had been on the premises for some little time, they were apprehended. My information is that they were detained for questioning by security officers and were there for some time. The story as given to me - I have no reason to doubt it - is that the newspaper strongly resented the action of the security officers in holding these newspapermen for questioning merely because they visited the Commonwealth car pool evidently in search of a nice story which they believed existed because of this change in the number plates of Commonwealth cars. The newspaper intended to run a story attacking the security service and the Attorney-General's Department for these activities, no doubt charging them with fascist actions and so on. Before the newspaper could publish the story a conference was held between either the AttorneyGeneral or some of his higher officers and the people in control of the newspaper, and an agreement was reached to the effect that provided the newspaper did not publish the story no charges would be preferred against the men who had been questioned for being on Commonwealth property. That appears to me to be rather a strange way to conduct business. I asked the Attorney-General in writing to let me know the facts of this matter, and I received from him a couple of rather strange letters. The first one is undated. It is in these terms - >I duly received your telegram as follows: - > >Was Mirror newspaperman detained and interrogated by Commonwealth officers Commonwealth car pool yesterday stop If so what was the reason for such action and are charges to be preferred. > >I have made my enquiries and I am able to inform you that on the occasion to which you refer Commonwealth police officers did not detain or interrogate any newspaperman. As you would expect, and I am sure approve, when a newspaperman was found on Commonwealth premises, he and his companion were asked to identify themselves by production of their press passes, along with the giving of their names. I believed that unauthorized persons on Commonwealth property would be committing an offence of some kind. No doubt, that was the belief of the officers who questioned the newspapermen, because if it was not an offence for a person not employed on the establishment to be on the premises obviously there was no sense in interrogating them. So I wrote again to the AttorneyGeneral on 26th July, 1961, in this way - >I refer to my enquiry regarding an incident which involved Mirror newspapermen at the Commonwealth car pool, Sydney, on the 20th instant. > >You advised me in an undated letter that Commonwealth police officers did not detain or interrogate any newspaperman but that a newspaperman and his companion were found on Commonwealth premises and asked to identify themselves by production of their press passes. > >I should be pleased if you would furnish me with the following additional information in respect to this matter: - > >How long were the newspapermen in ques tion on Commonwealth premises after their presence had been ascertained and questioning commenced? > >Was it ascertained for what purpose the newspapermen were on the premises without authority and did they commit any offence? If so, what charges are to be preferred against them? On 31st July, the Attorney-General replied in a letter which stated - >I am in receipt of your reply to my letter written to you on the 24th July. > >No information in my possession suggests that any offence was committed by newspapermen on the occasion to which you refer. No proceedings are in contemplation. > >I understand the newspapermen waited at the premises for the arrival of transport sent by their employers. I have no knowledge as to the precise time this involved. I repeat: If there was no offence in these men going on to the premises without authority, what was the purpose of the questioning? There is no doubt in my mind that the story as told to me is in accordance with the facts - that the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department did intend to proceed, but when it found that the newspaper- {: #subdebate-33-0-s1 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-33-0-s2 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- We have just witnessed a wonderful demonstration of simplicity. Just imagine the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** swallowing a story that he states somebody told him. I take leave to doubt that; because the story is a wicked and complete fabrication. No one in my department or under my authority and, more than anything else, myself, made any arrangement with any newspaper, nor did we have any communication with any newspaper on this matter. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I do not believe it. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- I know you do not believe it. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- It is a fabrication. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- I do not worry about that, my friend. You know it is a fabrication. This community knows which of us to believe; there is no doubt about that. When you can bring to my office sworn evidence by some one whom I can believe, then I will begin to take you seriously. