House of Representatives
23 May 1963

24th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 24th Parliament
  3. 1963

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

page 1741

PETITIONS

Disarmament and Nuclear Tests

Mr. JOHNSON presented a petition from certain electors of the Commonwealth praying that the Government -

  1. Support the United Nations resolution for a nuclear test ban treaty;
  2. Ensure that foreign bases are not permitted on Australian soil;
  3. In response to the call of the United Nations, declare Australia’s willingness to enter into an agreement not to manufacture, test, station or acquire nuclear weapons.

Petition received and read.

Mr. WHITLAM presented a petition in the same terms from certain electors of the Divisions of Macarthur, Reid and Werriwa.

Mr. CAIRNS presented a petition in the same terms from certain electors of the Commonwealth.

Petitions received.

Aborigines

Mr. O’BRIEN presented a petition from certain citizens of the Commonwealth praying that the Government remove section 127 and the words discriminating against aborigines in section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution, by the holding of a referendum at an early date.

Petition received.

page 1741

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question. If he wishes the conference over which he intends to preside next week, for the purpose of bringing peace to the waterfront, to succeed, will he use his considerable influence with the employers to restrain them from issuing more summons on members of the Waterside Workers Federation, because such action and the imposition of fines merely cause more stoppages and more fines, resulting in an atmosphere which will militate against any possibility of success at the conference table?

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

– Yesterday, in answer to a question by the honorable member for Blaxland, I said it was my wish, and that of other parties interested, particularly the Australian Council of Trade Unions, that we should do all in our power to reduce tensions and show restraint until the conference is held and decisions are made. The honorable member can rest assured that this is still my intention, and that what I can do I will do. I am not prepared to approach either of the parties concerned and ask it to retreat from any position it wishes to take up in respect of its legal rights. But the honorable member may be assured that I and the officers of my department will do our best to reduce tension and urge restraint.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for East Sydney will cease interjecting and resume his seat.

page 1741

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION IN AUSTRALIA

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for External Affairs, and it relates to some of the problems of tendering for the construction of the proposed telecommunication station in Western Australia. These problems, I am informed, are unique so far as tendering in Australia is concerned. There is, for instance, no riseandfall clause in the specifications, and no bill of quantities is issued with the specifications. Will the Minister inquire about the consequences of these matters on the tendering position, having particular regard to the fact that in respect of awards that may be made for the area it does not appear possible that there will be anything better to rely upon than a guess?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It is not within my competence to deal with ordinary commercial transactions between the United States Government and the tenderers, but I am quite sure that now that the honorable member has asked his question and made his points, the difficulties of the situation will be brought to the attention of the American authorities dealing with the tender documents.

page 1742

QUESTION

TELEPHONES FOR PENSIONERS

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Services. In making his recommendations to the Government in connexion with the framing of the Budget for the next financial year will the Minister consider a provision for some concessional rental rates in respect of telephones installed for the use of pensioners, particularly those who are physically handicapped, in the same way as concessions are granted to pensioners in respect of radio and television licences? I understand that the average cost of telephones to pensioners at present is about 5s. a week.

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

– I can assure the honorable member that comprehensive submissions will be made covering the entire scheme of social services. Representations have been made to me for increases in rates of pensions, extension of social service benefits and other concessions, which would cost in the aggregate more than £211,000,000 over and above the current expenditure from the National Welfare Fund of £387,000,000. Obviously a judgment has to be made in such circumstances, and this Government must make such judgment in the best interests of the community and the people concerned, as any responsible government would.

page 1742

QUESTION

FERTILIZER PRODUCTION

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, relates to the Freedom from Hunger campaign. I ask: Is it a fact that in New Guinea there exist immense resources of untapped and undeveloped energy, including both hydro-electric power and natural gas? Could these resources be readily harnessed for the production of artificial fertilizer? Is such fertilizer urgently required both in New Guinea and throughout South-East Asia as part of the campaign against hunger and malnutrition? If these are facts, would it be practicable for the right honorable gentleman to consult with the appropriate international agency to obtain assistance in the financing of the construction of a large-scale fertilizer plant in New Guinea, production from which could be made available - if necessary, by way of gift - to distressed and famine-prone areas? Will the Prime Minister consult with the appropriate international organizations interested in these matters, and will he undertake to make a report on the subject to the House at its next meeting?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not profess to be at all expert in these matters. The honorable member has raised various questions of some novelty. I think that in order to enable the subject to be investigated by the appropriate department, it would be a good thing if he placed his question on the notice-paper.

page 1742

QUESTION

AUTOMATION

Mr MONAGHAN:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. I ask: Has his attention been directed to the statement by Sir Mark Oliphant that the time may not be far off when having a job would be a privilege? Is he aware that the New South Wales Government has recently made an inquiry into automation and that the report of the commissioner, Mr. Justice Richards, will shortly be presented to that Government? In view of the serious problems of unemployment resulting from technological progress, will the Federal Government make some effort to follow the lead given by the New South Wales Government by conducting an inquiry of its own supplementary to that of the State, and to allay the fears of factory workers, tradesmen and white-collar workers whose economic future, and that of their families, could well be placed in jeopardy?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I think it could well be said that the Commonwealth Government - or the Department of Labour and National Service, if I may be more specific - led the way in inquiries into the effects of automation on the prospects of employment in industry throughout Australia. A document on this subject was issued by the Ministry of Labour Advisory Council, which is composed of representatives of trade unions and manufacturing, commercial and scientific interests. That document was the result of the work of a committee that thoroughly debated this problem. I shall have a copy of the document delivered to the honorable member and to any other honorable member who cares to have a copy.

I think it can be said, too, that the view of those who participated in the discussions of the committee, including representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, was that we in this country had no need to fear automation, provided that we looked ahead and made preparatory arrangement!) so that when the progress of automation or increasing mechanization increases the labour offering for work that labour can be absorbed. We have already looked into this problem. I expect that much of what Mr. Justice Richards will have to say in his report will be similar in principle to the findings of the committee that I have mentioned. So I think we can say that this Government has led the way. Only yesterday, after I had read further documents relating to this matter, I asked officers of my department whether they considered that it would be desirable to convene a similar committee again, because further information may have come to our knowledge and another meeting of the committee would provide an opportunity to have a second look at the problem.

page 1743

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. In view of the large number of outstanding applications for telephone services in both metropolitan and rural areas, apparently owing to the lack of a comparatively small amount of finance, will the Minister consider proposing to the Government an overall three or five year plan that would provide sufficient money to overcome the backlag completely? Would not this procedure, if adopted, greatly assist officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department in their planning and also provide the Treasury with greatly increased revenue from the use of the additional services thereby made available?

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

– The proposal by the honorable member for Indi that there should be a three or five year forward plan for Post Office finance and works naturally has definite attractions for the department. This is not a new proposal. It has been submitted from time to time by various people interested in the development of the department and it has been given some consideration. A scheme of this kind would have certain attractions because it would enable more definite forward planning and could result in the attraction of further revenue as development proceeded. But I must point out that such a proposal has to be considered in the context of all the other demands on available Commonwealth revenue, arising from the requirements of Commonwealth departments and the assistance we are giving to the States. All those matters have to be considered. You cannot take one proposal and deal with it in isolation.

I point out, as I have done previously, that although the Government has not been able to allocate a certain sum for the Post Office for a three or five year period, it has acknowledged the need for additional finance for the Post Office by making increased amounts available each year for Post Office capital works.

It must be remembered that the Government and the Postmaster-General’s Department face very great problems in supplying telephone services. An indication of the problems involved can be gained from the fact that in planning for this financial year, we anticipated a 6 per cent, increase in applications for telephone services, compared with last year, but - due no doubt to the very great lift given to the economy of the country by this Government’s policies - in the first six months of this financial year there was an increase of 12i per cent, in the applications. That is a pretty good yardstick by which to measure the condition of the economy, and the problems we have to face in obtaining finance and in using that finance for capital works.

page 1743

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr COUTTS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Primary Industry seen a report from a Japanese trade mission to Communist China which states that China will cease importing Australian wheat at the end of .the year? If China should cease to import Australian wheat - its purchases for the last three years amounted to £91,500,000 - would this deal a serious blow to the Australian wheat industry? Has the Government made any plans to meet this serious threat to the industry? If the Government has made any plans, what are they?

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

– I have seen a press statement to this effect. I would remind the honorable member that the Australian Wheat Board is the selling authority for Australian wheat. I would remind him also that the Australian Wheat Board is negotiating on certain aspects of wheat sales at the present time. The board informed me of the position, but I have not heard from it since the negotiations were commenced.

page 1744

QUESTION

TRADE WITH NEW ZEALAND

Mr McNEILL:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Trade. I ask whether his attention has been directed to the “New Zealand Herald” of 23rd April in which there appears a report of an address by Mr. Nordmeyer, the Leader of the Opposition in New Zealand, in which he attacked what was referred to as “ Australia’s record of trade concessions “ and said that New Zealand should take action to break Australia’s grip on Tasman trade. Is there any real justification for this attack? Can the Minister allay any suspicions that may exist of unfair treatment by Australia?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Repatriation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have seen the report to which the honorable member has referred. I also saw a report issued later by Mr. Marshall, the Minister for Overseas Trade in the New Zealand Government. The latter report corrected some of the statements that had been made by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the honorable member recalls that Mr. McEwen, the Australian Minister for Trade, and Mr. Marshall had discussions last month concerning trade between Australia and New Zealand. Arising out of those discussions it was resolved that a special joint standing committee comprising representatives of Australia and New Zealand be established to investigate proposals that had been discussed at the time relating to a free trade area between Australia and New Zealand. That joint standing committee has now been established and will meet for the first time in Canberra next Tuesday. It is understood that the committee will continue to meet alternately in Australia and New Zealand at intervals of one month or six weeks. At the present time approximately 90 per cent, of exports from New Zealand to Australia are free of duty and approximately 80 per cent, of exports from Australia to New Zealand are free of duty. The issue therefore revolves around the remainder of the trade, with certain reservations. This committee is purely a committee of investigation. It will report to the respective governments at a later stage. In the light of the report the matter will be considered by the two governments.

It is, of course, understood that there is an imbalance of trade between Australia and New Zealand which perhaps has led to some criticism on the part of the Opposition, but that aspect was satisfactorily dealt with by the New Zealand Minister for Overseas Trade. The best thing from Australia’s point of view is to see that markets in each country for the other country’s products expand. Only recently a trade mission from New Zealand visited Australia. The mission was given every assistance and provided with every facility for carrying out its work by the Australian Department of Trade.

page 1744

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether he has received a petition or an appeal from a large number of residents of Broome and Derby in the north of Western Australia complaining about the very poor radio reception in that area and pointing out that foreign stations continually blot out Australian programmes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is too much audible conversation. It is impossible to hear the question.

Mr COLLARD:

– Have the people of that area also requested that the power used by short-wave transmitters in Western Australia serving the area in question be suitably increased and that a transmitter be installed north of the 26th parallel? If so, has the Minister had sufficient time to study the requests and can he now say what action is intended to bring about improvements to the service? In particular, will anything be done to meet the requests of these people?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I have received from the honorable member himself a petition about this matter. The honorable member has asked whether I have had time to study the position and, if so, what I can do to improve it. Broadcasting reception in the northern parts of Western Australia has been the subject of considerable study in the past. Many representations have been made to me and to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board about this matter by honorable members in both chambers of this Parliament and by persons outside the Parliament.

I am very familiar with this matter, which presents pretty grave problems because of the nature of the country, its extent, population density and so on. Because of the problems involved, the board, in 1958, sent an engineer to carry out a comprehensive survey of the position in those areas and to report to it. As the result of that report certain measures have been taken - or are in course of being taken - to try to meet the situation. For example, the first measure taken was a rearrangement of the frequencies of the two short wave stations in Perth serving the areas concerned - stations VLW and VLX - because it was believed that by this means the transmission could be improved. The result of this change has been watched, and I am told that it has met with some success, although it does not properly relieve the situation.

Therefore, the board is proceeding with a further recommendation from its engineer, which covers part of the question asked by the honorable member. The power of the two short wave high frequency stations in Perth will be increased and the work is in progress now. The power of one station is to be increased from two to ten kilowatts and that of the other from ten to fifty kilowatts. I am advised that the stations should be operating on the increased power towards the end of this year, probably in October.

Immediately that happens further surveys will be undertaken to estimate the result of this improvement. The honorable member referred to the desirability of putting in a new station at the 26th parallel of latitude. This matter had been looked at previously and I am advised that this suggestion, which simply means bringing the station closer to the areas to be served, would not necessarily produce an improvement. Because of the nature of this type of transmission it is not a matter simply of the station being closer to the area to be served, so it would be better to expend the available money on increasing the power of the existing stations.

As an indication of the intention of the board to improve the service, I point out that there will be two new medium frequency stations - one at Dalwallinu and the other at Carnarvon - to serve certain areas. I can assure the honorable member and all others who are particularly interested in this matter that the board will continue to watch the situation with a view to effecting improvements.

page 1745

QUESTION

TRADE UNION BALLOTS

Mr CHIPP:
HIGINBOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. It is further to the question I asked him two weeks ago concerning the combined attempts of the Australian Labour Party and the Communist Party to defeat, in spirit at least, the secret ballot legislation of this Parliament in the forthcoming election in Victoria of officials of the Australian Railways Union. Is the Minister aware that in addition to the proposal for a stapled unity ticket between Communists and members of the A.L.P., a third team of A.L.P. men has intruded into the election and will contest the key posts so as to split the vote and ensure the united Communist-A.L.P. team a victory over the anti-Communist forces under the first-past-the-post system? Is there nothing the Minister can do to prevent this travesty of justice being inflicted on the decent rank and file members of the union? (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the House to come to order. I have repeatedly brought to the notice of the House the fact that it is contrary to the Standing Orders to interject. An Opposition member persistently ignores that warning. I warn him that if he interjects again I will deal with him.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It will be remembered that the Leader of the Opposition interjected when the honorable member for Higinbotham asked a somewhat similar question on the last occasion. The honorable member brought to the notice of the House the fact that there was a third group entering the field in the election of officers of the Australian Railways Union. This group consists of progressive Labour people.

Mr Calwell:

– Yes, Australian Labour Party candidates-

Mr McMAHON:

– The Labour Party candidates will be on a stapled ticket with the Communists and so it becomes obvious in this case that the progressive Labour Party candidates have come into the election with a definite intention of splitting the vote and giving the stapled ticket candidates - the A.L.P. and Communist candidates - an advantage. I agree with what the honorable member for Higinbotham has said. I think this will give the Communists a distinct advantage, which will be contrary to the interests of the men in the industry.

page 1746

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– My question to the Minister for Immigration relates to the many reports about an expected increase in the flow of British migrants to Australia. When does the Minister expect that this increased flow will occur? Where does he intend to house the migrants? Will he guarantee that the migrants will be accommodated adequately? Or does he intend housing them in the existing migrant hostels, which have proved to be so unsatisfactory and depressing in the past and have resulted in thousands of British migrants returning home and exposing our bad accommodation arrangements?

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

– As I have said from time to time, there is an increasing flow of British migrants to Australia. I would have hoped that all honorable members, whatever their party, would rejoice in that fact. Thousands of these British migrants will come as personal’ nominees of Australian residents. The honorable gentleman should know by now that people in that category come here with accommodation already found or guaranteed.

Mr Jones:

– That is not true.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member has asked his question.

Mr DOWNER:

– If the honorable gentleman does not want to be informed, it is pointless for me to answer the question. The British migrants to whom I have referred are brought to Australia under the very successful * Bring out a Briton “ campaign - for which we have, in round figures, 500 committees - and by innumerable sponsors throughout Australia. Accommodation for those migrants when they arrive is already found or guaranteed. Another large proportion of migrants consists of Commonwealth nominees. They are accommodated temporarily in migrant hostels spread all over Australia.

Mr Jones:

– The hostels are unsatisfactory.

Mr DOWNER:

– As I have said before, they are not unsatisfactory when you bear in mind the object for which they were created. The honorable gentleman does ill-service to the immigration programme and to Australia’s future by denigrating the hostels in this way, because the great majority of migrants have found them, within the limits of short-time accommodation, to be satisfactory. Those hostels have done immense service in making our immigration programme possible and enabling it to flow so smoothly.

page 1746

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Repatriation relating to the provision of facilities for geriatric treatment for eligible ex-servicemen. I have in mind the Rosemount rehabilitation centre in Queensland which the Minister opened recently. To what extent are similar facilities available in other States? What plans has the Government in hand to provide these facilities in view of the fact that the number of eligible ex-servicemen will increase within the next few years?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– Facilities for geriatric treatment are now being provided by my department in all States. We have recently opened two new hospitals for this purpose, but other facilities are available - for example, in Western Australia at the Edward Millen Repatriation Hospital. Those facilities will be expanded as required in the future.

page 1746

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr BEATON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I preface a question addressed to the Treasurer by mentioning that all honorable members will have knowledge of the desperate living conditions experienced by many pensioners, particularly those who live alone, or who pay high rentals or high municipal rates. As the Government’s financial position would appear to be buoyant and, bearing in mind the great need of these pensioners, I ask the Treasurer whether he will deal sympathetically with their claims. In particular, will he relieve the plight of pensioners who are in desperate financial straits by widening the scope of the supplementary allowance and by substantially increasing it from the present figure of 10s. at the time of the next Budget?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I have previously told the House that this Government has shown its recognition of the importance of extending the social welfare programme for the people of Australia by increasing expenditure on that programme from £81,000,000 in the year preceding our taking office to £387,000,000 in the current Budget. As is our practice, we will be reviewing the whole range of social services in the forthcoming Budget discussions, and I shall have in mind what the honorable gentleman has put to me.

page 1747

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. When was the last report on the wheat situation issued by the Division of Agricultural Economics? Are there any further papers available now? What is the effect on world marketing of current trends in wheat production in North America? Has a referendum on wheat production control been held in the United States? If a referendum has been held, what was the result, and what effect will it have on the world market for wheat?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– I assume that in his first question the honorable member is referring to a survey of the industry made by the Division of Agricultural Economics. The report on that survey has been presented to me, and has been the basis on which I have had two discussions with the leaders of the wheat industry as a prelude to the formulation of the Government’s future policy regarding the stabilization of the industry.

The answer to the honorable member’s second question is that there is still a considerable surplus of wheat in North America, despite the great reduction in pro- duction made during the last twelve months. The referendum relating to a reduced production programme was defeated by the growers of the United States, only 47 per cent, of them having favoured the proposal. By that decision they rejected the American Government’s offer of a guarantee of two dollars a bushel for wheat produced under a production reduction programme. As I understand the position, the rejection of that proposal means that they will produce such quantity as they choose and will be satisfied to accept a guarantee of only one dollar thirty cents a bushel.

page 1747

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF DESTROYERS

Mr GRAY:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Supply. As the three destroyers which are being constructed in the United States of America for Australia are estimated to cost in excess of £60,000,000, and as the actual vessels, together with all conventional armaments and equipment are estimated to cost less than £20,000,000, is the Minister in a position to inform the House whether or not approximately 80 per cent, of the balance of £40,000,000, which is the estimated cost of the rocket armament and equipment, represents payment of royalties and commissions and therefore will not form part of the actual cost of purchase and installation, which means that the real cost of the ships is increased by almost 200 per cent?

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

– I question the accuracy of the figures mentioned by the honorable member. I do not carry the details in my mind. I shall refer the question to the Minister for the Navy and obtain an appropriate answer.

page 1747

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr IAN ALLAN:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Air whether he can tell me what is the minimum altitude at which aircraft may fly while on exercise. Has he had reports from poultry farmers of damage sustained to their flocks because of low-flying aircraft? If he has received such reports, can he say what action his department can take to avoid future losses of this kind?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Air · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have had no reports of any damage caused by lowflying aircraft of the Royal Australian

Air Force. The minimum height at which aircraft may fly when taking part in air displays is 500 feet. Otherwise, low flying is prohibited except in certain areas which are set aside for that purpose. If the honorable member would care to give details of any complaints that he has received, I will certainly investigate them.

page 1748

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. I refer him to the proposed national relay station at Eidsvold, which at present is in his electorate. I hope that that station will improve greatly reception in the Gayndah and Mundubbera areas of the Wide Bay electorate, too. I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether he can tell me when the station will be in operation.

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– As I have announced previously in this House and in the press, the planning of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board provides for a station at Eidsvold, and also one at Emerald and one at Bollon. The stage that the planning has reached is that the site for this station has been chosen and certain provisions for acquiring the site have been made. The planning of the type of building is proceeding. But at this short notice I cannot give the honorable member for Wide Bay the actual date of commencement. I hope that it will be some time in the next financial year. I will procure that information for him.

page 1748

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION IN AUSTRALIA

Mr CHANEY:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. It is supplementary to a question asked by the honorable member for Moreton about the construction of the radio base at North West Cape. Can the Minister confer with the Leader of the Opposition in order to have him use whatever influence he may have with the Trades and Labour Council in Western Australia to see that the demands being made for margins 400 to 500 per cent, higher than usual for working on the North West Cape base are not proceeded with, especially as a locality allowance of twelve guineas a week is also being sought? An honorable member opposite says that that is not enough. That is the comment that I would expect from him. A combination of those demands will probably prevent Australian contractors from tendering for the work.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have been informed that the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council had sent to 300 contractors in the United States of America a booklet setting out the terms and conditions under which they should tender for the communication centre at Exmouth Gulf. There are terms as to joint contracts in the agreement that was negotiated between the Department of External Affairs and the United States authorities. I will obtain a copy of that agreement and I will let the honorable gentleman have it for his information. As to the actual claims themselves, I thought that last night the result of the votes taken in this chamber indicated fairly clearly that the Opposition was opposed to the establishment of the base.

Opposition Members. - Ob!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is not in order in reviving a debate.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I am not reviving a debate; I am explaining a position. So, I have come to this conclusion: It would be unwise for me - and I could not expect any result if I could do this - to approach the Leader of the Opposition to get his support for what was-

Mr Ward:

– He will want a witness.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I name the honorable member for East Sydney.

Motion (by Sir Robert Menzies) proposed -

That the honorable member for East Sydney be suspended from the service of the House. (The bells being rung) -

Mr Ward:

– You are supposed to be impartial.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will remain silent.

Mr Ward:

– I am going to have my say. If I am to be put out, I might as well have my say.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Ward:

– I say that you deliberately framed it so that I would be put out to-day.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for East Sydney will now retire from the chamber under Standing Order No. 303.

Mr Ward:

– When you ask the officer of the House to escort me, I will go.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to escort the honorable member from the chamber.

Mr Ward:

– That is right.

Mr Calwell:

– The Minister for Labour and National Service started all this. He wanted this.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Ward:

– Pig iron Bob was happy to co-operate. (The honorable member for East Sydney was thereupon escorted from the chamber.)

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 50

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1749

QUESTION

MARRIAGE ACT 1961

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

– I ask for leave to make a statement on the bringing into force of the Marriage Act 1961.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Calwell:

– No, it is refused.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Leave is refused.

page 1749

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION BOARD AND DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BOARD

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– Pursuant to statutory requirements, I lay on the table of the House the following papers: -

Superannuation Act - Superannuation Board - Fortieth Annual Report, for year 1961-62.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act - Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board - Fourteenth Annual Report, for year 1961-62.

I ask for leave to make a statement in relation to these reports.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Calwell:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Leave is refused.

Mr Harold Holt:

– The Public Service is very interested in this, you know.

Mr Calwell:

– We are interested in the scandalous behaviour of Ministers a little while ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask honorable members to come to order.

page 1750

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

– For the information of honorable members, I lay on the table of the House the following paper: -

Alleged Improper Practices and Improper Refusal to Co-operate with the Victoria Police Force on the Part of Persons Employed in the Postmaster-General’s Department in Victoria in Relation to Illegal Gambling - Report of Royal Commissioner, the Honorable Mr. Justice R. L. Taylor.

I ask for leave to make a statement in relation to this subject.

Mr Calwell:

– No leave for you either!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Leave is refused.

Mr Harold Holt:

– How childish can you be! This is the alternative government.

Mr Calwell:

– Stop squealing.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask honorable members on both sides of the House to come to order.

page 1750

AIR NAVIGATION BILL 1963

Assent reported.

page 1750

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: -

Parliamentary Papers Bill 1963.

Evidence Bill 1963.

page 1750

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

.- I move-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Order of the Day, General Business, for the resumption of debate on the motion for leave to bring in the Disabled Persons Homes Bill 1963, being proceeded with forthwith.

I propose to show, first, the necessity for special provision for the housing of disabled persons, which is the purpose of the proposed bill. Secondly, I propose to show the necessity for this particular procedure to be adopted if the matter is to come before the House. Thirdly, I propose to show the necessity for dealing with this matter to-day.

Mr Harold Holt:

– May I raise a matter of order, Mr. Speaker, and seek your guidance? It will be known to you that this matter was before the House a fortnight ago. If the honorable member wishes to test the feeling of the House on the question whether Standing Orders should be suspended at this stage so that he may bring the matter forward, I would not obstruct that procedure. If he is, as he has now indicated, proposing to circumvent the previous decision of the House by making a substantial speech on this matter, then I would seek to close the discussion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Eden-Monaro would be within his rights in raising argument in connexion with a measure and giving reasons and justification. There are certain restrictions, but he has a fair amount of freedom.

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

- Mr. Speaker-

Mr Harold Holt:

– I move -

That the question be now put. (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I must point out that the question is not being put from the chair. I ask honorable members to co-operate and to maintain the reputation of the Parliament.

Mr Harold Holt:

– On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that there is no matter before the Chair on which this House can express a judgment? Are you ruling that the House must sit and hear the attempt by the honorable gentleman completely to cover the subject-matter, without any member of the House being able to move that the honorable member be not further heard?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is just the closure of the debate upon the honorable member’s motion that may not be moved.

Mr Harold Holt:

– Then I move -

That the honorable member for Eden-Monaro be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is there any seconder of the original motion?

Mr Beazley:

– I second the original motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question now is, “That the honorable member for Eden-Monaro be not further heard.”

Mr Cairns:

– Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Those of that opinion say “Aye”, to the contrary “ No “. I think the “ Ayes “ have it.

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

– What was the motion? I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand you have not put the question that I be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I put that question and no division was called for.

Mr Cairns:

– Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will resume his seat. Do honorable members wish me to put the question again?

Opposition Members. - Yes!

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question was, and is, “ That the honorable member for EdenMonaro be not further heard “.

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 49

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- I have already seconded that motion, Mr. Speaker. The matter that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) is attempting to raise to the top of the notice-paper this morning has been near the top of the notice-paper on several earlier occasions.

Mr Harold Holt:

– I move -

That the question be now put

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The motion has not been put by the Chair yet. The honorable member for Fremantle is exercising his rights in seconding it.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I have seconded the original motion.