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- How about I bring your brother? {: #subdebate-33-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- I received a telegram from the honorable member for East Sydney and made my inquiries. I do not know on whose side the honorable member is. Is he on the side of the newspaper that sends its men around snooping? Or is he on the side of the Commonwealth and of the decent people who saw these men on Commonwealth premises and who asked, "Who are you? What right have you here? " One of the men replied, " I am a press man"; and he was asked for his name. That is all that happened on this occasion. There was absolutely nothing else. I should like to mention one other point. The honorable member likes to use the words " security police ". This is a favorite term that is usually used by the " Tribune ". That is where I see it most frequently. In fact, there are no such persons in this country under my control as security police. There are, of course, members of the Commonwealth Police Force. Some members of that organization went to the Commonwealth 'car pool on this occasion in the same way as any member of a State police force might have done. Officers of the security service have no executive function; they are not police. They simply gather information. The honorable member for East Sydney makes a very nice distortion of the facts by his fondness for calling them security police. That is part of the besmirching campaign that is carried on by the honorable member and by the " Tribune ". Neither of them likes the fact that there is a very competent security service watching the interests of this nation. Whenever the honorable member has the opportunity he stands at this table and carries on his campaign. Whether he fabricated what he said, or whether he has been so simple as to listen to some tale without bothering to check it I cannot say; and, worse than that, he got an account of the matter from me in writing. How he can then say what he has said, I do not know. He raised the silly little point that some one did not put the date on a letter - big point; the sort of thing that an articled clerk would not bother about in a police court action - but having got a letter under my signature he has the impertinence and the cheek to come into this place and to say, " I have a story. I will not tell you who told me, but I believe that it is true, because I am the judge of this. I set myself up as a judge between what is said by some unknown informant " - if he exists - " and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth." I affirm what was stated in the letter. As I have said, on my information, no offence was committed and no bargain was made with any newspaper. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- His name was not Douglas Barwick. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- One of these nights I shall respond to that statement. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I hope you do. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member for East Sydney will cease interjecting. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- No offence was committed. There was no security police in the honorable member's sense, but there were members of the Commonwealth Police Force who, in all decency, asked the newspaperman who he was and to produce his press pass. Following that, the police left and some time later the press men went off at their own leisure. As far as I am concerned, this is a nice demonstration of how this House can be used to put over a false and fabricated story. {: #subdebate-33-0-s4 .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay -- The difficulties that have been suffered by a number of tobacco-growers near Bundaberg have prompted me to make some investigations, and I should like in the short time available to me to-night to tell the House briefly about the result of those investigations. As honorable members know, when tobacco sales take place, the first thing that happens is that experts - in Queensland, for example, they are officials of the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board - appraise the tobacco and put a price on each lot. Then the tobacco is put up for sale. The buyers go along and they are at liberty to bid. It is significant that last year the prices realized were close to the reserve or appraised prices. This year, on the average, they are by no means near the reserve price. My investigations have led me to the conclusion that there is no rhyme or reason for the difference this year between the reserve price and the sale price. Let me quote some examples. For one lot the reserve price, or the price decided by the experts as being fair, was 130d.; but the sale price was 80d. For another lot the reserve price was 126d. but the sale price was 40d.; for another lot the reserve price was HOd. but the sale price was 40d.; and for yet another lot the reserve price was 136d. but the sale price was 60d. Is it any wonder that the industry is in a state of confusion? No one seems to know why that has happened. Only the facts that I shall outline indicate why it has happened. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- Who are the experts? {: .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr BANDIDT: -- They are persons appointed by the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board. They appraise tobacco as being worth X pence per lb. The industry is in a very perplexed state. The Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board has reported as follows: - >It is not possible to correctly assess just what type of leaf the buyers want because the anomalies occurring on the sales floors are beyond our comprehension. This year buyers bought some tobacco at more than the reserve price. For example, the reserve price for one lot was 134d. but it was sold for 154d. For another lot the reserve price was 148d., but it was sold for 157d. For yet another lot the reserve price was 135d., but it was sold for 148d. That made the average sale price higher than it would have been if the reserve price had not been exceeded in some cases. Previously the buyers were not buying top leaf, but at the latest sales they have been buying the top leaves. A lot has been said about the chlorine content of the leaf. The chlorine content is regarded as being high if it is 2 per cent., but the leaf of one grower was rejected because the chlorine content was 1.58 per cent. Of ten tons produced he sold only 4 tons, and he averaged about 4s. per lb. Another grower sent down a consignment to the first sale, which was held in May, and he averaged about 6s. per lb. for 3i tons. The average appraised price was not 6s. per lb. but was about 10s. 7d. per lb. One grower in another area received an average of 10s. per lb. at the first sale. The average chlorine content of his tips was 7 per cent., even though 2 per cent, is supposed to be the maximum that is acceptable. The lower leaves would have contained even more chlorine. Some say the content would have been as much as 1 1 per cent. Yet the buyers bought all of that man's tobacco. Last year a grower in another area averaged 15s. per lb. for his leaf, but this year he averaged only about 5s. In the Bundaberg area one share-farmer sold one bale out of eighteen, but another sharefarmer who produced on the same owner's land tobacco which, as far as could be seen, was similar in type and quality to that produced by the first share-farmer, sold all of his seventeen bales at an average price of more than 12s. per lb. At the May sales buyers could give no good reason why they would not bid. At those sales some buyers would bid for 20 or 30 lots and then walk past and not bid for, say, 40 lots, irrespective of the fact that some of the leaf in those bales was of high quality. Later they would come back and offer, say, 50d. per lb. for the bales for which they had not bid previously. For example, one lot in relation to which the reserve price was HOd. and for which there was no bid was later sold for 50d. per lb. Another lot in regard to which the reserve price was 128d. per lb. and for which there was no bid, was later sold for 50d. I was shown two samples of leaf by a grower who received Id. per lb. more for the one than for the other. Expert growers examined those two grades in my presence and they said that last year the better sample would have brought not Id. more but 30d. per lb more than the other. As the buyers have not yet bought enough this season to enable them to obtain a concessional rate of duty on the tobacco they import, it is obvious that it is not an oversupply of tobacco that is causing all this trouble. There is still enough unsold tobacco to enable them to achieve their quotas. We know it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. But the wind that has blown ill on the tobacco farmers has blown favorably and lightly on the buyers. Very good tobacco is produced in the Mareeba area and it is at Mareeba that the early sales, in the main, are held. At Mareeba, buyers paid 150.6d. per lb. at last year's sale, but this year they paid 140.4d. At Brandon they paid 125.1d. per lb. at last year's sales, but this year they paid 89.4d. In Brisbane last year buyers paid 142. Id. per lb. The figures for this year are incomplete because there is still more leaf to be sold. However, the price paid will be not 142. Id. but approximately 119d. About a quarter of the leaf is still unsold, most of it not yet having been offered for sale. It seems that the buyers have not adopted the rule that price is governed by the law of supply and demand. Apparently they have adopted a different rule - the rule of engineered lack of demand. The result has been ruination for some growers, great hardship for others, and uncertainty for all. Although some of the tobacco was faulty, there was still plenty of good tobacco and there seems to be no valid reason for the utterly confused situation that exists. The Commonwealth Government is in no way responsible for the disaster that has befallen so many decent growers. The great majority of those citizens are not responsible themselves for the plight into which they have fallen. The blame for the confusion, the drop in price and the trouble that has resulted rests squarely on the buyers. While I commend the Government for having appointed a committee of inquiry to ascertain why tobacco is still unsold, I urge it to try to arrange for a full-scale investigation of all the sales that have been held this season, including sales of tobacco for which there was no bid but which was appraised at, say, 130d. or 140d. per lb. and then bought later for 50d. 1 urge the Government to do all in its power to help the unfortunate victims. {: #subdebate-33-0-s5 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP -- in reply - The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** asked me certain questions in relation to an application by a **Mr. Henry** G. Alderton. I remember very clearly some correspondence, some time ago, about this gentleman's unfortunate condition, but I have no recollection of any further recent correspondence about the matter. When the honorable gentleman's letter reaches my office, if it has not already done so, I shall attend to it. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12 midnight. {: .page-start } page 294 {:#debate-34} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Workers' Compensation Acts {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for Works, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was the late Chief Industrial Officer of his department, **Mr. W.** F. Nicholls, accustomed to prepare an annual conspectus which gave the only comprehensive and contemporary summary of the features and divergencies of Australia's score of workers' compensation acts, Commonwealth, State and territorial? 1. Will he give an assurance that such a valuable work will not be allowed to lapse with the death of this able and devoted officer? {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The late **Mr. W.