Mr Hasluck:

– On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ask for your ruling as to what the honorable member for Fremantle is supporting and what he is seconding, if there is no question before the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Eden-Monaro proposed a motion, which has not been put by the Chair because the House resolved that the honorable member be no further heard. The honorable member for Fremantle seconded the original motion and is now exercising his rights to speak upon it.

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) put -

That the honorable member for Fremantle be not further heard.

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

AYES: 57

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

.- Mr. Speaker-

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Sir John McLeay.) Ayes . . . . . . 57

AYES: 0

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the motion (Mr. Allan Fraser’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 50

NOES: 57

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1753

QUESTION

DISARMAMENT

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move -

That-

  1. World-wide disarmament is now a condition of survival for all mankind;
  2. Regional disarmament arrangements cannot give security while the danger of attack from other regions continues to exist;
  3. No programme of disarmament can be effective without proper safeguards;
  4. Proper safeguards are impossible without inspection and verification on an international basis;
  5. Therefore, agreements on the measures for the inspection and verification of the successive stages of general and complete disarmament are a necessary first step towards this objective;
  6. Such agreements on international inspection and verification would afford evidence of good faith and willingness to implement positive measures for disarmament and would thus tend to reduce international tensions; and
  7. Believing in these principles, this House desires Mr. Speaker to communicate this resolution to the Parliaments of all members of the United Nations.

The subject of this motion is not only the most important subject of our time, but I am afraid that it is also the most important subject of all time, because never before has the survival of mankind as a whole stood in such jeopardy as it does to-day. It will continue to stand in jeopardy unless the dilemma is resolved either by agreement among mankind or by the termination of mankind as a whole. This is the most important and the biggest of all the topics which will come before this House, but honorable members will note that the motion I have moved is distinctly limited in its impact. All I am asking for is the necessary first step in this direction. It may be said with some justification that the proposals here go a very little way towards the full solution of mankind’s dilemma. I would agree with that assertion but I think the House would agree with me that a start must be made somewhere and that this is the right place to start.

Let me take the propositions that I have enunciated. World-wide disarmament is essential if mankind is to survive. The present stocks of nuclear weapons are already of a character that could go near to obliterating the whole of the world. Those stocks are growing. The ability to make these weapons proliferates. The danger of war increases as more and more countries acquire these weapons. Further, it is by no means certain that we have yet reached the limit of discovery of new types of weapons. The position in this last regard may or may not worsen, but it certainly will not get better. It is already bad enough.

It may be said, and said very rightly, that to expose these facts is to make more plausible the campaign of psychological terror that is being waged throughout the world by countries in the Soviet orbit. This, 1 am afraid, is something that we must face. It is no use endeavouring to conceal the facts. The facts are here. It is much better for us to face the facts, to realize the position and to do something about it while there is still time.

Perhaps honorable members will forgive me for reminding them that ever since ] 946 I have been speaking in favour of the enforcement of disarmament measures as soon as possible. I believe it would have been a good thing for mankind if, before the power to make the bomb had become widespread, disarmament had been enforced almost at any cost, because any cost would have been better than the kind of dilemma with which we are faced to-day. I still believe that if we had been resolute in the years before 1953 - if we had seen what was happening - there would not have been the present threat of war. Mankind would have been able to pass into a condition of permanent peace and prosperity with the threat of the arms race permanently removed. But these things were not to be. We are now in the situation that I have described and we must find a way out, if a way out exists.

What is stopping us? We know that the free world, of which we have the honour to be a part - our side of the world - has from time to time made offers of complete disarmament subject to inspection. [Quorum formed.] Our side has from time to time made proposals for complete disarmament. Those proposals have been frustrated. The first and most far-reaching proposal was made when it was suggested that all atomic weapons and atomic capacity should be turned over by the sole holder at the time - the United States of America - to an international body, subject only to the right of control and inspection by the international body free of veto. If that proposal had been adopted mankind would have been spared the dilemma that it now faces.

But the proposal was frustrated. History will show that it was frustrated in accordance with, a Communist design which very cleverly played upon the mass feelings of men and women of goodwill who did not know that they were being used by the Communists in order to delay the implementation of full world disarmament. It is obvious in retrospect - it should have been obvious then, but apparently was not - that the Soviet was playing a delaying role. It did not want disarmament because it felt that the majority of the world lived under a system that was different from communism and that communism therefore would not hope to assert its mastery over a disarmed world in which it could not carry out its designs by force of arms. The Soviet plot then was to frustrate disarmament until the Soviet itself could get the bomb and thus hold the world to ransom. That plot went wrong. It went wrong for a reason that was not foreseen at the time - it could not be foreseen. The plot went wrong because the fission bomb - the little bomb of 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949 - was succeeded by the fusion bomb, a very much more powerful weapon. So the Soviet plot to get the bomb and hold the world to ransom went wrong for the very simple reason that the bomb had become too bad. The Soviet realized that it itself would share in the general destruction following an atomic war - destruction so great that even the Soviet could not tolerate it.

It is worth while pointing out to the House that this original Stalin plan is still maintained in China, where Mao is quite right in boasting that he is the real Stalinist who proposes to face the horrors of aggressive war even though they be the full horrors of nuclear war. He says he is willing to have recourse to war in order to extend the world bid of communism. It is quite right, as he boasts, that he is carrying out the Stalin plan. On the face of it at any rate this is the present difference between the Russian and the Chinese Communists. But let us leave these matters. Let us come to what we have to do now.

Some well-intentioned people say, “ Let us have regional non-nuclear pacts - nuclearfree zones “. These suggestions have their merits at first sight, but when you look at them they are not a help but, in point of fact, a hindrance to complete world disarmament. They give people the fallacious sense of security which a rotten rope could give to a climber in the mountains. They are. therefore, dangerous. They increase and do not decrease world danger, because regional pacts cannot be enforced. There is no way of ensuring that a nuclear attack cannot be launched from some area outside the region. It was said that one cannot see the equator, that rockets do not know whether or not they cross the equator, and already rockets have a world range.

A nuclear-free southern hemisphere would be wonderful, if we could ensure it. But while the northern hemisphere remains nuclear-armed a nuclear-free southern hemisphere is a delusion. If by adopting it we give ourselves a false sense of protection, then we will remove from the world some of the pressures which we should be generating towards complete and effective disarmament. And by so doing we do not help the campaign for disarmament. We will hinder it and help the Communist campaign which is devoted still towards delay, delay, delay, to put it off.

The Communists cannot accept effective world disarmament at this moment, because they know that at this time communism would be in the minority on any controlling body. They therefore wish to put things off hoping - whether the hope be justified or not, but at least hoping - that there will be a shift towards communism and that at some future date they will gain control of the controlling body.

The Russian plan - the Communist plan - is in favour of disarmament if and when the Communists control the controlling body and can use disarmament as a means of imposing communism on the world. But prior to that their tactics are delay, delay, delay; a little concession which does not mean anything; a concession which they make and then withdraw; an offer which they make and then repudiate; confusion, delay - little bits all the time. Should we play into their hands? I say that we should not. It is surely obvious-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Mackellar is in order, and may proceed.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am sorry that I am hurting the feelings of my friend from Eden-Monaro. It is obvious that no programme of disarmament can be effective without proper safeguards. We say we cannot trust the Soviet. It says it cannot trust us. Can any programme of disarmament succeed in those circumstances unless both sides have faith in effective safeguards, so that any disarmament that is put in train can be verified? This comes down to the question of inspection.

You will see, Sir, that I am narrowing the scope of this motion bit by bit. It is a very limited motion. It is not a very ambitious motion. It deals with a very big subject, but with only a limited aspect of that subject. It is obvious that we must have safeguards and that they cannot be effective without inspection and verification.

This is the point of the motion. The world should be concentrating its attention now, not on the things which are meant to delay the programme of disarmament, but on the things which are essential as a first requisite if a programme of disarmament is to be carried out.

When I had the privilege of being at the United Nations I saw this programme of confusion being fostered on quite a deliberate scale by countries on the other side of the iron curtain; delay, delay, delay; turn the argument away, by any device you can, from the first step that must be made. And the first step is inspection and verification. Nothing less than this will do. It has to be a complete right of inspection and verification and if people are coming into this in goodwill, is there anything less that they can offer or accept?

Apparently the Soviet is very allergic to any question of verification. What has the Soviet to hide? Why, if this is done in good faith - and the Russians want us to believe they are acting in good faith - do Soviet representatives argue at all about this method of inspection? Why do they say, “ This is just espionage? “ This cuts both ways. I know what some Communists say among themselves. They say: “The democracies are open to our agents and to our inspection. Rights of inspection can give us nothing - or little more - against the democracies than we already enjoy. But our system in Russia is a closed system. No man from the West has seen even one of our Russian space rockets launched. Our system is a closed system. We are a totalitarian country. We would be giving away more than we would be getting.”

This argument may weigh with the Communists, but it must not weigh with us. If we believe in inspection, then it must be free and untrammelled. We cannot have limitations on it. We cannot be interested in arguments as to whether there should toe nine, ten or twelve inspection stations. We cannot say that inspection can only be carried out by teams of nationals. “ Free inspection” means just what it says. The international operatives - the international agents - on both sides must have the untrammelled right to see that any agreement that has been entered into is not being consistently violated.

If we could get such agreement, that would be the necessary first step towards a reduction of international tension. After all, one of the first things which would assure people that nothing was being prepared in secret against them would be the right of inspection to see that nothing was being hidden. Co-ordinated air and ground inspections would let the people know what was being prepared and what was in existence. They would be an assurance against the secret and unpremeditated attack which, perhaps with some justice, we now fear. The dreadful and grim reality is that all that prevents nuclear attack upon us is the fact that we are able to retaliate. There is tension in the world. If we had international inspection, that tension would be reduced or released.

I ask that, believing this, the House, through its Speaker, communicate this resolution to other parliaments. I know that these issues are brought forward, canvassed and discussed in the forum of the United Nations, but somehow they have been bogged down. Somehow the Soviet plan of delaying and obscuring the main issues is succeeding. Somehow the Soviet is causing people of good will to be deceived, to be confused and to turn their minds only to the side issues. If we can talk, as we are able to talk, to the parliaments of other nations, if we can put before them this simple limited first step - it is the essential first step although it is a limited one - we may do something - a little but still something - towards reducing world tension and towards an approach to this essential matter of world disarmament.

I make no apologies for raising this matter. I make no apologies even for the fact that my approach to it is a first limited approach. Let us have this clear in our minds: Whatever is done towards disarmament, the first essential step is a system of verification and inspection. Those people who refuse this, those people in the United Nations or elsewhere who try to obstruct this - to bog it down with technicalities causing delay, delay and delay - are the real enemies of mankind because, however much they may talk about disarmament, in point of fact they are working on a concerted plan to delay disarmament and are using their power to confuse people as part of that concerted plan.

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:

– I formally second the motion and reserve my right to speak to it.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

– I thank the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) for having yielded. I would have been prepared to second the motion.

The Opposition will vote in favour of this motion, to whose terms I believe all honorable members, can subscribe in good conscience. One hopes that the motion will be carried to-day. If it is not carried to-day, it will go on the notice-paper with many other unresolved matters. Quite clearly, if it is intended that the Speaker should communicate this resolution to the parliaments of all members of the United Nations, he should be able to do so promptly, well before the next meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations. If this motion is to be relevant or effective, it should go through the House quickly. We could carry the motion this morning. If we did not do that this morning, obviously we would not be able to deal with it until after the Parliament re-assembled on 13th August. There would be no prospect of it being dealt with then until after the conclusion of the Budget and Estimates debates, when the General Assembly would already be in session. So it is to-day or not at all. We hope that the vote will be taken this morning.

I wish to enlarge upon only one matter - the interpretation which the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) gave to the second of his seven propositions. The proposition is in these terms -

Regional disarmament arrangements cannot give security while the danger of attack from other regions continues to exist.

The proposition as it stands is obvious; it is trite. The interpretation which he puts on it is unduly restrictive and misconceived. He referred in particular to the proposal for a nuclear-free zone in the southern hemisphere. This is in line with similar proposals which have been advanced for many years now in many countries of the northern hemisphere, and in line with proposals which are being supported, whenever a vote on them is possible, by all countries of the southern hemisphere. The proposal has a great deal of support and a great deal of merit. It is, however, a proposal which has never been represented adequately in the newspapers of this country. Therefore, I shall take the time of the House to some extent to deal with it. We are not often given an opportunity to debate this matter rationally and to inform the people over the air and, with the co-operation of the newspapers, through the newspapers of the arguments in favour of the proposition.

I shall deal with the matter first from the historical angle. The first proposal for a nuclear-free zone was made by the Polish Foreign Minister, Mr. Rapacki. The general notion received unanimous support at the 48th meeting of the Inter-parliamentary Union. It will be remembered that that conference was attended by the honorable members for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth), Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), Lawson (Mr. Failes) and the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson) and by Senators Sandford and Vincent. The conference carried unanimously - with the support, among others, of Government and Opposition members of both Houses of the Australian Parliament - the following resolution -

The Conference notes with approval the agreement recently expressed by the Heads of the Soviet and United Kingdom Governments that, in conjunction with necessary progress towards a satisfactory overall political settlement, further study could usefully be made of the possibilities of increasing security by some method of limitation of forces and weapons, both conventional and nuclear, in an agreed area of Europe.

To sum up this particular instance, in 1959 the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, which was attended by an equal number of delegates from both sides of this House and of the other place, agreed to support the idea of the Rapacki plan.

I come next to the debate in the General Assembly of the United Nations in the last quarter of 1960. I quote the arguments put there in the First Committee by the Australian representative, Mr. Plimsoll, as he then was, a man of extraordinary powers of analysis and persuasion, a man who has earned and enjoys very great respect in the United Nations and who, undoubtedly, will help this country in the new post he has taken at New Delhi. In order to give the full context, I shall quote the whole paragraph. When putting Australia’s point of view in the First Committee, Mr. Plimsoll said -

Another important question was whether to approach the disarmament problem initially by having some comprehensive treaty, some statement of general but binding principles, or whether it should be tackled more gradually with an attempt to take a series of partial measures. During the discussion almost every representative had seen some merit in partial approaches and had advocated them. Australia also believed that a comprehensive treaty did not, at this point of time, offer the answer: but in considering whether to get into partial measures and, if so, what those partial measures should be, it would be wise not to be too doctrinaire. Progress could probably be made without waiting for or without being dependent upon agreement on disarmament as a whole. This did not exclude taking a number of steps simultaneously - proceeding by stages rather than by individual steps. The nuclear tests negotiations and the Antarcatic agreement were instances where agreement had been reached on one concrete thing without waiting for and without being dependent on agreement elsewhere. But there were other problems where, perhaps, three, four or five things had to be solved simultaneously, though without waiting for everything else. In short, Australia favoured a rather pragmatic approach to this problem and could not believe it realistic to take an all-or-nothing, onceandforever approach. As part of this programme the United Kingdom proposal for studies by experts offered much promise. At the worst nothing would be lost by trying to get these expert groups going, and at the best a considerable amount of progress might be made.

Might I say that the Australian Labour Party supports the enunciation of Australia’s attitude as given by our representative in that way at the end of 1960 in the First Committee of the United Nations:

Because it is more recent and more readily available, I refer only briefly to the statement made by the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) in the House on 5th April of last year when he said -

Because a completely disarmed world cannot, even in the most promising circumstances, be achieved in the immediate future, much thought has been given to partial measures of disarmament which could be rapidly agreed on and promptly carried out.

He gives as examples the proposals which Ireland made in several successive sessions of the General Assembly for a ban on the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons and a ban on nuclear tests. When the Minister’s statement was debated in the House a year ago, we pointed out that the successive Irish motions in the General Assembly had sometimes been supported by Australia and sometimes opposed by Australia. The Aus tralian Labour Party took the attitude that we should always have supported those Irish motions, as in fact the Government itself did on the last occasion. The Government’s better attitude on the last occasion was due to the new Minister for External Affairs. We applaud him for having supported the Irish motions against the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons and against nuclear tests.

I come now to instances - they have been mentioned in the House - where proposals for nuclear-free zones have come up for decision.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! As it is now two hours after the time set down for the meeting of the House, this debate is interrupted.

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to -

That the time for the discussion of motions under general business be extended until 12.4S p.m.

Mr Cairns:

– I suggest that the Minister might consider not limiting the time for discussion of this matter to 12.45 p.m. In view of the matters contained on the notice-paper, and in view of the importance of this subject, I suggest that he might consider extending the discussion of this matter to some appropriate time this afternoon.

Mr Harold Holt:

– I should like to speak to that suggestion. I would support the motion as moved. As to the desire of the House to have a further opportunity to discuss the matter, the possibilities are either to have the debate adjourned and resumed at some future time on a day set aside for the consideration of general business or, alternatively, having disposed of Government business during the rest of the day, to resume the debate then if time is available. We on this side of the House are willing to take a vote on the matter within the time normally allotted for the consideration of private members’ business. What is the will of the House? Does it want to debate this matter or get the effective result from the motion as moved? We are prepared to allow the motion to go through and the resulting action to flow from it. Let me point out clearly that we are not prepared to extend the debate into the time normally allotted to the consideration of Government business, at least not until Government business has been disposed of.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have not had the opportunity to confer with my colleagues on this matter. My own view is that we should facilitate the vote on this motion during the normal time for general business. There is Government business to be disposed of, including other matters which we on this side want to debate and which, I believe, the Leader of the House is willing to have debated to-day if outstanding bills are disposed of. In particular, there is a motion which is very relevant and urgent concerning the aborigines at Gove. We would hope to have an opportunity for honorable members on both sides to express their views on that. I think it would be most satisfactory to have a vote on this matter before 12.45 p.m. I would hope to have about five minutes more and then I think the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) wants to say a few words. We could then take the vote.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The only motion before the House is the one which the House has already decided - that is, that the debate will continue until 12.45 p.m. In the circumstances, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will continue, as the House has agreed.

Mr WHITLAM:

– At the time when the Minister for External Affairs made his statement in the House the Labour Party asserted that the Government had lost a positive opportunity to keep nuclear weapons out of the southern hemisphere when it gave a non-committal reply to the letter of the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations requesting to be informed of Australia’s attitude towards manufacturing, acquiring or receiving nuclear weapons. We stated at that time, and we still think, that the Australian Government should have taken the initiative in calling a conference of all the nuclear powers and of all the countries around the Indian Ocean and in the southern hemisphere to discuss the extension of the Antarctic Treaty.

Two things have been asserted against this plan. First that it would be impracticable - that would be suggested by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth). Secondly, that it would in some way offend the United States. As to its practicability, one has only to point out that all the nuclear powers - the United

States of America, Russia, Britain and France - agreed to the Antarctic Treaty, which prohibits nuclear explosions and the disposal of radio-active waste in the southern one-third of our hemisphere.

The proposal of the Labour Party was a disarmament proposal. It rested for its efficacy on the agreement of all the nuclear powers. If any of the nuclear powers was unwilling to enter into such an agreement, then the proposal failed. But, in view of the attitude of the nuclear powers to the Antarctic Treaty, there is no reason to think that they would not have agreed to the proposal. More specifically, in view of the expressed attitude of the United States, there is no reason to think that it would have been against the plan.

In 1961, the year after the Antarctic Treaty was agreed upon, the United States did not object when some of its North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Organization of America States allies and all of its Asian allies voted in favour of a nuclearfree Africa. Indonesia has announced that at this year’s General Assembly of the United Nations it will move for a nuclearfree zone in Asia and the Pacific. At last year’s meeting of the General Assembly, Brazil, with the support at the time of many of the Latin American countries proposed a nuclear-free Latin America. This month five Latin American countries - Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Bolivia and Ecuador have decided to ban nuclear weapons over their territories.

In the debate on the Brazilian resolution in the First Committee of the United Nations last November, the American representative, Ambassador Dean, said this-

In an area where nuclear weapons are not deployed, an agreement which would ensure keeping them out, including arrangements for verification, could be a most important contribution to our overall efforts to prevent the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons.

There has not been, as far as I can discover - and I have looked hard - any public statement by any American official or secretary modifying that attitude in any way. If the American attitude has been modified, if it does not apply elsewhere, then America should say so. But, so long ‘as the latest authentic or official American attitude remains in those terms, there is nothing to make any Australian believe that the United States would not agree to extend the nuclear-free zone in Antarctica to the rest of the southern hemisphere.

That is a proposal which is effective if the other nuclear powers, the other signatories to the Antarctic Treaty and the other countries around the Indian Ocean and in the southern hemisphere support it. If they do not support the proposal, then there is no nuclear-free zone. The attempt should be made. It is a positive and practical contribution to disarmament. It is in accordance with the opinion expressed by the British Government in its notes to the Russian Government in 1959. It is in accordance with the view expressed by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1959. It is in accordance with the other instances I have given. It is in accordance with the treaties which, in fact, have been made. It is in accordance with the expressed American attitude towards such zones in Latin America and Antarctica. Therefore, Sir, it is a disarmament proposal to which serious consideration should be given.

I limit my remarks to this aspect because Australia and New Zealand, under Conservative governments, are the only countries in the area concerned which have not expressed support for this particular disarmament proposal. Having regard to its natural and general meaning, I support the resolution moved by the honorable member for Mackellar and seconded by the honorable member for Chisholm. It expresses aspirations to which all honorable members can subscribe and to which other governments, when Mr. Speaker sends it to them, should accord their support in addition.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I do not want to say very much on this motion. Indeed, there is not time for me to say very much. I sa’y, first of all, that the resolution is a well-balanced resolution and it is a practical resolution in a sense.

Mr Griffiths:

– Only in a sense?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– Yes, in a sense, because the practicalities of such resolutions depend ultimately on the existence of goodwill on the other side. That does not exist. The honorable member for

Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), who moved this resolution, has well said that the West has been trying intensely, with patience, and incessantly to get a disarmament arrangement. The West has been met not merely by a lack of goodwill, but by positive duplicity at times. But it has proceeded notwithstanding the attitudes of the Soviet Union. Whilst all of us wish passionately for disarmament and all of us will continue to strive for disarmament, it is very important that our goodwill and the goodwill of our people towards disarmament and real peace should not be exploited by the Communists to weaken the will of our own people. That is sought to be done through peace movements and peace fronts which are penetrated and manipulated by Communists in order to weaken the will of our people to resist.

I want to make one other remark. I do not accept the view - and I do not want it to be thought that in supporting this motion I accept this view - that the suggestion of a nuclear-free zone in the southern hemisphere is either practical or within the terms of this motion.

Mr Whitlam:

– I referred to it because the honorable member for Mackellar referred to it.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– Yes, I know; and I would not have referred to it but for this fact: It is very important that the record be right. The Antarctic Treaty does not provide for a nuclear-free zone. It provides that the land mass of Antarctica shall not be a place where there is atomic testing or the disposal of atomic waste. Any one who studies the Antarctic Treaty will see that the great powers expressly reserved the high seas. They would not extend nuclear freedom of any kind to the high seas. None of them would do that. Nearly all the southern hemisphere is water. So, it is a very false premise to assume that Antarctica, in the sense of water and so on, up to the 60th parallel of latitude, I think, is a nuclear-free zone. It is true that Mr. Dean made a remark about areas where some use could be got out of local arrangements where there is no confrontation to date, where there are no weapons deployed and where you could effectively have safeguards. This land mass of Antarctica, in the limited terms of the Antarctic Treaty, is such a place.

I only wanted to put that record straight because time and time again I have heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) claim that the area in the Antarctic south of a given parallel has been made a nuclear-free zone. That is just not right.

Mr Uren:

– Look at the time.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– I am watching the clock. I propose to sit down after I say that I support this motion as a balanced and practical one.

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.- Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have no more time than–

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to-

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr. Deputy Speaker, why do you not now call on the next notice of motion under general business? That is the second motion standing in the name of the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) concerning disabled persons homes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! As the time allowed for precedence to general business has expired, Government business will be called on.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1761

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1963

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In committee (Consideration of Senate’s amendments):

Clause 9.

Division 2 of Part V. of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Division inserted in its stead: - “Division 2. - The House of Assembly.

35……..

37.-(l.)…… “ (4.) A person is not qualified to continue as a member of the House of Assembly if -

Senate’s amendment No. 1.

In proposed section 37, sub-section (4.), leave out paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: - “ (a) he is absent at all times during each of three consecutive meetings of the House of Assembly, and permission has not been granted to him by the House to be absent from any of those meetings; or ‘.

Senate’s amendment No. 2.

After sub-section (4.) of proposed section thirtyseven, insert the following sub-section: - “ ‘ (4a.) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the last preceding sub-section, a meeting of the House of Assembly commences when the House first sits following a general election, a prorogation of the House or an adjournment of the House otherwise than for a period of less than seven days and ends when next the House is either prorogued or adjourned otherwise than for a period of less than seven days.”.

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP

– I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

I assume that the Opposition will be prepared to consider conjointly both the amendments, which deal with the same subject. Honorable members will recall that when this bill was in committee in this chamber, the Opposition moved an amendment relating to the disqualification of a member of the House of Assembly if he or she had not attended regularly or had missed a number of meetings. I pointed out that, because of some uncertainty as to the definition of a meeting - the practice of the body which will become the House of Assembly being to meet during several periods of sitting each year and each period of sitting consisting of several sitting days - it would be necessary for me to give further consideration to the matter in consultation with the Parliamentary Draftsman.

In keeping with that promise and in order, I hope, to meet the views of the Opposition, we introduced these amendments in the Senate. As far as we can judge, they achieve the object that the Opposition had in mind. They do two things. They make it clear that the disqualification of a member would arise from absence from the whole of three consecutive meetings of the House and without leave for the whole of a meeting. Then in proposed new subsection (4a.) it is proposed to define a meeting as a series of sitting days following each calling together of the House. I trust that this will meet the views of the Opposition. It has been our endeavour to do so.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The amendments which the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) approved or sponsored in the other place-

Mr Hasluck:

– The Government sponsored them.

Mr WHITLAM:

– And which the other place unanimously adopted also meet the purposes of the amendment which the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr Ward) moved when the bill was before the committee here and which the Minister at that stage undertook to consider. The purposes of our amendment are fulfilled. We believe the bill in this respect now fully meets the objectives we had in mind.

The honorable member for East Sydney is unable to thank the Minister himself, but he authorizes me to say that he joins with the rest of his colleagues who are in the committee in thanking the Minister for carrying out the idea which he was able to propose on the former occasion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1762

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1963

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4th April (vide page 454), on motion by Mr. McMahon -

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

– I move -

That the order of the day be discharged.

Mr. Speaker, on 4th April I introduced a bill to make special provisions with respect to industrial disputes involving persons employed in the Public Service of a State, or by certain public authorities of a State. (Quorum formed.) Since then I, and other members, have received many representations on various aspects of the proposed legislation. The majority of these represen tations, especially from the Association of Professional Engineers (Australia) and from a number of similar associations, sought the withdrawal of the bill or considerable amendment of its provisions.

I have had the advantage of hearing these objections put to me in a considered manner by counsel representing the Association of Professional Engineers and have considered the many written statements which have been addressed to me on the subject. We have come to the conclusion that some of the objections have merit. More importantly there has not been any strong public support for the bill as it stands. To meet these objections would mean that the existing claims of the Association of Professional Engineers would have to be excluded from the scope of the bill and that sub-sections (6.) and (7.) of the proposed section 41b could not be retained. Sub-section (6.) relates to conditions and sub-section (7.) would enable a State Attorney-General to exclude State administrative, clerical and professional employees from access to the commission. The remainder of the bill would need to be limited to salaried career staff with the practical result that only the threshold provisions which are contained in sub-section (3.) of proposed section 41b would remain and then only in respect of career personnel. The commission has no jurisdiction over employees engaged in essential functions of government so that the number of State public servants and employees of State instrumentalities who are not already covered by federal awards and who would be covered by these provisions would be extremely small. These changes could not be made without almost completely destroying the present form of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the time of its introduction, this bill was prepared at the instance of five of the six State Premiers, subsequent to the matter being raised at a Premiers’ Conference. It was also sought, in a somewhat different form, by the Australian Public Service Federation representing a vast majority i of State public servants in Australia.

The Government believes wholeheartedly in making our federal system work and it would have wished, therefore-, to accede, if possible, to the wishes of the responsible

State governments. In the circumstances, however, we do not feel justified in proceeding with the bill and I inform the House that the Prime Minister has written to the State Premiers to acquaint them with this decision and has invited the Premiers to let him have their views as to any action they consider could now be taken in the limited area mentioned, which would receive their public support and so that, subject to the reservations mentioned, the objectives they have in mind could be secured.

Mr £ JAMES HARRISON:
Blaxland

– Mr. Speaker, this is a quite remarkable situation that the Government has got itself into in respect of industrial legislation. It is a situation that would not have developed had the Government made any approach to the Australian Council of Trade Unions before introducing the legislation and so putting itself in a position in which it is now forced to withdraw the legislation.

Perhaps the House is rather fortunate that at one stage along the line I asked the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) a question in the House concerning his reversal of the views that he apparently held when he argued a case in connexion with federal jurisdiction for State employees in 1920. The Prime Minister answered the question very guardedly, and now the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) tells us that the Prime Minister has informed the State Premiers that he does not propose to proceed with this legislation. I remind the House that the Minister told us originally that five out of the six State Premiers asked for the legislation.

I am particularly pleased that the Prime Minister has had another look at the matter and has decided to take this action. It is my belief that the bill that is now sought to be discharged was one of the worst pieces of legislation that could possibly have been enacted on a federal level. Let us put the position of the State employees. Section 41 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act says without any ambiguity -

The Commission may, in relation to an industrial dispute-

dismiss a matter or part of a matter or refrain from further hearing or from determining the dispute or part of the dispute if it appears -

that the dispute or part is trivial;

that the dispute or part has been dealt with, is being dealt with or is proper to be dealt with by a State Industrial Authority.

That provision is one that I suggest should never be interfered with, but that is just what would have happened if the bill we are now considering had been enacted. It proposed to take away from the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the right to determine whether a dispute involving employees in State jurisdictions should be dealt with on a federal level.

The Minister tells us to-day that this bill could not have been altered in a way that would have given satisfaction without considerable amendment of its provisions. In point of fact no one knows better than the Minister, who has had wide legal training, that it was not possible to amend this bill in any way that would have left it anything but a very bad bill, having regard to the authority vested in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Let me say this to the Minister and to the Prime Minister: In matters of this kind we, at the federal level, must be very careful at all times not to take away from our federal arbitration authority the right to determine, after considering all the available evidence, whether or not a dispute exists which requires settlement at the federal level. I feel sure that if the Minister, who, I repeat, has considerable legal knowledge, had studied - or perhaps I should say had had time to study - carefully the decision of the Commonwealth authority itself, particularly that of the Chief Judge, in the engineers’ case, he would have found that it considered that when State public servants are affected in a matter that is likely to affect others, then the federal authority is the one that should deal with such a matter. This is a period of advancing technology, particularly at the professional and clerical levels. In the years that lie ahead automation will affect clerical and professional workers as much as, or even more than, it has affected and will affect the average worker. As it affects one group of employees and then another on a Stats level it will become apparent, as it did in respect of the professional engineers, that one arbitral authority, and one only, will be able to assess properly the effect on the particular sections of industry in which State employees are engaged. One authority only will be able to determine accurately the effect of automation on professional and clerical officers in one State after another.

This bill that the Minister proposes to discharge contained provisions that I believe should never be included in legislation. It would have had the effect of destroying the right of State government employees and their organizations - a right upheld by the Prime Minister himself in argument before the courts - to select the conciliation and arbitration machinery best fitted to determine their wages and salaries.

The Minister said in his second-reading speech that one of the fears that the Government entertained - or should I say, to be quite fair, one of the fears that the organization putting the matter before the Government entertained - was that Commonwealth legislation could reach the point at which it interfered with promotion. This House should always keep in mind that promotion is a matter for managerial control. I think it was 0’Mara J. who laid it down quite clearly, in 1941 or 1942, that the Commonwealth arbitration authority should never at any time interfere with matters rightly within the scope of managerial control. Promotion was one of the matters that he referred to quite specifically. I invite the Minister and the Prime Minister to take a careful look at His Honour’s judgment whenever legislation of this kind is suggested in the future, because that principle has never been departed from either by the courts, by the conciliation commissioners or by the presidential authority that we now have in our arbitration machinery.

A very clear line of demarcation is drawn by the arbitration authorities between what is managerial and what is industrial. I was rather astounded when the Minister first introduced the bill and referred to the possibility of promotion being interfered with. I think the State public servants themselves have failed to look closely at the clear-cut principle laid down in the federal jurisdiction. If they look at it closely now they will find that they will not have to worry the Minister, or any future minister, about matters of this kind, because section 41 of the act provides that promotion and seniority rights shall never be interfered with, being purely within the scope of management

I do hope that’ we will never again see a piece of legislation of this kind come into the House. Such legislation could mean that a State attorney-general could override a decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at the federal level. I think the Minister, having had time to think about the matter, will agree that it is too dangerous a provision ever to place in a statute. If ever we reach a situation in which a matter before a conciliation commissioner or any other arbitral authority is determined by a political decision, then we can easily write finish to our arbitration machinery. We can never afford to put the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in a position in which a political decision can be used to settle what can be found to be correctly a dispute within the framework of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. This has been put to the Minister for Labour and National Service. We know at first hand some of the arguments that have been adduced concerning the protection of State organizations.

The last thing that I ask the Minister to do is to ensure that this Parliament will never again put itself in a position in which it fails to trust the conciliation and arbitration machinery that it has itself established. As the Minister has mentioned, the effect of this bill would be to interfere with the ambit of the commission’s jurisdiction with respect to the professional engineers’ case. That, again, falls somewhat into the category that I have just described. The effect of the bill would be that of a political decision overriding a decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The commission has one function, and one function only. That function is to settle disputes found by the commission to be correctly disputes within the meaning of the act. We must never put ourselves in a situation in which this Parliament will take unto itself the right to interfere, in the way proposed in this measure, with the provisions of the act governing the activities of the commission. I and the party to which I belong are really ‘delighted, if I may use a term similar to that used by the Prime Minister the other day, to find that even at this late hour all trace of this measure is to be removed from the notice-paper of this House.

I have clearly stated the reasons why we are glad that the action now proposed is being taken, and I think that we can summarize the situation in this way: The bill represents an attack on a margin for skill. That is the only way in which one can describe the proposed amendment of the act. It is directed against the professional engineers in particular, but it would have widespread effects in many skilled occupations. I think that the Minister told us that he had received counsel on behalf of the professional engineers. The backbone of the submissions made to the honorable gentleman was that the professional engineers’ case went before the High Court of Australia, which found in favour of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and stated that, with respect to this dispute, the country faced a national problem of attracting and retaining the skilled men needed for our industry and our defence effort. The High Court held that, consequently, the commission was the proper authority to deal with the case. As this country advances, Mr. Speaker, this kind of situation will develop more and more often.

I say to the Minister: Do not depart from the existing provisions of section 41 of the principal act. Let us trust the commission to decide whether a dispute is properly a dispute within the meaning of the act. If any test is to be made, let it not be a political test to be applied either by a State attorney-general or by legislative enactment in this Parlament that would cut down the power of the commission under section 41 to make a determination after hearing the parties concerned. These are vital principles. We on this side of the chamber support the removal of this item of business from the notice-paper. We believe that the Government has taken this action because it realizes that the bill is bad and that the people of this country, in the main, still believe with heart-felt sincerity in conciliation and arbitration as a means of settling industrial disputes. We are glad to see removed from the noticepaper this piece of legislation that would have cancelled out these principles relating to the ambit of the commission’s jurisdic tion and the other matters respecting federal jurisdiction to which I have directed attention.

I have appeared before the Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration tribunals since 1939 and I have never yet found the present Concilation and Arbitration Commission, or its predecessor, wanting in determining whether there was properly an interstate dispute. It is terribly important never to interfere with the kind of balance that we have in the commission itself. The events of 1947 proved that both the employees and the employers can truthfully say that bad decisions have come from the commission and its predecessor. These tribunals have recognized on more than one occasion that they have made mistakes. But, within the framework of the act, a bad or wrong decision can be corrected by the commission itself, and we should never at any stage legislate to interfere with decisions of the commission in the way in which this bill, as drafted, was intended to interfere with what is possibly one of the most important decisions that the commission has made. I do not know of any other case in which the commission has had to run the gauntlet of two High Court investigations into what it was doing.

I say frankly that it is well to remove this measure from the notice-paper. It ought to be out of the road. We on this side of the House are glad that the Prime Minister, as was said by the Minister for Labour and National Service, intervened and saw the lack of wisdom in this bill. I can only think that he went back to the case that he argued in 1920, about which I questioned him, and that his better judgment came to the surface. We on this side of the chamber are pleased that a measure of this kind is to disappear from the list of business before us.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

.- A couple of features of the speech made by the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) should not go unnoticed. The honorable member has put completely wrong constructions on the consequences of the measure, on the motives that led to its introduction and on the terms of the bill as drafted. Most particularly, he has led himself into errors of understanding of the whole principle involved. The first point in the honorable member’s remarks on which I want to comment relates to his statement, made in loud, ringing and clear tones, that we should never let a legislative action settle an industrial dispute.

Mr E James Harrison:

– I did not say that.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I would be surprised if that is not an accurately contracted statement of what the honorable member said in about twenty sentences.

Mr E James Harrison:

– What I said was that we should never let a political act detract from or reflect on a decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honorable member went further than that. The whole basis of what he said was that a political act ought not to determine conditions or salaries. That is what he meant.

Mr E James Harrison:

– That is not what I meant. The honorable member is only trying to twist what I said.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! I expected that there would not be a long debate on this motion. I remind honorable members that the question before the Chair is that the order of the day for the second reading of the bill be discharged. I ask them to co-operate with the Chair, to relate their remarks to the motion before the House and to make only necessary passing references to other matters.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I will accede to your request, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot allow to go unmentioned the fact that the honorable member for Blaxland is a member of a party which, by political action, has greatly affected the whole concept of wages and working conditions in this country. This has been done by statutory enactments. Instead of letting claims be decided by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, on at least two occasions when claims have been before the commission on very vital matters the Labour Government of New South Wales has legislated directly on those matters. The honorable member has no right to moralize in this House as to the roles of legislative authority and arbitral authority. If he sincerely holds the view he expressed, let him challenge the Labour

Party in New South Wales, just as the people in Queensland challenged the Labour Party there on the three weeks’ leave issue - a matter which brought down the Gair Government. I wonder that the honorable member is prepared to stand here and moralize on the very thing which brought down the Gair Government. To stand here and offer advice of the kind that he offered ill becomes the honorable member for Blaxland.

Mr Webb:

– I rise to order, Sir. Is the honorable member following your direction that his remarks should be related to whether or not the bill should be withdrawn?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The position is that the honorable member for Blaxland made some comments to which the honorable member for Bruce is endeavouring to reply. As I pointed out to the honorable member, in fairness he should be given some latitude in this case, but I draw attention to the fact that this is a very restricted issue. I hope that members will co-operate by confining their remarks to that issue.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honorable member for Blaxland has said that we must never fail to trust the arbitration commission. That is precisely what this Government does. It trusts the commission when matters affecting working conditions or salaries are raised. This Government has constantly said that as we have an arbitration system, the arbitration system ought to determine such matters. There is a whole range of things in respect of which honorable members on the other side choose to go along with the political current, hoping to gain votes by seeking direct governmental action, but this Government’s attitude is that these things should go to arbitration. There was a complete swing around to-day by the honorable member for Blaxland when he said that we ought to trust the commission, but that is precisely what the Government has always done. That is the very bulwark of the Government’s policy on industrial matters. It would be well for the honorable member for Blaxland to remember that in the course of his moralizing.

He said that this bill was an attack on margins for skill, and in particular an attack on the engineers. He was completely misconstruing the concept of the bill. It is true that it is a complicated bill, but I had given the honorable member for Blaxland the credit for being able to understand it. After a comment like that, I can believe only that he never did understand it. There was no attack on margins, and there was no attack in particular on the professional engineers association. The statement that the Minister made to-day revealed that the association made representations to him through its officers and through counsel from the Melbourne Bar. The Minister, as he said in his statement, was very largely influenced by the representations made by that association. To suggest that this bill is an attack on that association in particular is merely to attempt to gain political capital from this matter. I would have thought that the honorable member for Blaxland was above that sort of thing when it came to matters relating to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I would not have expected him to adopt that attitude.

Finally, it was quite improper for the honorable member to suggest–

Mr Webb:

– You have not said anything yet.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honorable member who interjects has been here for a number of years and has never yet really said anything. Indeed, for the three years between 1955 and 1958 the electors of this country decided that he would not have an opportunity to say anything here. They made a mistake recently, but perhaps they will correct it at the next election.

The suggestion by the honorable member for Blaxland that this was a bad bill ill becomes him. It was not a bad bill at all, as drawn or in concept. After the bill had been considered in the light of the representations that were made, the Minister, as he said in his statement, decided that certain alterations would be required. After the alterations were made, only a part of the bill remained. I agree completely with the step taken by the Minister in seeking to withdraw the bill. My only regret is that honorable members opposite find it impossible to look at the bill in a proper and responsible fashion. I am surprised that the honorable member for Blaxland departed from what I believed was his high standard of objectivity in these matters and descended to the level of his remarks on this motion.

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 5

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

AYES

NOES

page 1768

PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1963

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16th May (vide page 1478), on motion by Mr. Harold Holt-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- Mr. Speaker, is it proposed to debate this bill and the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill together?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There being no objection, that course will be adopted.

Mr CREAN:

– When the two bills were introduced the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) provided for honorable members an explanatory memorandum which gave details of both measures and I was under the impression that the Government intended that we should debate these measures jointly.

The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill does something in an indirect way which would have been better done directly. That criticism was levelled by the Labour Party at the legislation when it was first brought before this House some two years ago. The scheme for which the bill provides was described as an incentive scheme to encourage the export of Australian goods, mainly manufactured goods, to new overseas markets. Opposition members supported the measure when it was introduced in 1961 because we recognized the need to increase Australia’s export earnings. The bill relating to pay-roll tax that is now before the House is designed to continue until June, 1968, the benefits that flowed from the original legislation. The basis of the incentive scheme is contained in a formula that appears in section 16c of the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 1961, which reads - (2.) Subject to this section, the amount of the rebate to which an employer is entitled in relation to a financial year is an amount ascertained in accordance with the formula -

The explanation is then given that - a is the increase in export sales for the financial year; b is the aggregate of the amounts specified in any export certificates issued by the employer in relation to the financial year; c is the gross receipts for the financial year; and d is the amount of tax (other than additional tax) that would, but for this Division, be imposed on wages paid or payable by the employer in respect of the financial year.

That is the formula governing the incentive scheme, but honorable members will find the scheme more comprehensibly explained in the fortieth report of the Commissioner of Taxation. I do not intend to go into the details at this stage other than to indicate that the effect is that if, taking as a base the two-year period ended June, 1960, a firm is able to show that it increased its exports in the financial year by a certain amount, the pay-roll tax otherwise payable is remitted. The effect of the legislation was that if exports were increased by 8 per cent, the whole of the pay-roll tax otherwise payable would be remitted.

The legislation has been in force for two years. It is now in its third year of operation. The Treasurer, in his second-reading speech, indicated that in the last financial year pay-roll tax amounting to about £1,800,000 had been remitted under this legislation. The first thing to point out is that there is no direct relationship between the amount of tax remitted and the increase in exports except as is revealed by application of the formula. For example, because £1,800,000 of pay-roll tax has been remitted it cannot be concluded that exports have increased by some multiple of £1,800,000. There is no direct relationship between one and the other. Also we must remember that nobody can say whether the increase in exports that eventuated would have taken place with or without the incentive provided by this legislation. All you can do is to note the historical circumstance that if a firm’s exports increase it is entitled to a rebate of pay-roll tax.

Two years ago the Opposition argued that there was no objection to subsidizing exports if such a course was deemed likely to encourage export trade. In essence this incentive scheme is a form of subsidy, but apparently the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to which Australia is committed, prohibits the granting of direct subsidies to exporters of manufactured goods. If you are to give encouragement it has to be done by this hole-in-the-corner method. I very much doubt whether that is an honest way of dealing with the matter. Apparently the reason why it has been done in this way is that the Commonwealth cannot give a direct subsidy to the manufacturer.

The formula before us determines whether exports have increased. If a manufacturer is able to show that his exports have increased over a period he is eligible for a remission not of a direct tax, but of an indirect tax. This method of granting a remission is somehow legitimate in terms of the General Agreement - on Tariffs and Trade. I suggest that, broadly, that is the reason why the legislation has been framed in this way.

I think the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), in his second-reading speech, has given us insufficient information to allow us to assess the efficacy of this measure. All that he has said is that, as a result of this legislation, rebates of pay-roll tax amounting to £1,800,000 occurred in the financial year ended 30th June, 1962. He estimates the total of those rebates to rise to some £3,200,000 in the financial year ending 30th June, 1963.

There is no doubt that this legislation has benefited certain Australian exporters to the extent of £5,000,000. It cannot be proved that the Australian community got its money’s worth for that £5,000,000. Is this just another way of feather-bedding certain manufacturing activities in Australia? I do not necessarily suggest that that has always occurred. But the Treasurer’s explanation of this legislation gives no indication of the physical benefits which have accrued to Australian trade as the result of this measure. All that can be determined is that certain financial benefits have been given to particular undertakings. Those undertakings, in the aggregate, number only a few hundred, yet there are thousands of companies that pay taxation. In the main individuals do not come within the province of this legislation. In the aggregate there are about 50,000 companies registered in Australia which are liable to make taxation returns, although fewer than that number actually have taxable earnings in any financial year. The number of companies which avail themselves of the subsidy we are discussing is very limited and so far they have benefited to the extent of £5,000,000.

Some industries benefit from this legislation and I doubt whether it was the inten tion of the Parliament to bring them within the scope of the act. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) and I recently had opportunity to visit Papua and New Guinea. One of the necessities for the economic welfare of the people of the Territory is the establishment of what are, in modern jargon, called viable industries. One of the industries which has been established in Papua and New Guinea is a brewery. I am not extolling the virtues of this undertaking. But given the climate of Papua and New Guinea, a European population of some 25,000 persons and the fact that there are some 2,000,000 indigenous people who, under the law, are now eligible to drink alcoholic liquor, there is a substantial potential market for the products of that brewery. The economic history of most societies shows that brewing is one of the first industries to be established wherever a sophisticated community exists. The price of alcoholic liquor consumed in Australia is grossly inflated by customs or excise duties, according to whether the liquor is locally produced or imported. We have all heard the joke to the effect that if four drinks are consumed in Australia, the price of two of them is really paid to the Treasury because of the duty on the liquor.

Customs and excise duties, as we know them, do not operate in Papua and New Guinea at the same level as in Australia. It is possible to export beer, in particular, from the mainland of Australia to Port Moresby, Rabaul, Lae and other places on the New Guinea coastline. Because the Australian product is subject only to a minimal duty imposed in Papua and New Guinea it can be sold there at a price competitive with that of the local product. This is so despite the fact that the Australian liquor has to be shipped for over 2,000 miles to the market in the Territory. But apparently if the Carlton and United Brewery Limited - or whichever concern it may be - increases its exports to Papua and New Guinea, it qualifies for this remission of pay-roll tax. That is what I am told by brewery interests in Papua and New Guinea. Such a remission gives an unfair competitive advantage to the Australian brewery. I doubt whether, when this House contemplated this legislation, goods sent from Australia to Papua and New

Guinea were regarded as foreign exports. I think we then regarded Australia and Papua and New Guinea as one entity in respect of trade. Apparently, with the legislation drawn as at present, anybody who can increase his exports from’ Australia to the Territory qualifies for this remission of pay-roll tax. I would be interested to hear whether that contention is correct. If it is, I think it is a great injustice and detrimental to the establishment of essential industries in Papua and New Guinea. This ought to be of concern to the people of Australia. My information may be astray, but I give it in good faith. I certainly did not think that a brewery in Australia would qualify for this tax exemption if it exported its products to Papua and New Guinea.

I now ask, specifically, whether an Australian firm, by increasing its exports to Papua and New Guinea, qualifies under this formula, for exemption from pay-roll tax. If it does, I suggest that it is a gross anomaly within what was intended to be the spirit of the law. In my view, what this legislation intended was that the concession should be available only to an increase in the exports which earn Australia foreign exchange. Exporting to Papua and New Guinea does not earn Australia foreign exchange, although it might save foreign exchange if the competition were coming, say, from Manila or Singapore. Perhaps that is the kind of argument which you get into, but at some stage later in the debate I should like a specific answer to my question from the Treasurer. Is an increase in trade by an entity in Australia exporting to Papua and New Guinea counted for the purposes of computing the pay-roll tax exemption? That is one point.

Here again we have an example of something being done indirectly rather than directly, thus leading to great complications in the operation of the Australian taxation law. On the last occasion on which I spoke on this subject - -about twelve or eighteen months ago - I referred to the fact that the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act had become a most ponderous document. On that occasion it had reached, I think, about 350 pages. The consolidated Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act, the latest one available, now has 397 pages. I am not criticizing in any way the manner in which the legislation had been drafted because, after all, if you desire to attain certain policy objectives the draftsman simply has to do as he is told and must produce a document within the confines of policy. But some of the sections of the act have become exceedingly ponderous because the act is being asked to do something which essentially is not the purpose of an income tax act.

One has only to refer to the recent provisions relating to investment by life insurance companies. Instead of saying straight out that life insurance companies should invest a certain percentage of their investible funds in government securities, the Government took the indirect method and stated that unless a certain pattern of investment were followed the particular undertaking would not qualify for certain concessions available under the act. Because the Government chose to act indirectly rather than directly, it loaded the document with a number of sections which, to most people in the community, are almost incomprehensible.

Similar circumstances apply to the Payroll Tax Assessment Act. In its simplicity, the pay-roll tax is a per centum tax imposed on the amount of wages paid, but now, because it has been decided to grant certain concessions to export industries and to go through the paraphernalia or rigmarole of tying those concessions to the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act, we complicate the act with sections which have no relevance whatever to its real purpose. When we do that kind of thing we make the legislation ridiculous. Of course, plenty of people would argue that the pay-roll tax should be abolished. The legislation now before us is, at the very least, a warrant that payroll tax will not be abolished until the end of 1968. If it is abolished before then we shall have to produce some other formula for paying this benefit to export industries. Nevertheless, the intention of a pay-roll tax - argue about it if you like - is simple enough: You contribute a flat rate of tax on the wages that you pay.

Income tax, insofar as it affects both individuals and companies in a modern community, is regarded as being the most equitable tax to levy. One of the measures of the degree of enlightenment of communities is whether more than 50 per cent, of total revenue is raised by direct rather than indirect taxes. To do equity within the confines of the law as between various sections in the community - the spirit of income tax is equity and income redistribution - we must make exceptions to suit the circumstances. There is no doubt that our income tax laws are becoming increasingly complicated, but we make them even more complicated when we add certain sections dealing with matters not strictly within the confines of the tax. One of the peculiarities of the present position is that to determine whether a person is eligible for a remission of pay-roll tax you must investigate certain details of the income tax structure to learn the formula on which the remission is worked out, because the denominator of the fraction has to do with the gross turnover of the business, which, in turn, is measured by means of the income tax formula. That is why there is some logic in discussing these measures together.

Portions of the amendments which are being contemplated for the pay-roll tax law are necessary because they define certain concepts within the income tax legislation. Tax experts may be satisfied with that sort of thing. They may be able to see the connexion between the two acts and they may be able to follow an argument from one piece of legislation to the other, but to the ordinary person you only make some of these acts border on the ridiculous.

The Treasurer, in his explanatory memorandum, indicated that there are five proposals relating to income tax. One of them relates to the question of promoting exports. The proposal is to extend the special income tax deduction for expenditure on the development of export markets to expenses incurred up to 30th June, 1968. I am referring now mainly to the income tax law as it affects companies. Under the law certain expenses that are necessarily incurred in earning income are deducted from the transactions of the company before determining that company’s assessable income. At present, the general rate of company tax in Australia is 7s. 6d. in the £1 on all profit earned in excess of the first £5,000. If the expenses incurred in earning income were not deductible the firm concerned would bear the full impact of tax on every £1 spent in that way. Under our income tax law the amount of tax payable by a company is reduced by 7s. 6d. for every £1 of expenditure it incurs in earning its income, so that the net cost to the company, instead of being £1, is only 12s. 6d.

In order to encourage exports, the Government has allowed a double rate of rebate, as it were, for expenditure incurred in the promotion of increased export trade. Instead of being 7s. 6d. in the £1, the abatement of tax allowed for expenses incurred in this way becomes 15s. for every £1 expended. The effect of this is that for every £1 that may be legitimately deducted under the act for expenditure incurred in the promotion of export trade, the Commonwealth Government is really paying 15s. because it allows a deduction of 15s. which it would otherwise have collected. Actually, the net cost to the undertaking concerned of every £1 that is expended in this way is only 5s. When a sanction of this kind is given to an entity, I suppose some sort of proof of whether the concession really earns its keep ought to be demanded. One great difficulty with pay-roll tax is that it is not possible to work out any direct quantum of increase in exports; you can only make a financial estimate in individual cases. You cannot evolve a satisfactory means of proving that the increase in exports that has occurred would not have occurred but for the concession.

Certain sanctions are difficult to apply to some of the promotion expenses allowed under the existing law. For instance, if an employee of a business, or an individual engaged in a business is sent overseas on a business trip and his fares and accommodation cost £1,000 or £2,000, how can you prove with any degree of satisfaction that the business has been improved because of that expenditure and therefore it should be deducted from assessable income? Fortunately, in most cases, businesses are not required to furnish such proof. It is assumed that the fact that in the long run a firm will have to pay more than the estimated amount of tax remitted if it is found to have engaged in malpractices in connexion with this concession is a quite sufficient deterrent to its becoming reckless or, as some would call it, engaging in a racket. But again I do not go into the equities and inequities or the substantiation and insubstantiation of this sort of concession, for the likelihood that malpractices are being indulged in is of less importance than the fact that the major beneficiary from export promotion is not the firm concerned but the Consolidated Revenue. I do, however, suggest that the time has arrived when we might apply some more definite sort of scrutiny before we allow the deduction of such expenditure here.

The second amendment proposed by the bill seeks to empower a court to allow time for the payment of a fine imposed by it for an offence under the income tax law. Again, on the score of equity, I do not think one could offer any objection to that proposal. It is unfortunate that default does sometimes occur in the payment of tax and the processes of the law have to be set in motion. Apparently, as the law now operates the court has a limited discretion in allowing time for the payment of fines. I suppose the choice is either time or gaol, and apparently at present the presumption is that the choice is too much on the side of gaol rather than on the side of time and for that reason this amendment to the law is being sought.

I do not think any one here would offer any objection to the third proposal. Later, some honorable members might care to suggest that the concession proposed in this bill for students from overseas might be extended for internal students. The proposal is to exempt from tax educational allowances paid by the Commonwealth to students or trainees temporarily in Australia to pursue a course of study or training. Apparently there is some anomaly in the law at present. There is a doubt as to whether, in some circumstances, income that was thought to be exempt from tax falls within the tax net, and it is proposed to make the position clear. On a number of occasions during question time in this House I have heard honorable members suggest that a tax concession ought to be available to students in Australia who are paying for their own education and who do not qualify for a deduction as dependents of some other taxpayer. I have no doubt that later in the debate matters such as that will be raised by some honorable members.

The fourth proposal is to establish a basis of taxing income derived from noninterestbearing securities issued by the Commonwealth. Again this is a machinery provision which seeks to bring within the proper net of tax the security known as the seasonal-note, as distinct from the treasurybill. I am not sure of the terminology, but it ties up the existing law to cover the new kind of security.

The next proposal is to extend through successive companies the exemption of dividends originating from exempt mining income. This relates to a chain of companies. Sometimes I feel that the existing tax law is far too sympathetic towards the formation of what are essentially taxevading companies. It will be remembered that one of the matters inquired into by the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation was the question of proprietary companies, family companies, trusts and the like. That committee recommended that certain loopholes which exist in the law at present and which are costing the Consolidated Revenue in the vicinity of £10,000,000 a year should be plugged. I suggest that that still needs to be done, but all this legislation does is to make the bed a little bit more feathery for some mining and other companies. These companies are sometimes described as snakes with heads and tails, and it is sometimes hard to tell whether one is dealing with the head or the tail. Many companies are formed in Australia at the present time solely for the purpose of evading tax. I suppose it is legitimate enough for the taxpayer to avail himself of all the legal protection that is available to him in order to ensure that he pays only the minimum amount of tax, but because of the social implications involved I feel that the net of the taxation system could be drawn more tightly, particularly around corporate undertakings. If a single trader is in a legitimate business, he has no difficulty whatever in hedging his proper operations; but when companies are formed deliberately in order to gain the benefit of paying tax at a rate of Is. in the £1 lower on the first £5,000 of income, I suggest that it is time that sort of machination was stopped. Of course, the matter goes even further than that because proprietary companies are formed around families in order to break down what is essentially one income into a number of incomes and so to lower the incidence of taxation. That sort of unscrupulous arrangement ought to be tackled, but so far this Government has not tackled it despite the recent recommendations of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation. What is proposed seems to me to remove only a little of the doubt, in favour of the taxpayer and not in favour of the tax collector.

Another amendment prescribes time limits for the allowance of deductions in respect of gifts to the Australian National Committee for World Refugee Year and the Australian National Committee for the Freedom from Hunger Campaign. I suggest that nobody has any objection to that. The last amendment to which I wish to refer is designed to extend for a period of two years from 31st December, 1962, the exemption of dividends paid by companies out of certain profits upon which undistributed income tax has been paid. This is also a concession that is available to private companies. This section of the law is so old that it is rather odd to find that there is a need for this extension.

The dividends that are referred to were supposed to have been earned on transactions prior to the financial year ended 30th June, 1951. I would have thought that the period from then until 30th June, 1962, would be long enough for a company to know whether or not it could distribute such funds. Apparently, the Government feels that a further extension of two years ought to be given. I offer no criticism of this amendment one way or the other,” except to express curiosity as to why it takes a company so long to make up its mind that a profit that was supposed to have crystallized in a certain year cannot be distributed during another year. That is one of those mysteries that are a little difficult to understand. In my view, this is an example of the law leaning on the side of the taxpayer rather than on the side of the collection of revenue.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.- I congratulate the Government on the introduction of the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill 1963. Its main purpose is to cement the partnership between the Government and those manufacturers who are willing to accept the challenge offered by the Government to increase their export earnings. The Government says to manufacturers, in effect, “ You can get out of paying pay-roll tax in whole or in part provided you increase your exports “. I do not think any honorable member denies that this young and developing country needs to increase its exports. [Quorum formed.] Every one in this House realizes the importance to Australia of increasing our exports of secondary products. In the past, as honorable members know, we have relied almost entirely on primary production for our export income. That meant that we had nearly all our eggs in one basket.

A short time ago the Government decided to offer incentives to secondary industries that were willing to increase their exports. That has been done on a trial basis, but the experiment has been highly successful. All honorable members who have seen the excellent television film series “ Export Action “ realize the types of industries and the varied nature of the industries that have availed themselves of this incentive. The Government says to manufacturers, in effect, “If you increase your exports beyond their level in the base year you will receive a rebate of pay-roll tax until you reach the stage where your exports are sufficient to relieve you entirely of the payment of pay-roll tax “. Many industries, acting under this incentive, to-day are paying no pay-roll tax at all because they have been able to increase their exports sufficiently. That has been of tremendous advantage to Australia. The more industries we can encourage to rid themselves of the obligation to pay pay-roll tax, the better it will be for Australia.

I trust that as a result of this bill, which gives a certain amount of security to exporters who are willing to increase their exports because it extends the incentive until 30th June, 1968, a great number of additional exporters, instead of complaining about pay-roll tax, will take the necessary action to enable them to get out of the payment of that tax. It was necessary, of course, to give exporters the security that is provided under this amendment. We could not expect them to embark upon the expensive procedure of arranging to go into the export field without that security. [Quorum formed.] Exporters could not be expected to incur large expenditure in developing an export market under the provisions of this bill unless they knew there was some security - in other words, that the benefits would be available for a number of years. Therefore, the Government is to be congratulated upon its decision, now that this type of incentive has proved effective, to make it secure anyway until 30th June, 1968. It was pleasing to note that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean), leading on behalf of the Australian Labour Party, was willing to support this liberal amendment.

The other provisions of the bill, I think, can be rightly described as a correction of a certain number of anomalies that have appeared in the act. All honorable members would welcome and support the action that has been taken. The only concern we can express is that it is unfortunate that time has not permitted the removal of the great number of anomalies that appear in the act, many of which were pointed out by the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation. I know that the Government, having received the report of that expert committee, has appointed Mr. O’sullivan, the former Commissioner of Taxation, to go into the recommendations of the committee and finally to report to Cabinet. No doubt this report will be the basis of future legislation. Obviously, a very comprehensive amendment to the present legislation would be needed to deal with the many anomalies referred to by the Commonwealth committee.

I welcome in this bill the proposal to exempt from taxation educational allowances paid b’y the Commonwealth to students or trainees who come to Australia to study. It would, of course, be completely nonsensical to give these students a scholarship and then to take part of it away through income tax. It is pleasing to see that this anomaly has been recognized and that the earliest opportunity has been taken to correct it. However, similar anomalies occur in relation to our own Commonwealth scholarships. This matter was referred to by the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, and I hope that either the full report of the committee will be dealt with at an early date by the Government or, if not, the Government will take steps to remove the anomalies that exist in relation to Commonwealth scholarships and also repatrission scholarships.

The proposal to allow as deductions for taxation purposes donations to the World Refugee Year and the Freedom from Hunger Campaign will, I am sure, receive the support of every member of this House. The World Refugee Year was an outstanding success. The amount donated to the appeal substantially exceeded the target set by the appeal. As the result of the money raised in nearly all the free countries of the world, refugee camps have now been closed in Europe and we can say that we have gone a long way towards solving the problem of the refugees. The Freedom from Hunger Campaign which has just been started in Australia deserves the support of every member of the House. It is pleasing to note that the Government has been willing to give a concession to those people who make donations to the campaign.

I think the present bill is necessary. The Government had to act urgently in respect of the matters that are referred to in it. I sincerely hope that it will, as expeditiously as possible, consider the recommendations of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation and such other recommendations as have been made to it by various sources, and bring down a comprehensive amendment to the income-tax legislation so as to remove the many anomalies that have occurred.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

.- We now have before us for discussion the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill, which gives some relief to a minute percentage of taxpayers, and the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill. Only a small percentage of taxpayers who are subject to pay-roll tax will derive some benefit from this bill. The provision to which I wish to refer extends the special income tax allowance to a certain section of the taxpaying community engaged in industry producing goods, all or some of which are exported. This allowance applies only if the exporters have increased their exports above the average for a particular period.

The Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill is, as the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) said, complementary to the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill. In his second-reading speech on the Pay-roll Tax

Assessment Bill, the Treasurer said that only some 500 firms had participated in these pay-roll tax rebates for 1961-62, but the amount of the rebates totalled £2,340,000, or an average of £4,680 each. The Treasurer also said -

The taxation incentives provided by the pay-roll tax law take the form of a rebate of the pay-roll tax liability of an employer. Broadly speaking, the rebate is available to an enterprise that increases its exports above the level of its average exports of the base period prescribed by the 1961 measures to which I have already referred.

If the value of a firm’s exports in a financial year so increases by 1 per cent, of its gross business receipts for that financial year then it is entitled to a rebate of 12.S per cent, of its payroll tax liability for that year. The rebate increases proportionately with the increase in the value of export sales achieved so that when the increase amounts to 8 per cent, of a firm’s gross business receipts for a financial year a full rebate of its pay-roll tax for that year becomes available to the firm.

That shows pretty clearly how the pay-roll tax legislation operates, and it shows the necessity for extending the period of operation of the legislation if these provisions are to continue. While I do not oppose this measure, I believe it makes too much of a distinction - even an unfair distinction in some cases - between firms or companies producing for export and other producers which, while not engaged in industries in which the products are directly exported, or even exported at all, are nevertheless increasing their output of goods for home consumption, and in the process increasing their work force, which is a very desirable thing for Australia at a time when we have such large numbers of unemployed. These producers, in increasing their work force, bring about a corresponding increase in their pay-roll tax, but when industries engaged in producing goods for export increase their output and consequently their work force, they enjoy a rebate of pay-roll tax. Nevertheless, we agree that some incentive should be given so that our export trade and export income may be increased.

It would be interesting to learn just how many of these firms enjoying the rebate would have increased their production and their exports if they had had no incentive. It would be interesting to know how many of them have given any thought to the benefit to Australia of these increases of exports, or whether they have thought only of helping themselves. Personally, I am a bit doubtful of the real value of this incentive, but if it does have a value then it should be supported, because we do need increased exports. I do suggest, however, that other people or other firms which may not be producing goods for export are entitled to similar consideration for the efforts they are making. The honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) stated that certain companies can now, by increasing production for export, relieve themselves entirely of the burden of pay-roll tax. As I have pointed out, however, there is no provision for other producers to do so, even though they may be doing a job equally as beneficial to Australia as that which is being done by the people who are receiving benefits under this legislation. A firm producing goods for home consumption benefits Australia by reducing the volume of imports required and by improving the home market. The country is saved a certain amount of money which would otherwise be required to import such goods, the consumers’ costs are reduced, and employment opportunities are increased. Such firms should surely receive consideration similar to that which is provided under this legislation. There are many other individuals who, because of their work in furthering the development of the country, are also entitled to some recognition.

I had expected that the Treasurer, when introducing amendments to the income tax legislation, would have taken the opportunity to include provisions to overcome some of the anomalies and unfair discriminatory provisions to which I have referred on previous occasions. Let me cite to the House certain portions of section 79a of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act, which reads -

For the purpose of granting residents of the prescribed area an income tax concession in recognition of the disadvantages to which they are subject because of the uncongenial climatic conditions, isolation and high cost of living in Zone A and, to a lesser extent, in Zone B, in comparison with parts of Australia not included in the prescribed area, in die case of a resident of the prescribed area an amount ascertained in accordance with this section shall, subject to section seventy-nine C of this Act, be an allowable deduction.

Then it goes on to set out the amounts allowable in zones A and B. Then in subsection (4.) of the same section we find -

In this section - “resident”, in relation to any area, means a person (other than a company or a trustee) -

who resides in that area for more than one half of the year of income;

who has actually been in that area, whether continuously or not, during more than one half of the year of income, or

not being a person to whom paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this definition applies, who died during the year of income and at the date of his death resided in that area.

The point I wish to make is that the person must live in the area for more than six months of the income year in order to qualify for the concession. We must not confuse income year with calendar year. The income year commences on 1st July and terminates at 30th June of the following year. The taxpayer must be resident in the particular area for more than six months of the period between those two dates. It is not sufficient to reside in the area for just six months; the taxpayer must be there for more than half of the income year.

A person might be resident in the area for a couple of days less than a full calendar year and have no claim for a zone allowance because he or she may not have been resident in the area for more than half of the income year. This can happen particularly in the case of persons employed in government departments and who, in many cases, cannot remain resident in a particular area for the time necessary to qualify for the allowance, even if they wanted to remain there. They are subject to compulsory transfers. A person might be employed in the Kimberleys, for instance, for three calendar years, in a district in which he experiences all the disabilities for which the allowance is granted, high cost of living, isolation and uncongenial climatic conditions, but he might qualify for the income tax allowance for only two years. Persons affected in this way include school teachers, staff of the Main Roads Department and the Public Works Department. They may be transferred, even against their wishes, when they are still a week or two short of the qualifying period. Other workers may be similarly affected, such as machinery men who are subject to transfers from place to place and from job to job.

I am sure all honorable members would agree that some provision should be made for at least a proportion of the allowance to be granted in such cases, the proportion to be dependent on the length of residence. The Treasurer has had this matter brought to his notice previously. I have mentioned it myself on many occasions. 1 thought that the right honorable gentleman would have taken the opportunity afforded by the preparation of this legislation to iron out such anomalies.

There is another matter the Treasurer promised to consider, but about which we have heard nothing, and about which no mention is made in this bill. I refer to the zone allowance area as it affects Geraldton. This matter has been brought to the Treasurer’s attention on several occasions since I have been in the Parliament. We always get the reply that it will receive consideration, but nothing more is heard of it. I even went to the trouble of pointing out how the zone boundaries could be altered for the benefit of residents in towns like Geraldton and the various settlements on the trans-continental railway line, where the disabilities mentioned in section 79a are experienced. The residents of Geraldton have also directed the attention of the Treasurer to the necessity of determining one way or the other whether the whole of the Geraldton district should be included in a particular zone or whether it should be excluded from that zone. The people want to know definitely where they stand.

I know that the zones were introduced by the Australian Labour Party when it was in office. I know also that any legislation, when first introduced, may not be perfect and may need subsequent revision, or, even if perfect when introduced, may require revision in the light of changing circumstances and conditions. This is something of which the Treasurer apparently has taken no heed, although he has had ample time to attend to it when considering amendments to the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act.

I wish to deal with one more matter - the taxing of district allowances. I believe that this is completely improper and that it put an additional tax on people in some areas who really should not be taxed at all. I refer particularly to people in the northern and north-western areas of Australia - workers in the back country, as those parts are commonly termed, even by people who have never been there. Workers in the back country, because of the high cost of living, the isolation, the severe climatic conditions and the lack of most of the amenities available to people in the cities, have been recognized by the arbitration tribunals as being entitled to something more than their counterparts in the cities receive, and district allowances are awarded to offset to some degree the disabilities under which they live. The amount of the allowance paid varies according to the district.

The taxing of the district allowance means that some part of it - in many instances, a considerable part of it - is lost. Furthermore, the taxing of this allowance, which I believe should not be taxed at all, means that, because it is added to other income, the taxpayer is put into a higher tax group than would otherwise have been the case. This means that the purpose of the district allowances granted by the arbitration tribunals is largely defeated. Surely, if a court, after hearing evidence and making inspections, determines that a person employed in the back country is entitled to £2, £3 or £3 10s. a week, as the case may be, more than his counterpart in the city receives for identical work, to meet the higher cost of living in the back country, the allowance should not be taxed and should not be added to other income thereby raising the rate of tax to a rate higher than that imposed on the income of the worker in the city who does identical work. Because this is done, the person in the back country, who, we say, should not be taxed at all, actually pays more tax than is paid by his counterpart in the city, quite apart from the difference in the cost of living.

The Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill 1963 will grant tax rebates to certain people who are pre pared to increase their efforts and to capture rr ore export markets. I suggest that the people in the outback areas who play a very large part in making possible increased production and development in those areas should receive consideration and appreciation for their efforts also. I would have expected the Treasurer, while considering amendments to the principal act, to have given thought also to that large body of taxpayers who do so much for the country and receive so little recognition for their service to Australia.

I am surprised and disappointed that the right honorable gentleman did not deal also with the other matters that I have raised. The views that I have expressed will be held also by a large number of other people when they find that the Treasurer has again either neglected or refused to consider their needs. The right honorable gentleman and members generally on the Government side of the chamber may suggest that some of the matters that I have raised should be more properly dealt with in the preparation of the Budget. I point out, Sir, that we are now almost at the end of an income year, and that the Government’s neglect to remedy the anomalies that it has caused will mean that the unfortunate people concerned will be subjected to those anomalies for another tax year although there was nothing to prevent the anomalies from being corrected now.

In conclusion, let me say that I realize that some one may claim that I want the Government to have sufficient money but, at the same time, I want every one relieved of taxes. In response to such a claim, I would say simply that I appreciate the need for taxes, but I subscribe to the idea that the major part of tax revenue should come always from direct taxes. The revenue derived from indirect taxes should not be disproportionately large by comparison with that derived from direct taxes. Furthermore, I strongly believe that the people who can afford to pay should pay and that those who cannot afford to pay should get relief from taxes. That is a principle that should be observed at all times in raising revenue by taxes.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Turnbull) adjourned.

page 1778

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1963

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 77); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 78); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 15)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 77).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1963, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the twenty-fourth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-three, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 28th March, 1963; 10th April, 1963; 17th April, 1963; 9th May, 1963; and 16th May, 1963.

page 1778

THE SCHEDULE

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 78).]

[Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 15).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1963, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the seventeenth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-three, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the twenty-fourth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-three. Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. **Mr. Chairman,** the proposals which I have just moved, and copies of which are now being circulated to honorable members, relate to proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff 1933-1963. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 77 provides for changes arising from consideration by the Government of the recommendations made by the Tariff Board in relation to certain measuring, controlling and recording equipment; and fuel injection equipment and nozzle testing outfits. In accordance with the Government's acceptance of the Tariff Board's recommendations, increased duties will apply to specified measuring, controlling and recording equipment for use in steam-raising or furnace applications. [Quorum formed.] Further increases, to the extent recommended by the board, will follow the completion of international negotiations. The duties on fuel injection equipment and nozzle testing outfits have been reduced following the Tariff Board's conclusion that assistance to the limited Australian industry is no longer warranted. Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals No. 15 is complementary to Customs Tariff Proposals No. 77 and ensures that the preferential treatment for the goods specified, when of New Zealand origin, will be continued. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 78 provides for tariff concessions on calcium carbide accorded by Australia during the open-season negotiations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It also completes the implementation, following international negotiations, of the Tariff Board's recent recommendations on soya bean flour. The remaining amendments are of a drafting nature and are in accordance with actual administrative practice so far as effective rates of duty are concerned. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1782 {:#debate-31} ### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. **Mr. FAIRHALL** (Paterson- Minister for Supply). - I lay on the table of the House reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - >Certain measuring, controlling and recording equipment. > >Circuit breakers and switch units. > >Fuel injection equipment and nozzle testing outfits. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 1782 {:#debate-32} ### PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 1777). {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- These two bills - the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill 1963 and the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill 1963 - are to be taken together because they deal more or less with the same subject. They are really what I would refer to as machinery bills. The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill makes provision to extend until 30th June, 1968, the rebate of pay-roll tax available to an employer whose export sales have increased above the annual average of the export sales made by him during the base period prescribed by the existing law. Greater exports are urgently required by this country. The healthier we can make our overseas balances, the better it will be for Australia. This is a young and developing country, and we require all kinds of machinery and equipment from overseas to help us in our development. I strongly supported this payroll tax rebate scheme when it was instituted and I am happy that it is to be extended for another five years. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. Collard)** has suggested that people who are producing goods for home consumption also should share in this rebate of pay-roll tax, but the two cases are completely different. The purpose of the rebate is to give an incentive to produce above the annual average of the export sales during the base period prescribed by the existing law. The main burden, if one could call it that, of providing goods for export is happily born by the primary producers. Eighty per cent. of our total export income is derived from primary products. Secondary industry is supplying only 20 per cent. of our exports, so it should be able to take advantage, and is to some extent already taking advantage, of this incentive rebate scheme. The scheme does not apply to secondary industry exclusively. It applies also to primary industry, but not many primary producers will benefit from it because the minimum level for payment of pay-roll tax is £10,400. There are not many primary producers in Australia who are paying that amount out in wages in a year. So, generally speaking, the incentive is given to secondary industry. I believe that, with efficient management and the will to achieve a greater volume of exports of all commodities, this scheme will prove of great worth to Australia. Of course, certain firms have been exporting motor cars and machinery to overseas countries, but if secondary industry could become even one-half as efficient as primary industry in producing goods for export, this would be of great benefit to us. [Quorum formed.] There are other points to which I wish to refer. There is a provision for the payment by instalments of a fine for a breach of the income tax laws. I do not want in any way to speak in favour of people who breach the income tax laws, but I believe that people who are fined for such breaches are generally not in a financial position to pay the fine at once and that permission to pay by instalments will be appreciated. Otherwise, if a man is fined by the Taxation Branch, but cannot pay and is proceeded against on summons for the amount of money involved, he will probably be put out of business altogether. Another aspect to which I desire to refer is the proposal for an extension of the provision authorizing income tax deductions in respect of gifts of £1 and over to the " Freedom from Hunger " campaign organization. This campaign has not yet reached its peak in Australia. A lot of money will be collected by the " Freedom from Hunger" organization and the extension of this provision to 30th June, 1964, is appreciated. I could suggest quite a number of other organizations, *donations* to which should be allowed as taxation deductions. I will not enumerate them because that might be regarded as tedious repetition. In this House in the last month I spoke about the Murray Valley Development League. I suggested that this Government should allow as taxation deductions donations to that league, which operates over the full length of the Murray River and fosters and assists to a large extent many primary industries. It also aims to bring a flow of population to the Murray Valley. This flow would be greatly increased if more money were made available. I put forward my suggestion because I believe that Australia requires, more than anything else, decentralization of population. With decentralization, undoubtedly we would have greater production, which would be in the best interests of Australia. {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot .- These two measures are approved of by the Opposition, but there are some angles to them in respect of which there is room for improvement. I would like to make a few comments on the bills and then refer to zone allowances, tax deductions in respect of payment to dental mechanics and one other item. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean),** who opened the debate for the Opposition, clearly expressed our attitude towards tie two measures now before the House. The legislation has for its main purpose the provision of incentives to exporters. The principle behind the scheme to encourage exports is sound and the Opposition approved the original bill when it was introduced in 1961. Now that the legislation has been in operation for almost two years we are able to assess the value of the incentive scheme. The incentive scheme operates in this way: If a producer of export items increases his export sales by 1 per cent, he is entitled to a rebate of 12.5 per cent, of his pay-roll tax liability for that year. If he increases his export sales by 8 per cent, over the base year, which was 1960-61, he obtains a full rebate of pay-roll tax for that year. Pay-roll tax has been in existence for many years. It is a bugbear to many municipal councils and there is a general movement to have it abolished or to have its incidence greatly reduced. A firm employing ten persons and with an annual wages bill of £10,400 would not pay any pay-roll tax. In other words, if your annual wages bill is about £10,500 you are exempt from pay-roll tax. Generally speaking, businesses employing ten or fewer employees are exempt from pay-roll tax. The Opposition has one major criticism of this legislation. The incentive scheme has involved exporters in a tremendous amount of paper work. I suppose that to a certain extent that is unavoidable. I would not be surprised if many firms have had to engage employees solely to handle the paper work, involved in obtaining the benefits of the scheme. To illustrate the involved nature of the scheme, I propose to read a sentence from the Fortieth Report of the Commissioner of Taxation, dated 1st June, 1961. The sentence reads - >Whilst the primary entitlement to rebate is available to the producer for export who increases his export sales, persons who have supplied a producer for export with components physically incorporated in goods exported will become entitled to rebates if they receive export certificates issued by the producer for export An Irishman must have drafted that! I fear that the big firms may be the only ones that can handle the extra work entailed in applying for a rebate under this legislation. This is a fragmentary and cumbersome approach to the vital matter of increasing export sales. How can the effect of this legislation be measured sufficiently accurately to say that it has been of great value in increasing export sales? I cannot see how that could be done. Much would depend on the honesty of the exporter concerned. He may claim that he would not have done certain things but for the existence of this legislation, but if the legislation had not been in existence he may still have increased his exports. That is one difficulty that I see in measuring the value and potency of this legislation. Once an exporter obtains his pay-roll tax rebate and achieves a certain increase in exports above his base, there is no incentive further to increase exports. He may feel satisfied once he obtains his rebate. So, in that way, as the years go by the value of the incentive scheme may decrease and, in a sense, the system could bog down completely. Those are some of the comments that I wanted to make about this legislation, although the Opposition agrees with it in principle. We feel that some other system for encouraging exports should be devised. The present method is cumbersome, although we all agree that we must increase our exports. The matter that I now raise is one that I have been raising in this Parliament regularly for the past four years. Sometimes we have to fight for a long time before getting anywhere with this Government. This matter concerns the zone B allowance for income tax purposes. I refer now to Shannon, a little town in the southern Tasmanian highlands. For four years now I have been bringing this matter to the attention of the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** who has regularly told me that he will look into it when the Government next deals with zone allowances. This is an amazing attitude to adopt towards a small group of people who are being victimized by virtue of their isolation. It may be ten years before the Government again deals with zone allowances. During that time small groups of people scattered throughout Australia will continue to suffer injustices. Shannon has a population of about ten families. That will indicate what a small amount of revenue the Government would lose if it were to include Shannon in zone B. The present zone boundary runs along the middle of the Shannon River, which flows on the western side of the township of Shannon. West of the middle of the river forms part of zone B. Of course, that side is uninhabited except for kangaroos and wallabies, and they have not heard about the zone allowance. But on the eastern side of the river is the township of Shannon. All that is required is to re-draw the zone boundary to include the township. That is what we are fighting for and this is the fifth occasion in the last four years that I have raised this matter in the House. Let me give some facts about the climate in Shannon. The zone allowance is designed to encourage people to live in isolated areas. Our economy would be severely handicapped were it not for the thousands and thousands of families that live in isolated regions doing a job for this country. It is those people whom the zone allowance is designed to assist. It is doing a great job, except for these fantastic anomalies, which to some extent spoil the overall benefits of the scheme. This allowance is made for people spending their lives in severe climates or in isolated and tough areas away from civilization. I will give an example of what the people of Shannon have to put up with. Shannon is a hydro-electric station 3,075 feet above sea level, in the southern Tasmanian highlands. Every other hydroelectric station in Tasmania is in taxation zone B. Most of these townshipsare located in the south and west of the State - mainly in the south. The fact that Shannon is the only hydro-electric project in Tasmania not included in zone B is an injustice. As an example of the conditions there I will quote the June-July period of 1961. For five days the people did not see the sun, because of snow, not clouds. The highest temperature during that period was 3 degrees- above freezing point and the snow levels from 17th to 21st June, inclusive, were 5 inches, 9 inches, 11 inches, 8 inches and 8 inches. Four days before I was there, on 12th July, there were 11 inches of snow in one fall, while the maximum temperature was 2 degrees above freezing point and the minimum was 6 degrees below freezing point. Thatis an example of the climatic conditions experienced by the people of Shannon in their isolated and elevated part of the State. These are the folk for whom we are fighting in order to have them made eligible for the taxation zone allowance. Waddamana, another hydro-electric station, is a township 6 miles south of Shannon, but 1,500 feet lower in altitude. It has a population of between 300 and 400 persons, while Shannon has only ten families. The taxpayers of Waddamana enjoy the zone allowance, although its climate is not nearly so rigorous as that of Shannon and the people have amenities which the families of Shannon have not. Their conditions are not nearly as tough and hard as those of the people of Shannon. I am sorry that the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** is not present this afternoon during this debate on income tax. He should have been here, because this is his bill. He has not appeared once this afternoon and I take a pretty dim view of that. I hope he will give consideration to what I have said and that, when drawing up his next Budget proposals, he will include the isolated folk of Shannon in taxation zone B. They are doing a mighty job for the power production of their island State, where 98 per cent. of the population enjoy the convenience of hydro-electric power. My next point relates to the fight that has been put up in this chamber to have fees paid to dental mechanics in Tasmania allowed as an income-tax deduction. My colleagues, the honorable member for Braddon **(Mr. Davies)** and the honorable member for Bass, **(Mr. Barnard),** who are in this Chamber doing their job for the nation this afternoon, are also interested in this matter. Tasmania has a definite advantage in that its dental mechanics were registered by Act of Parliament about three years ago, after a long fight. They are now registered and approved by legislation and deal direct with the public. They have done and are doing a magnificent job in this field. Although professional dentists do not look upon them with a great deal of love - perhaps with respect, but not love - they are serving our community well. But the cost of a set of teeth obtained from a dental mechanic cannot be claimed as a taxation deduction at the end of a financial year. This is a great anomaly. I do not know whether the Treasurer has asked the other States to pass legislation similar to that of Tasmania before he brings down a measure to give justice in this field. It is sad to think that people being served by dental mechanics cannot claim the cost of perhaps £30 or £40 as a taxation deduction. Money spent with a dentist is allowable as a taxation deduction, so the dental mechanics feel this anomaly keenly. Their business is affected because when people know that dentists charges are allowable as a tax deduction they often go to a dentist rather than to the dental mechanic who, in most cases, does just as good a job. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I urge the Treasurer to look at this matter when drawing up his next budget. Interestingly enough, only one small amendment to the income-tax act is necessary to remove this anomaly. The Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, recommended that the definition of "Medical expenses" in section 82 (f) (3.) of the act should be amended so as to include payment made to a legally qualified and authorized dental mechanic for the supply of artificial teeth. The committee itself approved of the idea and, in its report, suggested how Parliament should amend the act to enable people to claim this taxation deduction. I turn now to that part of the Labour Party's policy which seeks to have the cost of travel to and from work allowed as a taxation deduction. Since the last election, the Government has borrowed or stolen great slices of the policy then put forward by the Labour Party. That is the only reason why a gallup poll was able to show that this Government's popularity has increased by 2 per cent, since last February. I am sure the Government would have been bogged down had it not incorporated so many facets of Labour's plans, programme and policy in its legislation since it was returned to office eighteen months ago. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- The Government has taken parts of our policy. A Labour government would put our whole policy into effect. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- Certainly. We would have been able to bring in and carry out our own policy much better than could a government that is borrowing or stealing parts of it. The allowance of cost of travel to and from work as a tax deduction has been included in our last two policy speeches. Mir. Chaney. - This is not part of the bill. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- Then move that I be no longer heard. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney: -- I would not like to see you go out. {: #subdebate-32-0-s2 .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mackinnon:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA -- Order! The honorable member for Wilmot is making his own speech, and should be heard in silence. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- I want to make it quite clear to this Parliament and to the people of Australia that this tax concession was first thought of by the Labour Party and was included in our last two policy speeches. Since the beginning of this year several representations on this matter have been made to the Treasurer, who has said that he will consider them. I am not a prophet but I shall not be surprised if, in the next Budget, the Government states that it will introduce legislation to allow the deduction, for income tax purposes, of fares incurred by workers in travelling to and from their places of employment. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Up to how much a week? {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- We have not considered the details. When we become the Govern ment one of the first things we will do will be to introduce legislation to give justice in this respect to the workers, who are being compelled to live farther away from their employment in the large cities and towns. That would be a humane act. Our idea is an excellent one. It could save some workers up to £70 a year in tax. I am sure that we could work out a system of recording accurately amounts spent on fares. Arrangements could be made for a person claiming the deduction to submit proof that the amount claimed was actually spent on travel by bus, train and even by his own car. People who use their own cars to travel to work should not be outside the scope of the proposal, but they would have to give some proof of the amount of petrol used. Those are the matters which I wanted to bring to the notice of the Parliament and, in particular, of the absent, faceless Treasurer who is hiding somewhere outside the chamber and is not game to face us and hear our requests. I am surprised that the Government Whip has not brought the Treasurer to the chamber to hear us. {: #subdebate-32-0-s3 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton .- I should like to raise certain matters which I regard as being of considerable importance. First, let me refer briefly to the report of the Commonwealth Committee of Taxation which was tabled in this Parliament almost two years ago. Honorable members will recall that one of the committee's most dramatic findings was that certain people in Australia were defrauding the community annually of something like £14,000,000 in taxes by a convenient method of forming bogus partnerships and by other financial arrangements. At that time the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** waxed very hot and strong about this and, verbally at least, wrought vengeance upon those who were evading the tax collecting instrument. Indeed, he said that he would introduce a bill within a very short time, to apply retrospectively, to curb the activities of those persons and organizations which had been defrauding the community. That sounded quite impressive. If I remember rightly, the Treasurer made his statement just before the last general election. The election was held, the Government was returned to office but the bill has not been sighted. In other words, the Treasurer and the Government are prepared to allow these activities to continue year after year. This does not mean simply that we are losing £14,000,000 because some people are not paying their way in the community. In fact, the remainder of the community - the ordinary taxpaying wage-earners, the employers and others - must meet the deficit which has resulted from others evading their taxes. The Treasurer is prepared now to tolerate a situation which he was prepared to call almost corrupt two years ago. The Government has something to answer for in this matter. As bad as that may be, there is another matter. This report, which has been delayed in its implementation, contained a number of very important recommendations. My colleague, the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie),** has just referred to some of them. I should like to mention others, particularly that on a subject which is very close to my heart - education expenses. The report directed attention to the fact that people engaged in part-time education received no taxation deduction for expenses so incurred. This ruled out all those good people in the community participating in various forms of part-time education, not the least of whom would be those engaged in apprenticeship and other kinds of trade training, not only in the technical field but also in the agricultural and similar fields. It also ruled out all those people engaged in full-time education after reaching the age of 21 years. Governments and other interested bodies are appealing to the people to engage in further education. Considerable stress is being placed not only on under-graduate education at the universities but also on post-graduate education. Only within the last few weeks we have heard eloquent appeals by leading citizens in relation to this matter. Lecturers at the various universities are in particularly short supply. {: #subdebate-32-0-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! I think the honorable gentleman is getting wide of the bill. This bill does not relate to education. The honorable member will have an opportunity to discuss education when appropriate legislation is before the House. f.3823/63.- {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS: -- I am discussing the taxation implications of a subject which already has been mentioned by the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson).** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Yes, but I suggest that you do not go into the details of education. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS: -- I have made the point that this report recommended that the expenses incurred by people engaged in part-time education and by those over 21 years of age engaged in full-time education should be a deduction for income tax purposes. Many of our young people over 21 years of age are still at school, still at universities, still doing diploma courses at technical institutes and still at teachers' colleges and other places of learning. No medical student can possibly graduate, let alone do post-graduate study, before he reaches the age of 21. Most people who take a degree in medicine commence at seventeen or eighteen years and it is well known that the course extends for six years, even for those who do not have to repeat. So, medical students must be 23 or 24 years of age before they graduate with the first degree. Their parents must bear the burden of maintaining them, but are unable to claim taxation deductions for expenses incurred in three, four or more years of undergraduate study. The Government claims that it is interested in encouraging undergraduate and post-graduate study and that it recognizes the importance of this. The obvious corollary is that the Government must give consideration' in the field of taxation to those who incur this expense or on whose behalf the expense is incurred. As I am not allowed to dwell unduly on that aspect, I should like to raise another Matter which has come before this Parliament in each of the four years that I have been here - the sales tax of 12i per cent, on certain foodstuffs. Constant appeals have been made to the Government to remove this tax. Each member of the Parliament has been given an elaborate presentation of the case by various interested bodies. It has been said - I have not heard it denied by the Treasurer or any one else on the Government side - that about £35,000,000 worth of primary products are involved in this proposition. The kind of goods that attract sales tax- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! These bills have nothing to do with sales tax. I suggest that the honorable member get back to the bills under discussion. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS: -- It looks as though I will just have to make reference to the subject and hope that this year the Government will give some encouragement to our primary industries and employment by removing sales tax from these particular items. 1 come now to something to which I can refer with confidence - trade. One of the bills under discussion deals with the granting Of tax rebates to people who are engaged in promoting increased export trade. I think "lt fair to argue that if we propose to give this kind of stimulus to the export trade "we have to examine the proposal in terms of the results so far achieved. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** indicated that it was rather difficult to tell just how effective the Government's tax concessions are, especially those relating to pay-roll tax. I have asked some questions on notice of the Treasurer about this matter and the information he has given is rather indefinite. In fact, more often than not, he has stated that the statistics are not available. It is all very well for us to be using the taxation instrument to promote exports, but what purpose is aimed at? Is the purpose to build up our funds overseas in order to be able to import to this country the things 'that are looked upon as being necessary? Even if that is so, we must look at the current position relating to our imports. In 1960 this Government said we were importing far too many motor cars and far too many parts and accessories for motor cars, and that by so doing were using up too much of the funds that we had built up with our exports. If one peruses the Treasury Information Bulletin issued in April of this year, one notices that for the eight months of the current financial year the amount paid for imported motor vehicles, parts and accessories, excluding aircraft, was £70,500,000. The amount paid in the corresponding eight months of 1961-62 for motor cars, parts and accessories, was only £30,000,000. It is obvious from these figures that we are making substantial inroads into the funds that we are building up by export promotion by the importation of motor cars, parts and accessories - the very thing which this Government criticized so severely back in 1960! That was the very thing that we said was using up our overseas funds, restricting employment opportunities and diverting our local tradesmen into nonessential activities. Now the Government is applauding the importation of motor cars, accessories and parts. Surely the motor trade itself must be wondering just how far it can go with this process. The Government gives no indication of what it deems to be a reasonable level of importation of motor cars, parts and accessories. It gives no indication of how far it is prepared to tolerate an increase in the importation of motor cars into Australia. Therefore, one must question whether any good purpose is being served by using this taxation instrument to promote an increase in exports with a view to building up our overseas income. Of what use will it be if, in the long run, it leads to the unnecessary importation of articles that might well be produced in adequate quantities in our own country? Another matter relevant to these bills is foreign investment in this country. One important fact to remember is that we are continuing to pay out to overseas investors in this country increasing amounts of the funds which increased exports yield. Recently I asked the Acting Minister for Trade this question - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Over the last ten years what has been the trend in the relationship of actual income paid overseas to foreign investors as against income earned by Australia from exports? 1. More specifically, is it possible to relate these overseas payments to income raised from exports of Australian-based foreign-owned enterprises? 2. What relevant statistics are available? Only a few days ago the Minister produced some rather interesting statistics on the matter. I think they might well be studied in connexion with the bill before us which proposes to continue the concessions which seek to stimulate exports to overseas countries. I suggest it is important that we examine the purposes to which the income derived from the stimulated export trade is being applied. One is to pay dividends to overseas investors. It is interesting to know that the amount of income remitted to foreign investors in the year 1952-53 amounted to £53,000,000. In 1953-54, that figure increased to £63,000,000. In 1954- 55, it increased still further to £64,000,000, and by 1955-56 it had risen to £65,000,000. The amount paid out in 1956-57 again was £65,000,000, but by 1957-58 it had crept up to £76,000,000. In 1958-59, it dropped back to £74,000,000, but by 1959-60, it had increased again to £81,000,000. In 1960-61 it increased still further to £93,000,000, and by 1961-62, it had jumped to £121,000,000. In other words, in the eight-year period between 1952-53 and 1961-62, the amount remitted overseas from this country to pay foreign investors jumped from £53,000,000 to £121,000,000, so that by 1961-62, over twice as much is being remitted now than was remitted eight years ago. The Government might feel disposed to argue that this has been good in that it has brought other kinds of advantages to Australia. That might well be so, but I think there are a good many responsible people in the community who are now asking whether we have passed the point where this is of optimum benefit to Australia. Are we going beyond the point at which it is to our advantage for foreign investors to be not only investing here but also investing in an indiscriminative way? {: .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr Lucock: -- If all this is true, why is **Mr. Heffron** going overseas to endeavour to attract more overseas capital to his State? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! I think the honorable member for Barton is getting away from the subject-matter of the bill. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS: **- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** you are making this debate very circumscribed. I think that all I have said is most relevant to the bill. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! I have ruled on the matter of relevancy. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS: -- The honorable member for Lyne questions the wisdom of the Labour Premier of New South Wales going abroad to try to attract foreign investors. Let me point out to him that **Mr. Heffron** seeks selective investment; he is seeking investment in particular fields. The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** laughs at that proposition. If **Mr. Heffron** were seeking to attract foreign investment in the cotton industry in New South Wales, would the honorable member for Lyne or the honorable member for Mallee decry that? I question very much whether any benefit is to be derived from much of the portfolio investment which comes into this country not to build up existing industries or to create new industries but to buy out Australian-owned industries. I must admit that I am now getting a little away from the matters under discussion, but I am concerned that this amount of money is being paid out. My concern becomes even greater when I find that the trend is towards an increase in the remittance of money overseas to such investors. Indeed, so greatly has the increase been that remittances overseas to foreign investors are taking up the greater part of the funds we are building up with our exports. That is the point I am trying to get across. We may be stimulating exports, but at the same time we are permitting to take place this inroad into our own economy which is eating up an ever increasingly large share of the money we are earning from exports. That is a worth-while point and one that it is very necessary to make. On the other hand, the amount of money that is being allowed by foreign investors to remain in Australia in the form of undistributed profits and net dividends credited is reducing. The amount was £60,000,000 in 1960-61, but last financial year it was down to nearly half that amount, namely, £34,000,000. In other words, we are reaching a saturation point in respect of foreign investment. Foreign investors are not prepared to plough money back, as they have done before - not that this is necessarily a good thing - into further investment in order to build up Australian assets. What is happening now is that the amount that is being taken out of Australia is increasing and, on the basis of the figures that the Minister gave, that trend looks like continuing without any abatement for some years to come. That will be a very heavy drain on the funds earned by this country from its exports. The point that I am making is that if we are to grant these taxation concessions they ought to 'be for a worthwhile purpose. The worthwhile purpose might have to be considered in terms of producing some of the goods for which we now have to pay out money overseas. We must also consider this question: Are we giving sufficient encouragement, as somebody else mentioned, to import replacement by building up local industries and offsetting the goods that we are importing? {: #subdebate-32-0-s5 .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY:
Perth .- I will take only a few minutes of the time of the House. I rise only for one reason. I do not know whether the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** said what I thought he said. [Quorum formed.] The honorable member, as I understood him, said that secondary industry should aim to achieve as high a degree of efficiency as primary industry has achieved. In Australia to-day there are a great number of secondary industries the efficiency of which could not even be compared with that of many other industries. They are a credit to the people concerned with them. I refer particularly to Australian secondary industries which have entered the export market in competition with those of cheap-labour countries and are selling goods in countries in South America, Africa and Asia. I do not intend to enter into an argument between primary production and secondary production, but I say that the solving of employment problems in Australia depends primarily upon secondary industries. Unless we can build them up they will not be able to absorb the labour force that we will have in Australia. The Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill, which is now before the House, I should imagine, was designed with a great deal of co-operation between the Department of Trade and the Treasury. It grants a rebate of pay-roll tax to manufacturing industries which increase their exports over the level in a certain year. I believe that it has a tremendous amount to commend it. I hope that at some future stage the Government will see fit to abolish pay-roll tax altogether. It is an inflationary tax. This matter has been pursued in this House time and time again. I do not want to weary the House by stating the arguments for its abolition. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- It is an indirect and inflationary tax, but the Government has not taken it off. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY: -- You have said enough to-day in calling quorums. You should save your voice for a later time of the day. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- I am agreeing with you that it is an indirect and inflationary tax; but it has been kept on for more than twelve years. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY: -- I advise my learned opponent on the other side of the chamber to have a look, in "Hansard" of about a week ago, at a reply given by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** to a question asked by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward).** It gave the percentages of revenue that came from direct and indirect taxation in 1949 and 1962. I do not think the percentage has varied by more than one-quarter of 1 per cent. Honorable members opposite are always telling the Government what it should do about indirect taxation and saying that the Government collects too much revenue by indirect taxation; but the percentage has not varied over the period of nearly fifteen years during which this Government has been in power. I rose only to say that the Government has a responsibility to give every encouragement to secondary industries to build themselves up to a position of greater strength so that they will be able to absorb the growing labour force in Australia. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I wish to make a person explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- Yes. The honorable member for Perth did not quite grasp what I said and I think I should put him straight on this matter of the general efficiency of secondary industry to provide export commodities, and in that regard I compared its efficiency with that of primary industry. {: #subdebate-32-0-s6 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN:
Bonython .- Because we have not in the House a representative of the Division of Grey, owing to the unfortunate death of **Mr. Edgar** Russell, and being a South Australian representative, I am impelled to bring to the notice of the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** an anomaly that exists in regard to a citizen - it may involve others - on the west coast of South Australia. I understand that deductions are allowable for income tax purposes in respect of medical services, but that the provision does not cover certain very important and rather expensive commitments that have to be met by people who, unfortunately, are in ill health in the more distant parts. A case has come to my notice of a family residing at Cape Thevenard on the west coast of South Australia. His wife and family are involved in this matter. One of the children of this family was stricken with an illness. When these people sought the assistance of a hospital nearby, it was decided that it was necessary for the child to be taken to Adelaide to receive the advice of a specialist and for specialist treatment. That involved expense not only in connexion with the child but also because the mother accompanied the child. There is no provision for a deduction to be allowed for expenses incurred even in the conveyance of the child in the normal way to the specialist in Adelaide. More than one such visit might be required. Therefore, a substantial amount of money could become involved and these people would have no relief by way of a tax deduction, although it was absolutely necessary that the expenditure be incurred. Furthermore, so much is involved in the family life of the people in the distant parts of our country, such as the west coast of South Australia. Some allowance should be made to cover part of the cost, if not the whole of the cost, of conveying a child, or even the parent, from outlying parts such as Cape Thevenard to Adelaide for specialist treatment. I do not want to delay the House longer than is necessary to state the case because other members wish to speak before the debate concludes. I hope the Treasurer will see the wisdom of allowing a taxation deduction to cover urgent and necessitous cases such as I have mentioned. {: #subdebate-32-0-s7 .speaker-KCB} ##### Mr DAVIES:
Braddon .- I will not detain the House for long, but I wish to raise one or two matters which are related to the bills now before the House. The purpose of one of these bills is to extend the rebates of pay-roll tax that apply to increased exports. The other bill makes specific amendments to the income tax laws. The Opposition supports the bill which gives rebates of pay-roll tax as an incentive to exporters. This incentive was first introduced in 1961. In my experience with exporters, and the experience I gained when I visited America last year, this incentive has had a beneficial effect. I would like to refer briefly to the Tas-Ex export group of people, dealing with timber, in Tasmania. The timber industry in the last ten years has been severely hit by three recessions and it suffered severely during the man-made depression which resulted from the Government's economic policy. When the Government introduced pay-roll tax rebates for exports, producers in Tasmania got together under the name Tas-Ex and sought to open up an export market in America. To-day, this group has a representative on the west coast of America and has considerably increased its exports to that country. A member of the group recently told me that these pay-roll tax rebates had been a valuable incentive to his section of the group. I think these rebates have been of great benefit to the timber industry. It is to be hoped that the timber industry will continue to receive encouragement. I know that this industry will be very pleased when this bill is passed, because it will then know that the benefits it has enjoyed will continue until 30th June, 1968, and it will be able to plan accordingly. Planning in the timber industry is important. It is interesting to note that the export group to which I have referred received an order for 100,000 chairs. Although Tasmania produces some of the best timber in Australia, we have not yet been able to find a furniture manufacturer who is interested in this proposal. The chairs are to be made up in packs. The timber is to be cut to size and done up in a package, which is sold over the counter in America as a do-it-yourself kit. This sort of activity is becoming increasingly popular in the United States, and it is to be hoped that in the near future we will be able to interest a furniture manufacturer in accepting the order for these chairs. As I said, the bill makes specific amendments to the income tax law. I should like to refer to the report of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, of June, 1961, and particularly to paragraphs 479, 481 and 482, which deal with timber. So as not to delay the House, I will read these paragraphs. Paragraph 479 reads - >Our attention has been drawn to the difficulties which face the industry in those areas where, of necessity, mill buildings and housing for employees must be located in the logging areas. In the great majority of such cases, the buildings will be of no value and will be abandoned when the timber stand is exhausted, and in our opinion would be a wasting asset similar to access roads, the cost of which is an allowable deduction under Section 124f of the Act. Paragraph 481 reads - >We think that some relief should be afforded to meet these conditions, but that it should be limited so as to apply only to buildings located in the actual logging area. Paragraph 482 reads - >The Committee recommends that Section 124f should be amended so as to extend its application to mill buildings and housing for employees located in the logging area. On behalf of the timber industry, I ask the Government to allow the cost of these buildings in logging areas as an income tax deduction, just as the cost of access roads now is. I sincerely hope that this recommendation of the committee will be adopted. I want to refer to another matter which has been raised by several honorable members on this side of the House, and that is the matter of zone allowances. On numerous occasions I have asked that King Island should be included in zone B for taxation purposes. The former Treasurer said that places with inclement weather, subject to isolation and other conditions would be included in this zone. King Island, which is half-way between Tasmania and Victoria, definitely meets these requirements. When approached on this matter, the former Treasurer replied, "Well, there are very many wealthy people there". There may be some wealthy people on King Island, but there are wealthy people in every area that has been included in this zone. The fact that wealthy people live in an area should not have any bearing on the inclusion of the area in the zone. A request for the inclusion of an area should be considered on its merits. We have on numerous occasions asked that King Island be included in zone B and we believe that it meets the requirements that have been laid down. I ask the Treasurer to consider this matter when he is preparing the forthcoming Budget. I know that my friend, the honorable member for Bass **(Mr. Barnard),** wishes to raise a few matters, so I will refer only briefly to another matter that I wish to raise. The honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** also raised this matter. I refer to the deduction for income tax purposes of payments made to dental mechanics in Tasmania. Tasmania is the only State in which dental mechanics by law are permitted to deal directly with the public. People who go to them for dental work unfortunately cannot claim the payments they make as income tax deductions. It is about time the Government realized that this matter is worthy of consideration. I know that the dental mechanics association of Tasmania has been to see the Treasurer personally. I hope that the representations of the association and those made by my friends, the honorable members for Bass and Wilmot, and by myself will bear fruit. In paragraphs 399 and 400 of its report, the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation said - >The Committee recommends that the definition of " medical expenses " in Section 82f (3) should be amended so as to include payments made to a legally qualified and authorized dental mechanic for the supply of artificial teeth. > >At present the recommended amendment, if adopted, will affect only Tasmanian taxpayers because no other State has provided for legally qualified dental mechanics, but if any State should enact legislation similar to that of Tasmania, the amendment will affect taxpayers there also. Having made those few remarks, I wish to commend the legislation. The provisions concerning pay-roll tax concessions for firms engaged in the production of goods for export will be of great benefit to industries in Tasmania such as the timber industry, which will be able to go ahead with their plans for export lines, knowing that the provisions of the legislation will remain in force until 30th June, 1968. {: #subdebate-32-0-s8 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr BARNARD:
Bass .- I do not intend to delay the passage of this legislation unnecessarily, but there are one or two matters to which I want to address myself in the brief time remaining for discussion of the legislation. I join with other speakers who have referred to the principles embodied in the measure and the benefits it will give to those who are producing for export markets. We applaud the intentions of the Government in pro.viding concessions to people who are prepared to increase the volume of their exports and so increase the material benefits to this country. I want to refer particularly to clause 3 of the bill, which amends section 23 of the principal act. That amendment will place beyond doubt the legal question concerning payment received by overseas students pursuing their education in Australia. It means, in effect, that scholarship payments made to them will not be subject to taxation. While the Opposition agrees with the principle embodied in this clause, we submit, as we have submitted on other occasions in this House, that the principle might well be extended to students enjoying Commonwealth and State scholarships. I refer to those attending universities throughout Australia under Commonwealth scholarships, whose scholarship payments at present are subject to taxation. We -believe that such students should be given tax concessions. I also believe, and I think all other honorable members on this side of the House believe, that the principles should be further extended to cover students attending universities after they have reached the age of 21 years. We consider that parents providing for the education of such students should be given tax concessions in respect of payments made for such education. I can never understand the logic of allowing taxation concessions for the education of a university student until that student becomes 21 years old and then suddenly cutting off such concessions. It is reasonable to suppose that a student undertaking a medical course, for example, will continue his university studies after he has reached the age of 21 years, and I suggest that the parents of such a student should be given a concession for payments made for his education after he has attained his majority. I consider that the Government should give immediate consideration to this anomaly. I want to support the propositions already advanced by my two colleagues, the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** and the honorable member for Braddon **(Mr. Davies),** with regard to zone allowances. I have mentioned this matter pre viously in the Parliament. I have pointed out that in connexion with the zone allowances, particularly allowances for zone B, there are certain anomalies. I remember making representations to the former Treasurer, **Sir Arthur** Fadden, on an occasion when an amendment was proposed in this House requesting that zone B be extended to include the islands of the Furneaux group, particularly Flinders Island and King Island, which is in the electorate of my colleague, the honorable member for Braddon. I pointed out that if certain parts of Queensland, particularly the coastal areas to the north of Brisbane, could be included in zone B, then it should be possible to include many other areas, such as Flinders Island and King Island. I have written to the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** each year, as I know my colleague has, requesting that this matter be given consideration. Each year the Treasurer has replied that it will be given the usual consideration when other budgetary matters are being examined. The right honorable gentleman has refused to have the matter fully investigated. I am sure that if he did make a full investigation of the disabilities suffered by the inhabitants of these island, the isolation, the high costs to be met, especially for freight, for education and for certain other essential matters, he would have to concede that any arguments advanced for the inclusion of various areas of Queensland in zone B could be applied with equal force in the case of Flinders Island and King Island. I suggest that the case presented to the Treasurer over the years for the inclusion of the islands in the Furneaux group in zone B has been a very reasonable one, but the Treasurer has consistently refused to give the request the consideration that it has deserved. I again ask him to have a look at the representations that have been made by honorable members not only on this side but also on the other side of the House. I remember that the former member for Braddon, who was a member of the Government parties, moved an amendment in this House requesting that the Treasurer consider including the islands of the Furneaux group in zone B for the purposes of taxation. It is now a matter of history that Government supporters voted against the amendment. The fact remains that there has been procrastination in this matter. I believe that the case submitted this afternoon by the present honorable member for Braddon and me deserves further consideration. I hope that when taxation matters are being considered during the preparation of the Budget, the Treasurer will intimate that he has at last decided to include the Furneaux group of islands in zone B for income tax purposes. Another matter that I want to discuss briefly concerns a problem that has been discussed in this chamber on previous occasions, and this afternoon by my colleagues, the honorable member for Wilmot and the honorable member for Braddon. This, also, is a matter of principle in relation to deductions from income before the assessment of tax. We have already been told that Tasmania is the only State where dental mechanics are registered. The Common.Wealth Committee on Taxation, several years ago, after a thorough investigation of the circumstances that apply in that State, recommended that the act be amended to permit expenses incurred by people who have occasion to be treated by or to visit dental mechanics to be deducted from income before the assessment of tax. The recommendation by the committee was quite clear, and nobody can deny the justice of the claim, even though the question arises only in Tasmania. The members of the committee decided that the Government should further consider this matter, which, as I have said, has been the subject of representations in this Parliament on other occasions. It is completely illogical to argue that work done by a dental mechanic should not receive the same consideration in this respect as is given to work ordered by a dentist and ultimately carried out by a dental mechanic. So far as I am aware, no dentist in Tasmania actually makes dentures. The work must be done by a registered mechanic, and the patient is obliged to visit the mechanic who makes the dentures. Yet the patient is unable to claim as an allowable deduction the expense so incurred, unless the work is authorized by a dentist and the account for it is sub mitted by and paid to a dentist. We say that this is completely intolerable to the people of Tasmania. Representations have been made on a number of occasions in this Parliament on this matter by various honorable members on this side of the chamber who represent Tasmanian electorates. There have been discussions between the Dental Mechanics Association of Tasmania and the Treasurer, and I have no doubt that there are on the other side of the House honorable members who have referred the question to the Treasurer. He may be prepared to ignore all the considerations that have been put before him, but the fact remains that the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, which was appointed by him, recommended that the act be amended to incorporate the principles that honorable members on this side of the chamber have expounded here this afternoon. I ask the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Swartz),** who is now at the table, to let the Treasurer know that the matter has been raised in the House again this afternoon and to urge him, as a matter of justice, to have the act amended so that fees paid to dental mechanics in Tasmania may be claimed as deductions from income before the assessment of tax. {: #subdebate-32-0-s9 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- **Mr. Speaker,** the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill 1963 is a good measure and one that I am sure will receive the general support of the House. I regret only that it has been brought in at short notice and at a time when it cannot be given the full discussion that it deserves. I wish to mention only one matter in relation to that bill. You, **Sir, will** remember that some eighteen months ago, when a measure of this kind was last before the House, I suggested an amendment to provide for the introduction of savings bonds for the purpose, particularly, of helping the small man. The suggestion received some support on both sides of the House and a good deal of support outside the Parliament. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** undertook at that time to consider the matter, and I was looking forward to discussing it with him or his officers. As a result of that undertaking, I . did not press the amendment that I had planned on that occasion. Unfortunately, I have now to report to the House that since that time I have heard nothing further about the matter. The Treasurer has not taken the opportunity to discuss it with me or to put me in touch with any of his officers who could tell me anything about it. I believe that the suggestion that I made last year is a sound one that ought to be adopted. There may be some technical imperfections in the idea - some reasons why it should not be adopted. If there are such reasons, I shall be very willing to consider them. But, in default of my being shown such reasons as would invalidate my suggestion, I propose, when next a measure of this kind is before the House - I understand that that will be just after the next Budget is considered in this place - to submit and to press to a vote an amendment such as I planned on the last occasion to achieve my purpose. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1795 {:#debate-33} ### INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 16th May (vide page 1479), on motion by **Mr. Harold** Holt- >That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1795 {:#debate-34} ### ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following bills reported: - Australian National University Bill 1963. Customs Tariff Bill 1963. Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Bill 1963. Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Bill (No. 1) 1963. {: .page-start } page 1795 {:#debate-35} ### WELFARE OF ABORIGINES OF GOVE PENINSULA {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 9th April (vide page 484), on motion by **Mr. Hasluck** - >That the following paper: - > >Welfare of the Aborigines of Gove Peninsula, Northern Territory - Ministerial Statement - be printed. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- It is some weeks ago since the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** made a statement in the House concerning the excision from the aboriginal reserve in Arnhem Land of a small area of land - small, that is, relative to the 35,000 square miles of the Arnhem Land aboriginal reserve - for development by overseas companies in connexion with the aluminium industry. The Minister could refer at that time to the fact that he is responsible for legislation which ensures that some royalties from the exploitation of these minerals will be paid into a fund for the benefit of the aborigines. The Minister can, therefore, rightly claim credit for the fact that, almost for the first time in history, a government in the Commonwealth of Australia has acknowledged that aborigines have some kind of entitlement to land in the Commonwealth. They have no title to land, but these aborigines were given, by legislation of which the Minister is the sponsor, certain rights to benefit from the proceeds of the exploitation of minerals found within the aboriginal reserve. This act of the Commonwealth Government has not so far been followed by any of the State governments. We are reminded of the Government of Queensland. Under similar circumstances, in the Weipa aboriginal reserve of the State of Queensland, bauxite deposits began to be exploited, and the simple procedure used by the State Government was to proclaim that the area in question was no longer an aboriginal reserve. In some respects, the Commonwealth is following that procedure by the excision of the Gove Peninsula from the aboriginal reserve. Some weeks ago, when it was not thought likely that this debate would be resumed, it was considered on the Opposition side that there should be in the Commonwealth Parliament a revolutionary approach to the question of the position of aborigines in relation to reserves, and that an early opportunity should be sought for the Commonwealth Parliament to declare that in its opinion the time has come to create an aboriginal title to the land of the reserves of the Northern Territory, which are within the constitutional power of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. Accordingly, to the Minister's motion that the paper be printed, on behalf of the Opposition I move - >That all words after " That " be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - " in the opinion of this House - > >An aboriginal title to the land of aboriginal reserves should be created in the Northern Territory, > >A form of selection by aborigines of trustees to conduct affairs arising from this title should be devised, and > >Meanwhile the safeguarding of aboriginal rights should be ensured by discussion with spokesmen for the aborigines of the Gove Peninsula area ". Whenever a people are conquered or their territories occupied, the question of legal entitlement to land arises. If the people who have been conquered live by a hunting economy, as the Red Indians of North America did, and as the aborigines of Australia did and do still to some extent, there is no title in land. We need only contrast with that the experience of Australia in Papua and New Guinea, where an agricultural people came under the authority of the Government of the Commonwealth. They had clear customs of entitlement to land, strong family rights and tribal rights in land, and individual rights in the possession of land and trees which no Government of the Commonwealth could set aside. Indeed, the acquisition of land by the Administration in Papua and New Guinea is an extremely complicated process. But they were an agricultural people and the Australian aborigines were not. Since the first settlement in 1788, wethe European-descended people of the continent of Australia - have never acknowledged that aborigines have any entitlement at all to land. The proclamation by the Commonwealth of large reserves, some of them with great potential, as land for the aborigines in the Northern Territory, will, of coures, mean nothing if systematically, when anything of any value is discovered in them, areas become excised from the aboriginal reserves and the aborigines have what is left. We do not believe that that is the concept of the Government, but the plain fact is that no Australian Parliament has ever faced the question of whether there is any aboriginal entitlement to land anywhere in the Commonwealth. As the Commonwealth is now 175 years old, it is time that some parliament faced this question. The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia will face it to-night as a result of this amendment. Australia is not a signatory to an international convention, which has an appallingly clumsy name but is a very important document - Convention 107 of the International Labour Conference concerning the .promotion and integration of indigenous and other tribal and semi-tribal populations in independent countries. Australia is a country which has indigenous, tribal and semi-tribal people and it is an independent country, so that the intention of the convention is to refer to a country such as ours. There are many countries with aboriginal populations, some of them very ancient countries. Japan, for example, has an aboriginal population - the Ainu race. There is an aboriginal population of Formosa and of the Philippines. In each of these independent countries, long after the incursion into those countries of a new race - sometimes the new race, as in the case of Japan, can have been in occupation for over 1,000 years - the aboriginal population, the first inhabitants, go on surviving. We should now define, so late in our history, what rights in land and property - when so much has been alienated, should be given to the aborigines in areas where the Commonwealth has constitutional responsibility. In this matter there is in the community a widespread lack of knowledge of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Whereas Americans, in the main, are proud of their constitution and teach it in their schools, it would be safe to say that even students who reach leaving certificate standard in Australia leave school without the faintest idea of what is a Commonwealth responsibility and what is a State responsibility. Constantly we as members of Parliament are confronted with correspondence which in many cases should be directed to State members, and State members have the same experience in relation to Federal matters. Although aborigines in the States do not come under the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth, aborigines of the Northern Territory are fully a Commonwealth responsibility. Convention 107, to which I have referred, and which Australia has not ratified but which the Opposition thinks it should ratify, while facing different situations in different countries, has at least tried to set out this matter of land rights and to induce the countries with aboriginal populations to work out some procedures for creating an entitlement in land. Article 11 of the convention and one or two other articles under Part II dealing with land, have this preamble - >The right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognized. That is a very simple statement. It may not be easy to work out the precise form of title for tribal people. That is not easy anywhere on the face of the earth, but it should not be beyond the wit of the Government and its advisers to create an aboriginal title to land on aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory. Those of us who listened to the Minister for Territories were impressed by the dignity and humanity of his speech. At the same time it was noteworthy that when he spoke of consulting with representatives of the aborigines of the Gove Peninsula area he accepted as representatives of the aborigines the missions of that area. I am not criticizing the missions but I would not have thought, from conversations that I had in Papua and New Guinea and in the Northern Territory, that the original inhabitants of those areas regarded the missionaries as other than their friends, but they certainly did not regard them as their political spokesmen. It is an unsatisfactory position if discussions are to take place between a representative of the Commonwealth Government and a representative of a mission as to what will happen to aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory. The second part of my motion seeks the establishment of a form of selection by aborigines of trustees to conduct affairs arising from the creation of a title to land. We concede that to do so soundly and legally may take the Minister and his department some months, involving many consultations. We felt that in the meantime the safeguarding of aboriginal rights should be ensured by discussion with, spokesmen for the aborigines of the Gove Peninsula area. We may be doing the Minister a complete injustice in assuming, that he has not consulted spokesmen for the aborigines in the Gove Peninsula area. When a ministerial statement is prepared it is not always possible for a Minister to forecast what will be misunderstood, what course a debate will take or how people will receive the words that he has uttered. Therefore, we may be misunderstanding the Minister in assuming that consultation with aborigines did not take place. But we do ask in relation to this Gove Peninsula matter and on any future occasion when a similar matter arises out of the discovery of minerals on reserves in the Northern Territory that conversation should take place with aboriginal spokesmen. Otherwise, what are we admitting? We are admitting that this land has been set aside; that the Government may exclude from it influences that it considers may be undesirable for the aborigines. But if anything of value is found on the land, that is the end of it as a reserve and off we go. The logic of that is that the aboriginal populations must be transferred to what becomes less and less desirable country in this Commonwealth of Australia. Any of us who have watched the Minister over the years will know that is far from his intention, but we believe that the three propositions set out in the amendment that I have moved are right and that it is time the Parliament of the Commonwealth faced these issues. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay: -- Order! Is the motion seconded? {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON:
Fawkner .- I know that all honorable members are tremendously interested in whatever the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** has to say, particularly when he speaks on a subject as important as this one. But when he mentions these problems, particularly this very difficult problem of land, I wonder whether he has carefully thought out the matter. I sometimes feel that he starts off with a very good idea but that he has not given sufficient thought to the problem. He did so, I think, when the House was discussing Papua and New Guinea only a few days ago, and now we have a similar problem concerning our aboriginal people. Let us remember, first, what our aim is. I am sure that the honorable member for Fremantle remembers as well as I do how he and I formed the drafting committee for the report that was presented by the Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aborigines. When I quote from that report the honorable member will remember the words as well as I do. Let us remember what we said at the beginning of the report. The report reads - >The declared policy of the Commonwealth Government towards the aboriginal people is that they should be gradually integrated into the European community. > >Over the past five years the majority of the remaining nomads have, of their own volition, come to the settlements and missions scattered throughout the Commonwealth and your Committee considers that there are now fewer than 2,000 aborigines living in their traditional tribal cultures, out of contact with European civilization. > >As the nomadic aboriginal adults are moving to the settlements and missions, gradually renouncing their nomadic and semi-nomadic lives, their children attend schools where their integration commences. > >It was demonstrated to your Committee that any policy other than integration of the aboriginal people into one Australian society would be impracticable. > >Your Committee believes that integration does not necessarily mean the loss of aboriginal tribal culture or a division in tribal relationships but, however desirable it may be in theory to endeavour to preserve the tribal form of society, it is abundantly clear to your Committee that the tribes themselves are making continuing voluntary contact with European civilization and that in the course of a few years there will be no aborigines living in the completely tribal state. > >As a situation of complete integration is inevitable, your Committee considers that the aim of the Commonwealth should be to assist integration to continue as smoothly and speedily as possible. > >The aborigines need a considerable capital investment in education, including technical and agricultural education, in industries, land tenure and housing. And so the report continued. We must remember, right from the start, that our aim was, is and will be that of assimilation into one community. The second point, as I saw it throughout the whole of our journey as a select committee, was my quite clear conclusion that it was the desire of the aboriginal people to become integrated into our European civilization. This was not something that we were trying to force on to the aboriginal people, but something that they quite clearly desired. I think the honorable member for Fremantle will remember that and so will other members of the select committee. This was not some impractical vision of the Commonwealth Government or the authorities, but something which was going on in a voluntary process. The people of the nomadic tribes were coming into European settlements and desired to assimilate themselves into our way of life. We take that as our aim' and I think honorable members on both sides of the House - and certainly every member of the select committee - believes this to be the one and only course open to us. We said so clearly, in the report which I have just read to the chamber. This is a completely different situation from that envisaged in the policies enacted in 1931 when this reserve in Arnhem Land was set aside. The Minister for Territories made it quite clear in his statement - and I think we should emphasize again - that in 1931 the policy of governments was to endeavour to segregate the two races and set aside reservations. This was the policy of the Government of Queensland very much earlier, as we saw during our visit there. That was the policy of 1931. The aim then, in order to set the aborigines aside and protect them and prevent their numbers decreasing, was a policy which had advantages because, as we well know, the number of aboriginal people has increased, particularly during the last ten years, and is increasing rapidly. This policy of segregation, as we saw so clearly in Queensland - I think the honorable member for Fremantle will remember Palm Island and some of the other places we visited - is not the answer. It produces a feeling of degradation and hopelessness. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- You would not regard that as an example of land ownership. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- No, but the policy of segregation just does not work. It is just not a question only of assimilation. It means that we have to assimilate the aborigine into the sort of European society in which we live. That, taken to its logical conclusion, means that they have to change from their communal way of life to an individual life. The granting of land on a communal basis will perpetuate the communal way of life, which I do not believe will be in the best interests of these people. If we are to aim for a policy of assimilation, which I think we all believe to be the complete answer, there must be assimilation into our individual way of living. That means such things1 as individual ownership of land and housing and not sharing on a communal basis, which is the traditional way of life of a hunting people. If we were to take the amendment moved by the honorable member for Fremantle to its logical conclusion, I believe we would perpetuate a system of communal living which would set back the form of assimilation which we feel to be the only answer. Honorable members opposite may argue this point with me, but one of the difficulties we often encountered during the work of the select committee was that there was a danger in communal living. As soon as members of one aboriginal family got themselves into a European system of individualism, friends and relations would come to live with them in the one house. Having raised themselves to a certain standard of living, the members of the family then found that they were in danger of sinking back again into a lower standard of life. I believe we have to inculcate into these people a sense of individual life and ownership. We will not achieve that by devising a system of land tenure for aboriginal reserves based on the communal system. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- That is not the purpose of the amendment. There is nothing in it about land tenure being based on the communal system at all. We are asking the Government to devise a system of land tenure. It could be individual. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- I do not think the honorable member has thought through this system. He just said airily that we have to try to devise a completely new system. It would mean segregating these people into an area in which we could not get a multi-racial society. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- That is the present position. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- I know that, and I am hoping that it will be altered. One of the results of the present proposal is- that Europeans will be coming into this area at Gove. Not only is it necessary to have assimilation, but there is also the fact that we must provide European forms of employment. The traditional hunting form of life was not something which could be perpetuated for large numbers of these people. One of the obvious facts we recognized, as we went through the Territory, was the difficulty of providing employment and training for skilled occupations. In his statement the Minister said the object was to do that very thing - to provide direct employment of a semi-skilled nature for 800 people. Even more than that, it will produce indirect employment for a population of at least 3,000. A9 the Minister said, this will provide a ready market for the products of the agricultural, pastoral and fishing industries which it is expected will be developed in this area. These are the things which are so lacking for the aboriginal people in the Northern Territory at present. These developments will encourage more Europeans to go into the area and change the way of life of the people there. The honorable member for Fremantle holds the theory that in some way the aboriginal people should be treated differently from other people and that there should be a set policy for them. Rather we regard aborigines as complete Australian citizens. We do not want to treat them differently from the way in which we treat other Australians. We want to give them the opportunity to be the same as other Australian people. At present they can obtain land just as any other Australian can. As the Minister stated quite clearly, we are keeping land in the reserve for that purpose - so that they can take up land and live just as other Australians do. But to create a new title and hand over a mass of land to a body of people is treating them differently from the way in which you treat other Australians. You do not suddently take a group of Australians and say, " We shall give you an area- {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- It happened many times in our history. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- -Hut we are living in the year 1963. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- The aborigines do not have that privilege. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- Nor did I, and neither did the honorable member for Fremantle. We must regard them all as subjects of the Queen. The honorable member for Fremantle directed the attention of those of us who were members of the select committee to the Australian Constitution. We had many opportunities to consider the Constitution. We remember the phrases which the honorable member for Fremantle uttered so frequently and emphasized so strongly - " subjects of the Queen " and " people of the Commonwealth ". We are all one people. We do not treat citizens differently one from the other. The policy which the Minister has adopted is the only really correct policy to adopt in this situation. It will be of tremendous benefit to the aborigines in this area in providing direct employment, training in new skills and in making available new markets for the results of their fishing, agricultural and pastoral activities. By extracting a double royalty from the company which is developing the minerals, increased funds will be available to enable more training to be undertaken and new methods to be adopted to assist them to take their part as full citizens of the Commonwealth more rapidly than they would be likely to do otherwise. I believe that the Miinster has really thought this matter out on the only possible basis. I do not believe that the amendment which has been proposed by the honorable member for Fremantle will achieve, in the long run, the aims which he thinks it will achieve. I congratulate the Minister on this statement. When the new mineral activities come into operation the aboriginal people living in Arnhem Land will benefit from the wise agreement into which the Minister has entered. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Wills -- The honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Howson)** managed to avoid all the issues which were raised by the Opposition. We are discussing whether SOO aboriginal people living on their ancient and traditional tribal land have the right to be consulted before that land is used by some one else, and whether they have a right to that land just as any other citizen has a right to his. We want to give the Parliament an opportunity to establish a new principle upon which the rights of the aboriginal people should be considered. As the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** has pointed out, that would be a revolution in the way in which the parliaments of Australia approach the problems of the aborigines. This is a simple question for the Australian conscience. No amount of sophistry and no amount of platitudes or clichés will allow us to escape from our simple duty to the aboriginal people. I challenge two or three assumptions upon which the honorable member for Fawkner based his speech. First of all, if he wants to begin treating the aboriginal people of Australia as if they were Australians and as if we were all one people, he might first look at the laws which apply in the Australian Capital Territory. In his statement, the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** said that under the policy of assimilation the intention is that the aboriginal people should have the opportunity to live without any limit on the exercise of their Australian citizenship and on equal terms with all other Australians. But let me read one of the Australian Capital Territory ordinances which apply to the aboriginal people. It states - >Where an aboriginal or a person apparently having an admixture of aboriginal blood is temporarily resident in the Territory- That is the Australian Capital Territory, the home of the National Capital - the Minister may, if he is of opinion that the aboriginal or person . . . should be placed under control, apply to the Court for an order directing the aboriginal or person to return to the State or other place from which he came. In other words, in the Australian Capital Territory, the place where it is easiest to alter the law, we do not apply this policy of fundamental equality. That is one of the plain facts to which all Australians should turn their attention. It is only in Victoria that an aboriginal is absolutely free, as long as he is outside the Lake Tyers reserve. We have inflicted upon the aborigines a great complexity of laws. We have given little consideration to their fundamental dignity and have failed, in this Parliament, to face the issue squarely and to do something about it. The Australian conscience cannot be clear. It is time that honorable members, particularly those on the Government side who like to speak as the honorable member for Fawkner did, following his experience on the select committee - he did a sound job as a member of the committee - applied to this question some of the analytical thought which they apply to other social questions. The aboriginal people of Australia need that kind of approach. The honorable member for Fremantle posed certain questions. Have the aboriginal people a title to the land upon which they have traditionally lived? They have been there for nearly 12,000 years. How long must they remain on the land before they establish a proprietary right to it? The principle that we would establish is that they have a right to the land. Although the area in question is only a small proportion of the land in the Commonwealth of Australia, the aboriginal people who inhabit it should have been consulted as to its disposal. I know that the Minister brings to his work a sincerity and dedication which has been missing in most of the people who have tackled this task heretofore, but I am convinced that the aboriginal people of Yirrkala, where the mining lease has been granted, have not received proper consideration. I have been advised by those who have been to the area that the elders of the tribe are concerned about the position which has been created. This Parliament and the nation must not abdicate their responsibility to the aboriginal people and hand it over to a French company. I must challenge several other propositions which were advanced by the honorable member for Fawkner. He mentioned that we do not make land available to other people. What about the war service land settlement scheme? What about the brigalow land in Queensland? Are not they cases in which we have taken and developed Australian land and given it to groups of people? {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- Not given. Let us make that quite clear. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- Let me withdraw the word " given ". Let me make it clear that we want the matter examined thoroughly, with a new look at the right of aborigines to be treated as equal citizens. We did not come to this House with a ready-made answer to the problem. I do not know exactly what the answer is. Neither I nor the honorable member for Fremantle claim to know the answer, but we do claim that additional steps should be taken to safeguard the rights of the aborigines by discussion with the spokesmen for the aborigines in the Gove Peninsula area, and that an aboriginal title to the land of aboriginal reserves should be created in the Northern Territory. Why is it that we are not able to bring to this question the experience that has been gained in the United States of America, in New Zealand, and in other countries? I challenge the view that to have a geographical location in this continent is to have segregation. It will be segregation only if the law makes it segregation. If the people of Arnhem Land are free to come and go, they are not segregated. Are the people of Derby and of Broome segregated? Are the people of Woomera segregated? Why would these people want to leave a desirable place like Yirrkala? But if they wish to develop in that way, they should have the right to do so. I do not think this issue ought to be clouded by doctrines of segregation, assimilation and so on. What is desperately needed is a new and national outlook. The Minister and the Prime Minister might well give consideration to establishing another committee similar to that which inquired into and reported upon the granting of voting rights to aborigines. I know the Prime Minister would raise all sorts of questions about the constitutional position, but the fact is that no great thought is being given to this problem. The Institute of Aboriginal Studies has got away to a very slow start because of procrastination in bringing before the House a bill to give it proper legal status and so on. So the first thing with which this House is faced to-night is the right of the aboriginal people to have some land tenure. As was pointed out to the committee appointed to inquire into the granting of voting rights to aborigines, the granting of land tenure is not simply a question of parcelling out portions of land. The land has to be developed. A part of the Australian Labour Party's policy is the retention and development of aboriginal reserves. The next question facing us to-night is whether this lease has been drawn with due regard to the preservation of the welfare and the proper rights of the aboriginal people. We on this side want to make it clear that although the people of Yirrkala are living very close to the land, although they are still very close to the tribal state, according to reports I have received they are a highly integrated and developed community with a tradition, a culture and a feeling of their own. We have only to go to the record for proof of that. Yirrkala is one of the centres of aboriginal art, as I have ample authority to prove - authority for which I can quote chapter, and verse. Although I have strong feelings about the surrender of Australia's mineral resources to overseas companies, that is not the real question here to-night, when we have before us a proposal which can only have the effect of submerging these aborigines. The questions are whether we have the right to delete this land from the traditional reserve of these people, and, if it is so deleted, whether it has been deleted with due regard for the people's welfare. To give some idea of the geography of the area, I point out that this bauxite deposit extends around and under the mission itself. The lease runs right up to the mission. The British Aluminium Corporation's leases are pegged right round the area, and so is this new lease. This lease extends right round the area and is immediately adjacent to the reserve. There is no doubt about that. The maps show it quite clearly, and I might say that the Methodist Conference itself is starting to have a second look at the question because it is beginning to show some concern about the close proximity of a mining company to the mission. Yesterday, in Adelaide, the General Methodist Conference passed this resolution - >That in view of the announcement of the Minister for Territories of the cancellation of the British Aluminium Corporation bauxite leases at Yirrkala and the probable re-allocation of the lease, the General Conference, acting through the Board of Missions, urgently requests the > >Federal Government to ensure that no rnining lease is held within a boundary less than two miles from the Yirrkala Mission. The Yirrkala Mission is to be second fiddle in this deal, for we find that paragraph (k) of the lease provides - >If the Administrator after the commencement of mining operations on the land leased considers that by reason of those operations it is not desirable that the Methodist Overseas Mission Station at Yirrkala should remain on its present site, to remove and re-establish the Mission Station with equivalent buildings, equipment and facilities on a site approved by the Administrator, or, if the ire-establishment is effected by the Methodist Overseas Mission with the approval of the Administrator to .pay the reasonable cost of effecting the removal as assessed by thiAdministrator. So if the mining company finds that these aborigines just happen to be in the road, if it is in the interests of the mining company that they be moved from land which they have occupied for some 12,000 years, they must move off. What has the Melbourne " Herald ", which makes such a loud clamour about a place like Rippon Lea, got to say about this issue? What has it got to say about this place 2,000 miles away where there are 500 people with no spokesman and with very little voice? I say quite frankly that the rights of these aborigines are being trespassed upon in this matter. That is the challenge to this Parliament to-night. I am not making any charge of immorality or unethical behaviour against the Government on this issue. This charge may be levelled against the nation of which I, like the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** and the rest of us, are a part. It is one of the depressing facts of Australian history that we have not given much consideration to the human dignity of the aboriginal people in the past. Now is the time to start doing so. If this precious spot on Arnhem Land with its magnificent scenery, this traditional hunting ground of these people, is to be developed, it must be developed for the aboriginal people. If it cannot be developed by them yet, that must be done by some State administration. Do not say that is beyond the skill of this Government or the Australian people. Do not say we cannot develop some trustee system similar to that which was put into operation in other parts of the community. Why is it that we must import a mining company and place it beside these people? It may still be to the benefit of the place to mine this bauxite, but, according to the Minister's speech, it will be seven or eight years before that benefit is felt. I understand that already there are sufficient buildings there to accommodate thirty people and that there are, I think, three people there at the moment. I understand that there has already been trouble over giving methylated spirits to the aboriginal people and that already there has been some trouble about the position of the women. I know for certain from reports I have that the elders and all the other members of the tribe are deeply concerned about their future. The fact that this step is being taken by the Government is a charge upon the conscience of us all. We cannot allow the dogmas of assimilation and separate development to prevent us from doing proper justice here to-night. At this very moment there is a great to-do in Victoria over the reserve at Lake Tyers. Only to-day there is a letter in the Melbourne " Age " from **Dr. Donald** Thompson, who was one of the people who inquired into the Arnhem Land reserve on a previous occasion. This is what he said about the position in Victoria - >The only ideas that do not appear to have been seriously considered are those which concern the aboriginals themselves. That applies equally to Yirrkala. We are making a plea here to-night for a new approach. We believe it should not be difficult to establish some principle by which the aborigines can be given title to the land. We believe it should not be difficult to establish some trustee system and, in the interim, at least consult the aborigines fully and completely. It is all very well to make an agreement with the Methodist Overseas Mission, but the people who must be consulted, the people who are fundamentally concerned, are the people of Arnhem Land themselves. I remind honorable members that this particular spot is a very important aboriginal art centre, as is borne out by the following statement in the book "Art in Arnhem Land" written by Professor Elkin Berndt in con- junction with Catherine and Ronald Berndt - >In Arnhem Land, however, the native art, sacred and secular, is still alive and effective; How long will it be alive and effective beside a mining camp? The statement continues - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . it includes human and animal subjects and motives, being highly realistic . . . These people should not be pushed around as of no account. The following remarks were made of them by an expedition about fifteen years ago - >In watching these men and others at work, I was impressed by their sureness. They seemed to have a fully conceived picture in their mind before they started to paint; it was seldom that an artist altered a design or corrected a brush stroke. We are speaking here to-night, as the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Howson),** pointed out, of 500 more Australians - 500 more people who are entitled to be treated with dignity and equality. We are facing an old problem with, we hope, a new look. The only way to face it is to believe that these people whose land this has been for some 12,000 years, according to the experts in these matters,' have a right to be considered as proprietors of the land. I do not care what legalisms you may produce - for instance, that in 1931 it was only a proclamation. When will these people have proprietary rights? When will they be consulted? When will we give them a new system? When will we give them fundamental equality? When will we sweep away the cobwebs and the dust of the last 170 years and abolish the archaic laws that inflict these people? Only this Parliament will do that. I hope that the House, in considering this matter, will realize that if we treat these people differently from the way we treat the rest of the nation and if we do not give them their, fundamental and inalienable rights to the land that they have had traditionally, we will have to face both our own consciences and the criticism) of the rest of the world. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Barnes)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1803 {:#debate-36} ### PRINTING COMMITTEE {: #debate-36-s0 .speaker-KDO} ##### Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA -- I present the sixth report of the Printing Committee. Report - by leave - adopted. {: .page-start } page 1804 {:#debate-37} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Mr. Hasluck)** agreed to- >That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by **Mr. Speaker,** which time of meeting shall be notified by **Mr. Speaker** to each member by telegram or letter. {: .page-start } page 1804 {:#debate-38} ### LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motion (by **Mr. Hasluck)** agreed to - >That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. {: .page-start } page 1804 {:#debate-39} ### ADJOURNMENT Commonwealth Motor Vehicles - Postal Department - The Ministry - Tobacco - Telephone Services - Gold-mining Industry - Overseas Investment in Australia. Motion (by **Mr. Hasluck)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #debate-39-s0 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes **.- Mr. Speaker,** I should like to direct attention to a matter that is giving the Australian Labour Party and me personally considerable concern. It relates to the misuse of motor cars which are under Mie supervision of the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth).** Some little time ago, concerned about this problem, I directed attention to the fact that the Minister for National Development **(Senator Sir William Spooner)** had used a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft to travel on ordinary political business. That matter was discussed in the House and resolved. But, apparently, the lesson that we tried to drive home was not taken to heart by the Minister concerned. At the present time a mystery car is going through the country towns of Queensland on electioneering work. It is a Humber numbered ZRV-044. On 22nd May it appeared at Warwick. Earlier it appeared at Roma. We now find, on investigation, that it is the personal car of the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party **(Senator Cole)** - in fact, of the leader, the deputy leader and the rank and file of the party. The Government has decided - we have reluctantly accepted the decision - that this one man constitutes a party. That has never been sustained previously. Therefore, as the leader of that party, he has the use of a car. Let us regard that as being all right, or al least acceptable, because the Government has decided the matter and it has the majority to enforce its decision. But is it not outrageous that the secretary to the leader of that so-called party is electioneering in Queensland with a government motor car which is under the control of the leader and is chauffeur-driven? How far is the Government going to allow these abuses to go? This should be answered to-night. **Senator Cole,** who is entrusted with a car, is so derelict to his duty that he comes to this building to fulfil his functions - whatever they are - in the Senate and leaves his secretary - one, Virgil Morgan - campaigning in the government, chauffeur-driven car in Queensland. Is not it disgraceful? Of course it is! This should be answered at once. **Mr. Bollen.** ; Have you any evidence of this? {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- I have just given you the evidence of it. The car has appeared there. It would not come out of a hole in the ground. I have received a telephone message to-night that the car is a Humber numbered ZRV-044; that it appeared at Warwick on 22nd May and at Roma on the previous day; and that it has been in the Darling Downs district for some time, definitely on campaign business for the Democratic Labour Party. While the incumbent of the car is in his seat in the Senate, his secretary is engaging in electioneering campaigns in Queensland with the government car. This is a disgrace, as honorable members should agree, whether they come from the Government side of the House or from this side. The Labour Party accepted with a great deal of trepidation the fact that a new system was created in this Parliament under which a single man constitutes a party and then is loaded with all the privileges of office - a secretary, an office and the right to transport - as if he were controlling a party. All right; the Government has done that. But surely this is a complete misreading of what the Government meant. It is a complete degradation of the privileges that he has been given for him to allow his secretary to go from place to place in Queensland by government car, using government petrol, a government chauffeur and government facilities. The Government' has to answer this case because this action is completely immoral. One thing that the Australian people detest is the rotten little gimmicks by which the Government allows people to pull its leg. If the Democratic Labour Party is an underground ally of the Government, why does not the Government say so? It has leant over backwards to grant these concessions. Would it not be morally just and right for the Democratic Labour Party at least to observe the conditions upon which these facilities were made available? But it does not do that. Members of that party spend their time defaming Labourites on this side of the House, accusing them of Communist affiliations and saying all the other stupid nonsense that we have heard for so long. When they are given an opportunity to do more defamation outside the Parliament, they misuse Government property to do so. I do not want to labour this matter. I merely relate it to you, **Sir. I** ask the Minister for the Interior to reply to this case. Why is this Humber car numbered ZRV-044, which is driven by a chauffeur and is under the control of **Mr. Virgil** Morgan, the personal secretary to **Senator Cole,** being used in Queensland? **Senator Cote** - the leader, deputy leader and rank and file of the Democratic Labour Party - at present is functioning more or less in the Senate, while his disembodied sprite is campaigning against the other parties - the Labour Party, the Country Party and the Liberal Party - in Queensland. Without further ado, I say that there is a case to be answered and that I should like a reply before the House rises. {: #debate-39-s1 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne -- I desire to bring two matters to the attention of the House. The Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** presented a document to the Parliament today. {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp: -- You would not give him leave to do so. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- It was presented to the Senate and it is now a public document. I want to make certain comments on it. Had certain events not happened earlier to-day, this House would have had possession of the document. As a matter of fact, after lunch I offered to facilitate its presentation here, but the Postmaster-General decided that, as it had been presented in the Senate, he did not wish to avail himself of my offer. That is his business. The Postmaster-General seems to be completely unable to grasp the 'gravity of the charges that have been levelled against him as a result of the report of **Mr. Justice** Taylor, which has been presented to the Parliament. The Postmaster-General's approach to this matter from the first has been one of procrastination and equivocation. From the moment- the allegations of improper conduct within the department were made, the Minister adopted a cavalier attitude which betrayed his complete ignorance of what was going on in his department. Even in his statement to-day he has tried to whitewash the damaging truth. The royal commissioner has sheeted the blame home where it squarely rests, and it rests on the shoulders of the Minister. The whole matter of ministerial responsibility rests on the essential principle that a Minister is responsible for all that happens in his department. If this principle is ignored or whittled away, the entire structure of Cabinet responsibility is jeopardized. Therefore, the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** has no option but to demand the Postmaster-General's resignation immediately. Of course, he will not get it, because there is no such thing as corporate Cabinet responsibility or responsibility by Ministers for anything these days. If this political scandal existed in any other democracy based on the British parliamentary system, the Minister concerned would not last five minutes after the publication of allegations as serious as those made by **Mr. Justice** Taylor. This is the climax of a long series of revelations of the Minister's failure to administer his department properly. He has blundered from bungle to bungle. There was the Browne case. Honorable members will remember that this case arose in Queensland. There was the muddle over television channel 0. I am not referring to the grant of the licence to Ansett, but to the position of the number on the sets that had already been sold. There was the country television mess, where there could not be proper relays of first-rate programmes from Sydney areas to country stations. Then there was the famous Bidault affair, when a second-rate film made of an interview with a worn-out and discredited politician was banned. If it had not been banned, no one would have known anything about it. And who would have wanted to look at it anyhow? These things reveal the Postmaster-General as the second most incompetent Minister in this bungling and incompetent Administration. The place of honour, if it can be called honour, as the prime bungler in this Government is reserved for the arch bungler, the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon).** In his, usual clumsy fashion he to-day withdrew his ill-devised, half-baked, badly presented and equally badly conceived legislation to destroy the Commonwealth arbitration system as it affects public servants. Any Minister who is forced to come to the Parliament, having discovered that his legislation is not wanted by the Parliament, or the nation, should be immediately removed from office. A Minister whose legislation is not wanted by the Parliament or the nation is himself not wanted by the Parliament or the nation and he ought to be out of office. The last matter I want to raise is the scandal that affects some Minister or several Ministers for making available Humber motor car ZRB-044 to a person named Virgil Morgan, who happens to be private secretary to **Senator Cole. Senator Cole** is entitled to a motor car for his own use, but **Senator Cole** is in his place in Canberra. **Mr. Virgil** Morgan is using this car in the current election campaign in Queensland. He used the car at Warwick yesterday, 22nd May, and he used it at Roma previously. He is still using it. A government which sanctions the use of a car by a public servant, in the interests of the Democratic Labour Party in Queensland, while the person to whom it is given is in Canberra, is mis-using public funds and is abusing its trust, and for that reason alone ought to be removed from office. {: #debate-39-s2 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP .- The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** did not take up a great deal of time on this matter. I intend to take even less at this stage because the matters to which he referred can be more appropriately debated when the Par liament has had a reasonable opportunity to study in detail the full text of the report of **Mr. Justice** Taylor, which my colleague, the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson),** tabled to-day, and the comments that were made in the statement released by the PostmasterGeneral. The Leader of the Opposition has said that, as a result of parliamentary proceedings earlier to-day, the Parliament did not have the text of the Minister's statement. It will be remembered, **Sir, that** earlier the Postmaster-General sought the leave of the House so that in tabling this very important report he could also table his own statement, as the responsible Minister administering this department, for consideration by Parliament. Honorable gentlemen opposite apparently attached so little importance to this matter that they were not prepared to have the Minister tell the Parliament in the place where the statement should be made what his own comments on the report were. So he did the next best thing. He immediately released the report to the press so that there would be no mystery about the matter so far as the public was concerned and so that he could stand up to his own responsibilities in the matter. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking for a party that had denied the Minister the chance to put his own comments to the Parliament, saw fit to make a bitter personal attack upon him. I came into this discussion only because I heard that attack; it brought me into the House. My colleague, the Postmaster-General, had given this country very devoted and distinguished service before he ever became a member of the Parliament. He has been in this Parliament for many years and has become an experienced, trusted and respected member not only of the Parliament but of the Administration in which he has been a senior member now for so many years. He is the deputy leader of his own party. That itself signifies that he has earned the confidence, trust and respect of his own colleagues. Any one who has observed the Minister going about his duties over these years will know that no man could devote himself more earnestly and conscientiously than he has to the great tasks that befall a Minister responsible for the tremendous range of activities now comprised in the Postmaster-General's Department. He has all the ramifications of the Post Office, of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and of the television services. This is a tremendous range of tasks for one man to handle. To charge the honorable gentleman with having failed to devote himself ably to these tasks goes contrary to the judgment of every fair-minded observer in this place. I wanted to take the opportunity to-night to make these comments. No doubt the House will, at an appropriate time, have the opportunity of discussing these matters. As soon as the report of the commissioner was received the Postmaster-General made his own study of it, went into consultation with his own officers and put the matter before the Cabinet. Then he promptly issued directives which should cover weaknesses exposed by **Mr. Justice** Taylor's inquiry. So at every stage this matter has been handled in an appropriate parliamentary fashion, and arising from it action has been taken which should improve the administration along lines which the judge thought proper. But, **Sir, do** not ignore the other considerations which are connected with this matter. I know that my colleague has at all times been eager to safeguard the interests of the law-abiding members of the public who rely upon the secrecy of the telephone service and on the fact that the service can be used with confidence by them. In this situation you do have a conflict at times, with certain requirements pulling in one direction against the requirements of secrecy pulling in another direction. If officers of the Postmaster-General's Department have erred through excessive zeal in trying to preserve that secrecy, that is understandable. But where weaknesses have been revealed the Minister has acted promptly to cure them. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition, in order to score his political point, after having earlier denied the Parliament an opportunity of dealing with this matter in a proper way, should have seen fit to make a personal attack on a man who deserves the esteem of this Parliament and of the people of this country. {: #debate-39-s3 .speaker-JZP} ##### Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt .- The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** should be the last person to criticize the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** for applying the gag when a Minister wanted to speak, because the Treasurer himself has applied the gag eight times in the last 24 hours. However, I did not rise to-night to speak of such matters. I rose to direct the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann)** - and my remarks are not political - to a very serious situation in the tobacco industry of Australia. This is an industry that could be made a vital one for Australia. Although it is not an export income earner at least it can be an import stopper. The tobacco crop in my own area is worth between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year, but the industry is in an unstable position because there is no unity of grower and manufacturer. Perhaps I should not say that there is none; I will say that there is insufficient to make the industry stable. The grower does not know from one year to the next what kind of leaf is required by the manufacturer. I can say without fear of contradiction that Australia has climatic conditions and soil conditions equal to those of any other country in the world in which tobacco is grown. There is no reason why we should not be. able to grow the right tobacco for blending and eventually become selfsupporting in respect of our requirements of tobacco. Our main tobacco growing area is in the north of Australia, and I ask honorable members opposite to remember their talk about northern development and do their best to protect an industry that is already established in the north, and make it as solid and stable as the sugar industry. This can be done, and it should be done. The sugar industry is an export income earner, of course, but there is no reason why the tobacco industry should not be similarly stabilized. I agree that it would not earn export income, but it would remove the necessity to import our tobacco. As I say, we could have a really stable industry. Many growers in the Dimbulah area, where there is a plan for a great irrigation project, will have to walk off their properties if they cannot get a fair go. It is not because they are not growing good leaf. They have been growing good leaf, but some of them have been unable to sell it. I will cite cases later on which can be documented and substantiated. Why are some growers unable to sell their tobacco? It is not because they are bad farmers. It is not because they are not growing good leaf. Their leaf is just as good as that of some of the other farmers who have no difficulty in selling their product. But there have been a few tales going around the district, some of which I will recount for the House, and honorable members can decide for themselves where the truth lies. I suggest that it is time the Minister arranged for a separate investigation to be conducted instead of relying on reports from the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board or some other board. There should be an investigation into the tobacco-growing system or marketing system in Australia. This is particularly necessary when one has in mind the importance of the industry in the development of the north. There are some growers in my area who have found it impossible to sell their leaf. I know of one case, for instance, in which the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board put a figure of 10Od. per lb. on a certain grower s leaf, but when it came up for auction the best bid he could get was 52d. He saw the representative of the board and argued with him, and the leaf was eventually taken for 10Od. If it was worth 10Od. in the first place, why could he not have got 10Od when it was originally auctioned? Some of these growers have told me that' just before the sales are conducted the representatives of the manufacturers are entertained by the big growers with champagne parties and so on. The small growers in these districts have their families to look after, and they cannot afford that kind of entertaining. Some of the representatives have a personal interest in certain farms. This is wrong, because obviously the tobacco grown on the farms in which they are interested will be the first to be sold, whether it is good leaf or not. Yet they get away with this sort of thing. Many of the smaller growers are struggling to keep their families and to keep their farms going. They have bought their land and obtained approval to grow, they have spent a good deal of money in fertilizers and in obtaining advice from agricultural experts and from officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. They have tried in every way they can to improve their tobacco. Some of the leaf they have grown is as good as the leaf that fetches top prices at the sales, yet they find it difficult to sell it. Some people will tell you that secret marks are placed on the bales, and that no one knows what these marks are. This is a lot of hooey. Everybody knows the marks. The people in the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board and the various clerks who work in the industry can all get to know the marks that are on the bales. So I say that the story about the marks being secret is a lot of hooey. I am concerned with the small grower who cannot sell one bale of tobacco, even though it is as good as the tobacco grown on another farm and which finds a ready sale. These abuses will not be stopped unless the Minister take an interest in the matter and investigates the whole matter of growing and marketing. If these things are allowed to go on there will be only a few farmers left. They will be the wealthy farmers, supported by the representatives of the manufacturers who, possibly, will also have an interest in the farms, as some of them do at present. These are the people who are supposed to give the industry a fair go. The manufacturers are not doing the right thing by the growers, although they try to make out that it is actually the growers who are not doing the right thing by the manufacturers. I have a hand of tobacco in my office in this building which I will show to anybody who cares to look at it. Any one who knows anything about tobacco will see that it is all good leaf, and yet it cannot be sold, although some other tobacco of a lower quality from another farm is sold in its entirety. The man who grew this tobacco is a family man with four or five children, but he will have to walk off his farm next year if something is not done to ensure him a fair go. I understand that the tobacco industry in the south is in a similar state. I have read newspaper reports to the effect that certain growers in the south have not been able to sell their leaf. They are small growers, about whom nobody worries. The bales that are sold are usually from the big farms, the wealthy farms. The owners of these farms entertain the representatives before the sales take place and so are able to get rid of their tobacco at very high prices. The small growers do not want these high prices, all they want is a fair go. with the returns spread over all the growers instead of only a few. There is no reason why this should not be done. Somebody must take an interest in this industry and do what is necessary, and only the Minister can do it. Let him make an independent investigation, see the growers themselves and give them an opportunity to put evidence before him. If that is done, the whole situation will be ironed out and the tobacco industry will be put in a good position in which it will be a credit to Australia. If the growers can be told what kind of tobacco is required by the manufacturers, they can grow it. I am sure that the growers of north Queensland can grow any kind of tobacco that is grown anywhere else, whether it be Virginian tobacco or any other kind. What is needed is co-ordination between the manufacturers and the growers, and this can be brought about only by a government instrumentality. I appeal to the Government to investigate the matter and not merely to rely on reports made by interests which are concerned not about the small growers but only about the principal growers. That is the sort of thing that has been happening in Australia, and honorable members opposite know that as well as I do. We have seen it in the dairy industry. Those with the big farms want the small farmers to get out of the industry and leave it entirely to the big farmers. That may be one way of organizing a primary industry, but it is not the way of progress, and it is not the way to develop this country. {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon: -- Who said that that should be done? {: .speaker-JZP} ##### Mr FULTON: -- That was what I was told by the growers' organization in the south. If the honorable member does not believe me, let him read the journal published in the south. The big producers in the dairy industry said that the small producers in the north should get out and leave the industry entirely to the big people in the south. That is just what will happen in the tobacco industry unless somebody takes an interest in it and does something to stabilize it. I appeal to the Minister for Primary Industry to have an independent investigation made and to take what action is necessary to stabilize this well worth-while industry that can be a great credit to Australia. {: #debate-39-s4 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee **.- Mr. Speaker,** members of the Australian Country Party deplore the unjustified attack made on the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson),** who is its deputy leader, by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** The Minister has been a member of this House for about seventeen years and, by his actions, which speak louder than words, he has come to be respected by all members of the House. Members of the Country Party are proud of him. He has recently been acting as leader of the Australian Country Party while our leader has been overseas. We appreciate the Postmaster-General's leadership and deplore an attack on him so unjustifiable as was that made this evening by the Leader of the Opposition. I deeply regret that this attack was made by the honorable gentleman opposite. Outside this House, he is highly respected by every member of the Country Party. His attack on our deputy leader is bewildering, to say the best of it. We are amazed to think that the Leader of the Opposition, as he has done in the House this evening, would attack a man of great personal character just in order to get some paltry political advantage. That is very hard to understand. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition, like **Dr. Jekyll** and **Mr. Hyde,** acts in two different ways. I have regarded him as a personal friend ever since I became a member of this House. I say in his favour that when I came here first he was a Minister and was most helpful to me. I say in his favour also that I have been told in Melbourne that when he was a member of the Melbourne City Council he was one of its best and most respected members. Why he has sunk to the very low level of making an unjustified attack on a man like the Postmaster-General is beyond comprehension. I am not angry about this. My protest is made in sorrow because such an attack has been made by a good man with whom I have been friendly, and with whom I hope to continue to be friendly, because I believe that this is something that he has done on the spur of the moment. We regard his attack on our deputy leader more in sorrow than in anger. Now I want to mention something that happened in the Grievance Day debate, on 2nd May last. I spoke on that occasion and I was followed by the honorable member for Oxley **(Mr. Hayden).** On a good many occasions in this House, I have protested about honorable members saying, " If the Government were only honest, it would do this, that or some other thing ". Had such a statement been made about any individual member on this side of the House, he could have protested, but this is a sweeping reference. We hear this sort of thing time and again. It is tedious repetition. It does not mean a thing, and it is not justified. On 2nd May, the honorable member for Oxley followed me in the debate and, after discussing one subject, said - >The next matter to which I wish to refer relates to the telephone services extended to the residents of the Crossdale-Murrumba area. The people in this district are engaged in primary industry. The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** has just made a forthright speech on the subject of primary industry. If he is really sincere, perhaps he will be quite happy to lend his aid and support me in my representation on behalf of the people living in the Crossdale area who are served by what they describe as a very unreliable manual telephone exchange. They desire to have their telephones connected to the automatic exchange at Murrumba, a few miles away. These people are engaged mainly in the grazing industry. Never before, in this House or anywhere else, has my sincerity been challenged. And it is not really challenged now, because the honorable member has called on me for aid in making his representations. He said that if I were sincere I would give him assistance gladly. I am sincere, and I am happy to place at the honorable member's disposal, in his efforts to obtain certain facilities for constituents, what he must regard as my great ability. I regret that the honorable member is not present in the House this evening, but I told him before he left the chamber that I would offer him my assistance. If he likes to communicate with me, he can depend on my assisting him in every way possible, because I believe that primary producers, not only in the Mallee electorate, but throughout Australia, should have the best possible telephone communications. I am prepared to go further. If the honorable member for Oxley is prepared to get all the telephone subscribers in the district together, I am ready to go there and address them. He said that he wants my assistance. He questioned my sincerity and challenged me to assist him. At his invita- tion I am prepared to examine the telephone lines in the district and to investigate the problems of the local people. If I find that what he said about their desire for an automatic telephone service is justified, I shall make the strongest possible representations to the Postmaster-General on their behalf. All this has come out of a challenge to my sincerity. The honorable member for Oxley said, in effect, "If the honorable member for Mallee were only sincere, he would be happy to assist me ". I shall be very happy indeed to assist him. If he feels that, as a new member of this Parliament, he cannot get the necessary advice from honorable members on his side of the House who have been members longer, he can get help from me. So I say to the honorable member: Do not hesitate to seek my help. But do not cast aspersions on my sincerity. If the honorable member challenges my sincerity, I am quick to protest, because my sincerity has never been challenged. And it will not be challenged successfully now. I do not think that I can make a fairer offer than that, **Mr. Speaker.** All I ask is for a test of sincerity between the honorable member and myself. I accept his challenge to my sincerity by offering to help him. Was he sincere in asking for my assistance? The answer will be revealed by his acceptance or rejection of my help. {: #debate-39-s5 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie .- I think it was very kind of the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** to offer to come to my electorate and give assistance. I wonder whether any honorable member could be blamed for refusing to accept such an offer, unless, of course, the honorable member wanted to commit political suicide. I could not think of anything worse, if he wanted to remain in office, than to ask the honorable member for Mallee to come along and assist. I want to raise a matter that is rather serious and one to which I hope the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** will give some favorable consideration when he is deliberating on the provisions of the next Budget. As I have said previously in this House, it is necessary for many reasons, which I do not have time to expound to-night, that this Parliament should do everything reasonably possible to ensure that the gold-mining industry of Australia, and particularly of Western Australia, will not gradually taper off and eventually disappear. I suggest, **Sir, that** we would to a very large extent lose the value of our object in Western Australia if, in pursuing a purpose of development and increased population in the Kimberley area, we at the same time allowed areas such as Pilbara, Murchison and Eastern Goldfields to gradually decline and eventually become huge areas with practically no activity or population. Unfortunately, that can quite easily become a reality if something is not done quickly to ensure that some new mines are discovered to take the place of those mines operating at present, which must gradually fade away because of the exhaustion of ore bodies. I think everybody will agree that it would be a tragedy if that were allowed to happen. This Parliament could go a long way towards preventing such a happening. In fact, it would not only prevent a falling-off of the mining industry, but would cause an increase in activity, if it were to support financially a scheme whereby companies, syndicates or groups of prospectors would be encouraged to carry out operations in areas which have never been properly explored or prospected, or areas which have been prospected fairly thoroughly on the surface but never examined at any depth for payable ore. I am fully appreciative of the GoldMining Industry Assistance Act, which provides a subsidy to a certain section of the gold-mining industry - that section comprised of what are known as marginal mines. I am also appreciative of the development allowance that was granted last year to another section of the mining industry, and there is no doubt that it will assist the industry. However, I want to point out that assistance provided under those acts will not give an impetus to the finding of new fields. I would like to point out also that to-morrow the Western Mining Company, in the Yilgarra area, will be ceasing operations and, as a result, about 200 men will be looking for work elsewhere. As a further result of that closure, the total subsidy payable under the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act will be reduced by about £200,000. Similarly, as the result of the Coolgardie mine closing down - as appears imminent - and the closure of Wattle Valley, the total subsidy payable will be reduced by a further £40,000. As a result of those closures, on present indications the total amount of subsidy to be paid out next year will be about £400,000, as against £700,000 when the act was first introduced. To return to my proposition, I want to point out that, as a result of the present costs involved in prospecting and the fact that the time has now passed when there was much chance of finding good surface shows, it is most unlikely that any new mines of a size capable of employing many men will be found by normal prospecting methods. The stage has now been reached when it has become necessary to probe the possibilities of worth-while ore bodies at depth, by way of either diamond drilling or sinking, or by other means which need full determination and a thorough exploration of all surface indications. To carry this method to its proper conclusion a lot of finance is required before any return can be expected. The expense involved rules out the ordinary prospector or the person who can back a prospector in a small scheme. This is where the Government could play a worth-while part in bringing about an extension of mining activities which would result, I am sure, in new finds, and thus in increased employment and population in the mining areas. I suggest that the Government could do this by providing finance to the extent of £200,000 or £250,000, at the very most, for each of three successive years, so that syndicates, companies or even individuals who could put up a sufficient amount could be assisted, on a £l-for-£l basis or some other basis, in exploration or opening-up works which could bring results that would alter the whole picture of the gold-mining industry. This is not possible without some assistance from the Government. I point out that this scheme would not necessarily involve the Government in finding £200,000 or £250,000 each year. The scheme could provide that if the assisted party, as a result of assistance received under the scheme, were successful in finding or opening up mines which could be operated at a profit, the amount of the assistance provided should be paid back. This would mean that quite a lot of the money paid out by way of assistance would come back to the Treasury or would continue in circulation to assist other groups of people or mining companies for the same purpose. The scheme in Western Australia could be administered by the Western Australian Mines Department, which has many officers with unsurpassed mining knowledge who would be quite competent to determine whether a certain party or a certain area warranted consideration and assistance. Unfortunately, I have not the time to point out all the advantages of this scheme, but I am sure that all honorable members - even though some may not have very much knowledge of the gold-mining industry - will appreciate how a scheme such as this could help an industry. The amount of money required to be expended would not be very much in proportion to the benefits that would be returned to this country, to the industry and to the people engaged in it. There would not be any chance of any company or group of people working what might be described colloquially as a " rort ", because the officers of the Mines Department could be given authority to examine the areas and decide whether the work was being properly carried out or whether the money advanced was being wasted. Further, as the companies or groups being assisted would contribute on a f l-for-£l basis, they would have an interest in protecting their equity. For this reason, there is not much likelihood of a method arising whereby the scheme could be " rorted ". I suggest, **Sir, that** the scheme is well worth consideration and could result in giving the gold-mining industry a distinct lift. I can assure the Treasurer that the Chamber of Mines in Kalgoorlie would be only too pleased to assist in any way it could in implementing this scheme. I sincerely trust that the Treasurer will give the matter his favorable consideration when considering the Budget. {: #debate-39-s6 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP -- Earlier to-night the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** gave the House some Alleged facts about the use of a Commonwealth car in Queensland. Needless to say, this, was the first time that I had any knowledge or information about this matter. All I can say at this stage is that there was no authorization by myself or my colleague, the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Fairhall)** - who controls the Commonwealth cars in the City of Brisbane - for the car to be used for the purpose for which it is alleged to have been used. I have already set inquiries in train to try to ascertain the truth of this matter. {: #debate-39-s7 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN:
Reid .- I want to answer some of the remarks that have been passed by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** recently about foreign investment in this country. We know that the Government has had difficulty in controlling the economy, particularly in safeguarding its balance-of-payments position. From 1st July, 1950, until the end of the last financial year Australia had a trading deficit of £1,600,000,000. For the first six months of the current year the deficit amounted to a further £150,000,000, making a total deficit since the Government took office of £1,750,000,000. That debt must be met in some way. It has been paid in part by reducing our overseas reserves and by government borrowing overseas, but the bulk of it has been met by permitting an inflow of new capital into this country from overseas. The Government does not care what type of capital is involved as long as it is able to close the gap between imports and exports. The Government does not care whether it sells Australia body and soul. It does not care whether it sells our heritage. The Government has clearly shown that it is incapable of planning to overcome our balance-of-payments problem. We know that large amounts of foreign capital have come into this country since this Government took office. In fact, in that time £601,000,000 of new capital has come from Britain and £199,000,000 from the United States of America. Between 85 per cent, and 90 per cent, of all new capital entering Australia comes from the United States of America and Britain. Those countries have very favorable taxation agreements with Australia. I readily concede that the Chifley Government entered into a double taxation agreement with Britain in 1946. At that time the Labour Party - in fact all Australians - believed that such an agreement was necessary as also was the encouragement of foreign investment to bring about a state of full employment in the post-war years. But had Labour remained in office it would have revised that policy long ago. The people of Australia should know that British companies pay no income tax whatever on profits earned in Australia. British private investors until 1958 used to pay tax at half the rate applying to Australians, but in 1958 this Government reduced the rate to 15 per cent, of the Australian rate, or 3s. in the £1. We know that this Government entered into a double taxation agreement with the American Government in 1953. Whereas formerly American investors paid income tax at the rate of 7s. in the £1, as a result of that agreement they paid only 3s. in the £1. That rate applied to private investors and public investors alike. The Government thought that its policy would encourage the investment of more American capital. Since this agreement has been in -force £145,000,000 of new capital has flowed into this country from the United States of America. During that time £120,000,000 has been remitted back to the United States from Australia as dividends. Our net gain, on paper, has been £25,000,000 but as a result of the double taxation agreement the American investors in that time saved about £29,000,000 that they otherwise would have paid in tax. So the truth is that the amount of new capital coming into the country from the United States on the one hand and the outflow of dividends and savings in tax on the other enabled us just about to break even because we received £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 in taxation savings on our investments in the United States. All in all we just about broke even. British investors have saved about £100,000,000 as a result of the double taxation agreement. This higher saving in the case of British investors is brought about by the fact that they have sent more money into this country- about £600,000,000. We in the Labour Party are aware that in this affluent society you cannot readily turn off the tap of foreign investment. We have always said that if we cannot obtain capital equipment and technical know-how from our trading earnings we must do something about controlled foreign investment. But if we do not control foreign investment we will sell our life blood. I remind the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Nixon),** who is interjecting, that even the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen),** in addressing the Victorian branch of the Australian Country Party, said that we were selling our heritage and our life-blood. The honorable member for Gippsland supports this Government, but he is not doing anything about this matter. The Treasurer has referred to portfolio investment. **Mr. Chifley** used to call that hot money. Portfolio- investment is speculative investment. It does not bring in any goods. It is speculative money seeking a ready return. In the first year of office the Menzies Administration portfolio investment in Australia amounted to £1,600,000, or 4 per cent, of all new capital coming into the country. In 1960-61 portfolio investment amounted to £47,900,000 or 29.5 per cent, of all new capital. Last year there was a reduction in the amount of overseas capital coming into this country. Of that amount only £36,000,000 was portfolio investment, but that amount represented 36.7 per cent, of all foreign investments. This hot money comes into this country under the same conditions as foreign investments that provide industries, equipment and technical know-how. This situation exists because there has been no planning on the part of the Government. In the first year of office of the Menzies Administration profits remitted overseas on foreign investment amounted to about £14,000,000, but last year they amounted to about £56,000,000 - an increase of 400 per cent. The amount is snowballing every day. In the public sector, the interest payment to overseas bond holders increased from £19,000,000 in 1950 to £32,000,000 in 1962 - an increase of 68 per cent. We pay an interest rate of 4i per cent, or 5 per cent. on some of the money that we borrow for public authorities but General MotorsHolden's Proprietary Limited - this is not fantasy - returns a dividend of as much as 427 per cent. on investments. Surely we can benefit from the experience of other countries in this respect. In an article in the "Sydney Morning Herald" of 20th May last, **Mr. Walter** Lippman - a very well-informed writer and an authority on world affairs - points out that from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of certain Canadian industries are controlled by the United States and that in respect of certain key industries American control is as high as 90 per cent. Surely we can learn from Canada's experience. We must protect our heritage. I challenge the Government to exercise some control over foreign investment. Let us have some planning about this matter. Let us insist that foreign capital shall be allowed into this country only under certain conditions. But if it is hot money, let us get tough with it and review the conditions. Let us determine what foreign investment we need and what we do not need - what it is to be used for and what it is not to be used for. Do not let somebody else determine what we should do. If we can do it with Australian workmen and material, why should we need overseas investment? Why do we need to sell our heritage? Yet this Government has no answer to the problems involved. These are the questions I want the Treasurer to answer-- {: #debate-39-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. Motion (by **Mr. Freeth)** put - That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Sir John McLeay.) AYES: 55 NOES: 51 Majority .. .. 4 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 9.56 p.m., to a date and hour to be fixed by **Mr. Speaker.** {: .page-start } page 1815 {:#debate-40} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-40-0} #### Decimal Currency {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >Does the Government intend to call the proposed decimal coinage unit an " Ansett "? {: #subdebate-40-0-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The answer lies in the well-known reply of Eliza Doolittle. {:#subdebate-40-1} #### Commonwealth Railways Act {: #subdebate-40-1-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does a provision in the Commonwealth Railways Act, which dates back to 1917, limit the amount of damages which may be awarded for personal injuries received in accidents on Commonwealth Railway property to an amount of £2,000? 1. Has his attention been drawn to statements made by **Mr. Justice** Joske in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 10th September last in approving an agreement to pay the maximum amount to Robert Wilkie, aged twelve years, who had his leg amputated after it was caught in a turntable at Canberra railway yards, that whilst many Australian governments had abandoned statutory limits on the amount of damages, the Commonwealth of Australia retained such a provision and did not seem to regard amendment of the law as a matter of urgency, and that it was a shocking thing that a government should continue to rely on this type of provision? 2. Was the Minister asked by the solicitor appearing for this young boy agree to pay an increased amount as an act of grace? 3. Was it also suggested to him that the act should be amended to provide for the removal of the limit on damages which may be awarded in such cases? 4. Did he reject both requests; if so, why? {: #subdebate-40-1-s1 .speaker-KMB} ##### Mr OPPERMAN:
CORIO, VICTORIA · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. Early in 1962 I refused a request by the solicitors representing thislad for an ex gratia payment. At that time the Commonwealth's legal advisers were of the opinion that the Commonwealth should not admit liability. Subsequently, as a result of further consideration, the Commonwealth did in fact admit liability when the case came before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for approval of a settlement of the action, under which the maximum payable under the act, £2,000, was paid. I then advised the solicitors that the question of an ex gratia payment would be fully reconsidered in the light of further representations they had made, and of all the attendant circumstances. The matter has now been investigated by my department and the other departments concerned, and it has been decided to make an ex gratia payment of an additional £3,000, in addition to the £2,000 already paid. I have also advised the solicitors that the whole of the Commonwealth Railways Act 1917-1960 is under review, including section 81, which deals with damages or compensation for personal injury. At no time did I tell them that I had rejected their proposals that this section be amended. {:#subdebate-40-2} #### Taxation {: #subdebate-40-2-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What total amounts of educational and medical expenses are allowed as concessional deductions to taxpayers whose incomes are within the following grades:- £105 to £899; £900 to £1,999; £2,000 to £3,999; £4,000 and over? 1. What amounts of education expenses per child and medical expenses per taxpayer are allowed as concessional deductions to taxpayers whose incomes are within the same grades? {: #subdebate-40-2-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Statistics of education expenses and medical expenses allowed as concessional deductions are not tabulated for every year of income. The latest year' for which statistics of education expenses are available is the 1959-60 income year while the latest year for which statistics of medical expenses are available is the 1958-59 income year. The total amounts of education and medical expenses allowed as concessional deductions for the 1959-60 and 1958-59 income years respectively are set out below. The statistics relate to individual taxpayers, resident in Australia, who were liable to pay tax in respect of income earned in the year shown. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The average amounts of education expenses per child and medical expenses per taxpayer allowed as concessional deductions in the 1959-60 and 1958-59 income years respectively were: - {: #subdebate-40-2-s2 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the value to a taxpayer arising from concessional deductions from taxable income of (a) a spouse, &c, (b) a child and (c) each £10 of educational and medical expenses where the taxpayer's income per annum comes within the following grades:- £400-£500; £700-£800; £900- £1,000; £1,200-£1,400; £1,600-£1,800; £2,800- £3,200; £4,400-£5,000; £10,000-£16,000; £16,000 and over? 1. What would be the value to a taxpayer arising from concessional deductions granted for travelling expenses of each £10 of these expenses where the taxpayer's income per annum comes within the same grades? {: #subdebate-40-2-s3 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The value to a taxpayer of concessional deductions for (a) a spouse, &c, (b) a child and (c) each £10 of education and medical expenses varies according to the level of income before allowance of these deductions. Therefore, no single amount can be assigned to the value of these concessional deductions for any of the grades of income in question. The following table shows the value to a taxpayer of the specified concessional deductions where the income of the taxpayer is, before the allowance of any of these deductions, equal to an amount shown in column 1. The amounts shown in column 1 are the lower and upper limits of the grades of income specified in the honorable member's question: - Note. - The value to a taxpayer of each subsequent £10 of concessional deductions for education or medical expenses would be approximately equal to or less than tha value of the first £10. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If concessional deductions were granted in respect of travelling expenses the value to a tax payer of each £10 of such expenses would vary according to the level of income and the number of dependants maintained. The following table shows for various classes of taxpayers with specified amounts of income the value of a concessional deduction of £10 for travelling expenses. The value of each subsequent £10 of travelling expenses would be approximately equal to or less than the amount shown in the table. {: #subdebate-40-2-s4 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - What items relating to rural holdings may be claimed as allowable taxation deductions by owners of properties engaged in primary industry? {: .page-start } page 1817 {:#debate-41} ### VALUE TO A TAXPAYER OF A CONCESSIONAL DEDUCTION FOR THE FIRST £10 OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES {: #debate-41-s0 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - In addition to the ordinary revenue outgoings that may be claimed as deductions by all taxpayers when carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income, a person engaged in primary production on a rural holding is entitled to claim deductions for capital expenditure incurred in the year of income when expended for the following purposes: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the eradication or extermination of animal or vegetable pests from the land; 1. the destruction and removal of timber, scrub or undergrowth indigenous to the land; 2. the destruction of weed or plant growth detrimental to the land; 3. the preparation of the land for agriculture; 4. ploughing and grassing the land for grazing purposes; 5. the draining of swamp or low-lying lands where that operation improves the grazing value of the land; 6. preventing or combating soil erosion on the land otherwise than by the erection of fences; 7. the construction of dams, earth tanks, underground tanks, irrigation channels or similar structural improvements, or the sinking of bores or wells for the purpose of conserving or conveying water for use in carrying on primary production on the land; 8. the construction on the land of levee banks or similar improvements having like uses; 9. the purchase of underground pipes, and cost of placing those pipes underground, for the purpose of conveying water for use in carrying on primary production. A primary producer carrying on business on land in a district subject to the ravages of animal pests is also entitled to a deduction for the cost of purchasing and placing in position wire or wire-netting to prevent the entry of animal pests upon the land used by him in the production of assessable income. In lieu of depreciation at normal rates on plant and machinery owned and used by him in his business, a primary producer is allowed depreciation on his current purchases of equipment at the special rate. of 20 per cent. per annum. The special rate of depreciation applies also to structural improvements such as sheds, barns and fences as well as to accommodation provided for employees, tenants and share-farmers on land used for the purpose of agricultural or pastoral pursuits. In the case of this accommodation, the maximum value covered by the special depreciation rate is £3,250 for each family group or employee housed. The balance of any cost of the accommodation over £3,250 is depreciable at the normal rate. For the honorable member's further information, I would like to draw his attention to a booklet entitled "Income Tax for Farmers and Graziers", issued under joint authority of my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, and myself. This booklet, which is issued free of charge by the Commissioner of Taxation, is designed to assist primary producers to an understanding of income tax matters, particularly as they relate to that industry. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Immigration {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-JP5} ##### Mr Benson:
BATMAN, VICTORIA n asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to an article on immigration appearing in the March issue of the English magazine " Wide World " which states that there is plenty of work in Australia and that new arrivals in Australia, if they do not like their jobs, can change readily from one to another? 1. If not, will he read this article? 2. In view of the 96,800 registered unemployed in Australia, will be cause a correction to be inserted in this magazine? {: #subdebate-41-0-s1 .speaker-KCK} ##### Mr Downer:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1, 2 and 3. The article referred to, which appeared in the February issue of the magazine, is an informative and straightforward account of British migrants in Australia, based upon actual cases. No revision appears to be called for. Housing at Royal Austraiian Air Force Bases. {: #subdebate-41-0-s2 .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES s asked the Minister for Works, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many dwellings were transported from Rathmines Air Base to the Williamtown Royal - Australian Air Force Base prior to the disposal of the Rathmines Base to the local shire? 1. What was the initial individual cost of these dwellings? 2. What was the cost, including the cost .of defence labour, if used, of removal, transport and re-erection of these dwellings at Williamtown? 3. How many years is k since these dwellings were erected at Rathmines? {: #subdebate-41-0-s3 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1, 2 and 3. See answer given on 2nd May, 1963, to a question in almost identical terms by the honorable member for Shortland. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Eleven years. {:#subdebate-41-1} #### Australian Forces Overseas {: #subdebate-41-1-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice - >What casualties resulting from (a) enemy action and (b) any other cause have been suffered by Australian forces serving overseas since the termination of the Korean War? {: #subdebate-41-1-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP -- The Acting Minister for Defence has supplied the following information: - >Casualties from - {:#subdebate-41-2} #### Export of Firearms {: #subdebate-41-2-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can firearms be exported from Australia only with the approval of the Department of Customs and Excise? 1. Is there an obligation upon the department to ensure that approval is given only where firearms are consigned to approved destinations? 2. Was approval given to the export to Canada of 82,344 .303 rifles purchased from the Commonwealth Government as being surplus to service requirements? 3. Is there any basis for an allegation that these rifles were shipped to a Canadian port, but never left the wharf, being trans-shipped instead to a destination in South-East Asia? 4. If the Minister has no knowledge of such an occurrence, will he have the allegation investigated, and if found to have substance, will he take steps to see that there is no repetition of this avoidance of Australian requirements in respect of the export of firearms? {: #subdebate-41-2-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answers to the honorable member's questions: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. The allegation was investigated and was found to have no substance. 4. See 4 above. {:#subdebate-41-3} #### Army Quartermaster Commissions {: #subdebate-41-3-s0 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: t asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On what basis are Quartermaster commissions granted in the Army? 1. Is it a fact that the present policy with respect to numbers was laid down in 1950? 2. If so, should the numbers be increased to meet present-day requirements? 3. How many Warrant Officers Class I. have been accepted as qualified for Quartermaster commissions and await appointment to commissioned rank? 4. How long will it be before these officers receive their appointments? 5. Is there currently a shortage of officers in the Army necessitating the recruitment of officers overseas and the retention of some beyond the retiring age? 6. If so, would it not be more desirable to promote serving qualified Warrant Officers? 7. Are any of the qualified Warrant Officers fulfilling officer appointments? 8. Will he take steps to accelerate the promotion of qualified Warrant Officers to Quartermaster commissions? {: #subdebate-41-3-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
Minister for the Army · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Quartermaster commissions are awarded to Warrant Officers Class I- of the Australian Regular Army who are medically fit and have satisfied an Army selection board as to then- suitability. A Warrant Officer Class I. requires no specific professional technical or academic qualifications to be eligible for appointment to a Quartermaster commission. He is accepted as qualified when he has been recommended by a selection board and has reached the correct seniority for appointment. An amalgamated seniority list of all Warrant Officers Class I. of the Australian Regular Army is maintained and selection is made from this list as vacancies occur, with due regard for seniority. 1. Yes. 2. No. Because of changes in the structure of the Army the requirement for Quartermaster Commissioned Officers is less tq-day than it was thirteen years ago. 3. One Warrant Officer Class I., only, who has been selected as suitable, awaits appointment. 4. This Warrant Officer will be appointed to a Quartermaster commission as soon as he is medically fit. 5. Yes. 6. No. The present average age of Warrant Officers under consideration for appointment to Quartermaster commissions is 46 which is only one year below the age at which Officers of the Staff Corps of the rank of Lieutenant, Captain and **Major are** retired. A very small number of officers whose services are retained for a short period beyond the age for their retirement continue to serve in appointments which are not suitable for Quartermasters. 7. As indicated in answer to 4, one Warrant Officer Class I. only is currently accepted as suitable for promotion. 8. There is no delay in the appointment of accepted Warrant Officers Class I. to commissioned rank to fill vacancies hi the Quartermaster establishment. {:#subdebate-41-4} #### Pacific Islands Regiment {: #subdebate-41-4-s0 .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the specific functions of the Pacific Islands Regiment? 1. How many officers ate Papuans? 2. Has consideration been given to raising the Pacific Islands Regiment to brigade strength? 3. What rates of superannuation or pension are paid to members of the Pacific Islands Regiment, and what qualifying years of service are necessary? {: #subdebate-41-4-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The roles of the Pacific Islands Regiment are - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. In peace - (i) Maintain forces in selected areas and, in conjunction with the Papua/New Guinea Administration, patrol to gain knowledge of topography and tribes, particularly in the border area, (ii) Provide a basis on which additional units can be formed, (iii) Provide a medium for the study of the technique of tropical warfare, (iv) Support the civil administration if required in maintaining law and order. 1. In war - (i) Provide patrols and medium range reconnaissance, (ii) Be capable) of fighting as a unit, (iii) Provide garrisons for local defence as required, (iv) Provide guides, advisers and reconnaissance detachments for such mainland units as may be sent to New Guinea. 1. No serving officers are Papuans. However, two Pacific Islanders are at present undergoing training at the Officer Cadet School, Portsea. These cadets are expected to graduate in December, 1963, as Second Lieutenants in the Australian Regular Army. 2. The honorable member will be aware of the statement on defence made by the right honorable the Prime Minister on 22nd May in the course of which he announced that the present strength of the Pacific Islands Regiment would be doubled as soon as possible and that further developments would then be considered. 3. Currently there are no provisions for the payment of any superannuation or pension benefits to Pacific Islands members of the Pacific Islands Regiment. Consideration is at present being given to the introduction of a retirement benefits scheme providing for benefits to be payable on retirement after a specified period of qualifying service. {:#subdebate-41-5} #### Accident to Army Helicopter {: #subdebate-41-5-s0 .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - >What was the cause of the crash in December last in Irian Barat near Piramapeon of a helicopter from the 16th Army Light Aircraft Squadron? {: #subdebate-41-5-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The accident occurred whilst a landing was being executed under difficult conditions. A court of enquiry was convened but it has not been possible to establish the exact cause of the accident. Australian Regular Army._ **"Sir" Wilfrid** Kent Hughes asked " the Minister for the Army, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the reason for sending Australian Regular Army experts in jungle training to South Viet Nam to replace the teams stationed at Hue and Hiepkhanh (vide his press release of 27th March, 1963) when the Government directive prohibits these experts from going into the jungle and therefore restricts their operations to basic training and some advanced training of civil guards? 1. If this directive is considered to be wise, is it necessary to send experts in jungle warfare and to continue the period of duty for as long as twelve and even eighteen months? 2. Are these troops on the same basis of service as applied to the Australian troops in Malaya during the emergency in that country; if not, why not? 4.. Have any of the troops in South Viet Nam been involved in ambushes within one mile of their camp head-quarters? {: #subdebate-41-5-s2 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP r. - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Australian Army training team of 30 selected soldiers was sent at the invitation of the Government of the Republic of Viet Nam to assist n the training of Vietnamese ground forces in ungle fighting and village defence. The team, together with the American advisors, are not con.ducting the training, but are guiding the efforts of he Vietnamese instructional personnel by assist.ance with programme preparation, supervision of junior instructors, tactical advice and constructive criticism. Training throughout all military training establishments in South Viet Nam provides for troop training in cycles which progress from basic training through to company and battalion training. The Australian instructors participate in all levels >f 'training and some 20,000 Vietnamese troops have already passed through the establishments at /bich the team is represented. By arrangement with the Vietnamese and United States authorities, members of the team have been allocated to raining establishments where their experience can >est be employed. As the officers and N.C.O.s if the team are carefully selected jungle warfare experts and because .they have been allotted to raining establishments where they are of the greatest value, the team has been able to