** F. Nicholls, Chief Industrial Officer of the Department of Works, was responsible for the preparation of an annual conspectus of workers' compensation acts in Australia which was of considerable value. 1. Arrangements have been made to continue this service; the latest summary was issued in June, 1961. {:#subdebate-34-1} #### Australians Stranded Overseas {: #subdebate-34-1-s0 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: n asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the plight of fourteen Australian timber workers who were working for an Australian company which has gone into liquidation and who are stranded on the Dutch island of Adi, 40 miles from Hollandia? 1. Is it a fact that some of the men are sick with malaria and other tropical diseases, that they have no medical supplies and that they are existing on a very restricted food ration? 2. Is it also a fact that the Dutch patrol vessel no longer visits the island and that the company cutter is in Darwin under distraint for debt? 3. Is he able to say whether the men are owed many weeks' wages and, as a result, their wives and families are enduring great hardship? 4. Will he approach the Dutch authorities so that rations and medical supplies can be sent immediately to these men? 5. Will he have examined the credentials of companies similar to Adi Timber Limited who induce Australians to work abroad in remote islands and then leave them stranded and starving? {: #subdebate-34-1-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1-4. Inquiries I had made into this matter showed that the Administrator of the Northern Territory had been in telegraphic communication with the Australians concerned on a number of occasions throughout May. None of the messages received from the men contained complaints of sickness. Supplies of food had been received as necessary from Kaimana, the administrative centre of subdivision 15 of Netherlands New Guinea. In addition, the company vessel, Janis B, had been released from arrest and had sailed for Adi Island from Darwin on 18th May with 12 tons of supplies. The men had also reported to the Administrator that they would have an opportunity to leave Adi Island for Sydney at the end of May and I am informed that most of the men did return to Australia at that time. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. In the circumstances, the question of approaching the Netherlands authorities did not arise. 1. The matter of the examination of the credentials of companies is. for the most part, one of State law. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. {: #subdebate-34-1-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What allowances are paid to members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs when they attend committee meetings in Canberra on a day when the Parliament is to meet and the committee meets at a time when the Parliament is not actually sitting? 1. In addition to any allowances, which may be granted to committee members, do they also receive the allowance of £4 per day paid to senators and members when in Canberra for the purpose of attending sittings of the Parliament? 2. On how many days in each year since the committee was established has the committee met in Canberra on days when the Parliament also met? {: #subdebate-34-1-s3 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As previously stated on 4th May, 1961, in reply to a question asked by the honorable member for East Sydney, the allowances payable to members of the Foreign Affairs Committee are the same as those paid to the Parliamentary Standing Committees on Public Accounts and Public Works. An allowance of 50s. is payable to a member for attendance at a committee meeting held at any time other than during the sittings of either House of the Parliament. The allowance is now also payable to members of the select committee consisting of members from both sides of this House on Voting Rights of Aborigines. 1. Yes. 2. Since the committee was first appointed on 27th February, 1952, the number of meetings held each year on days when the Parliament also met and the committee met at times when the Parliament was not actually sitting is as follows: - {:#subdebate-34-2} #### Australian Military Forces {: #subdebate-34-2-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many personnel (a) sought, and (b) were allotted married quarters in the last financial year? 1. How many personnel were waiting for married quarters at 30th June last? {: #subdebate-34-2-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1. (a) 3,680. 1,903 applications were outstanding as at 1st July, 1960, and a further 1,777 were received from 1st July, 1960, to 30th June, 1961. (b) 1,848. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. 1.815. {:#subdebate-34-3} #### Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport {: #subdebate-34-3-s0 .speaker-JYJ} ##### Mr Clay:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES y asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he ascertain how many aircraft land and take off from the Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney, during each day of the week? 1. Will he publicize the name and telephone number of an officer of his department with whom complaints may be lodged when interference to radio and television reception is experienced which, in the opinion of residents near Kingsford-Smith Airport, emanates from aircraft using that airport? {: #subdebate-34-3-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The total of landings and take-offs each day is approximately 200. 1. Complaints should be directed to the Superintendent, Radio Branch, General Post Office, Sydney (telephone 92 0228). For written complaints a special questionnaire type form is provided and may be obtained at any post office. {:#subdebate-34-4} #### West New Guinea {: #subdebate-34-4-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - >When will he be able to answer the question which I placed on the notice-paper on 9th March last? {: #subdebate-34-4-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The reply to this question was published on page 2061 of the House of Representatives " Hansard " for 17th and 18th May last. {:#subdebate-34-5} #### Suez Canal {: #subdebate-34-5-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What action has the Minister for External Affairs taken since my question to him without notice on 31st August last concerning the continued interference by the United Arab Republic with ships sailing to Israel through the Suez Canal? 1. What results has he achieved? {: #subdebate-34-5-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is - >There has been no change in the Government's attitude since I replied to the honorable member's question without notice on 31st August last. While constant in its support of the principle of free transit through the canal, the Government believes that the best hope for effective action on this particular issue lies in mediation by the United Nations Secretary-General rather than in individual action by individual countries. {:#subdebate-34-6} #### Parliamentary Attendance {: #subdebate-34-6-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he, in the past two years, been absent from Australia at times when the annual Budget was under discussion in the Parliament? 1. Does he know of any former occupant of the office of Commonwealth Treasurer who considered that, at that particular time of the year, his presence overseas was more important than it was in Australia? 2. Is he able to give an assurance that during the forthcoming Budget sittings, and during any period when supplementary Budget provisions are being discussed, he will be in his place in Parliament until the debate concludes in order to answer questions and reply to any criticism? {: #subdebate-34-6-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. After having introduced the Budget in the past two years, and been in attendance in the Parliament during the period of the general debate on the Budget, I have been absent during part of the remainder of theparliamentary session because of attendance at the meetings of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Conference and the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the International Finance Corporation. It is customary for the meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers to be held in the week preceding the annual meetings of these three affiliate organizations of the United Nations Organization. 1. My immediate predecessor in office attended the annual meetings referred to in (1) above in each of the years 1954, 1955, 1957 and 1958. 2. I shall be in attendance in Parliament during the period of the general debate on the 1961-62 Budget and, following participation in the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Conference and annual meetings of the three organizations referred to above, expect to be back in Australia for the debate on the Budget Estimates. {:#subdebate-34-7} #### Crimes Act {: #subdebate-34-7-s0 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: e asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons have been prosecuted under the Crimes Act since 1st January, 1950, for subversive activities against the Commonwealth? 1. What are the details in each case? {: #subdebate-34-7-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. " Subversive activities against the Commonwealth " is not a description of any specific offence for which a person may be prosecuted under the Crimes Act. It is not desirable that I should select the offences to which I may think the honorable member desires to refer. If, however, the honorable member will inform me as to the particular offences under the act in respect to which he desires information I shall endeavour to supply it. {:#subdebate-34-8} #### Tapping of Telephones {: #subdebate-34-8-s0 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: e asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - >How many authorized telephone tappings were made during the year 1960-61? {: #subdebate-34-8-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >In my second-reading speech on the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill on 5th May, 1960, I made clear (see page 1425 of " Hansard ") that I did not favour or intend any practice of periodic disclosure of the number of telephone intercepts, as that would not in my view be in the best interests of security. > >During the passage of the bill no amendment to require a periodic report was proposed. Later, on 2nd June, 1960, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, I said (" Hansard " page 2194): "The question of whether or not such a statement should be required to be made was given very careful consideration when the recent bill on the subject was being prepared. Opinions were sought from those who were experienced in the field of security both here and abroad. Their view was that it would not be advisable to have periodic revelations of the number of telephone calls which it had been found necessary to intercept. I do not propose to follow the course suggested by the Leader of the Opposition - not from a desire to keep information away from this House but from a desire to protect the major interests of this country". > >Further experience and reflection have confirmed me in the views I then expressed. Accordingly, I do not propose to furnish the information sought by the honorable member.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 August 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1961/19610817_reps_23_hor32/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant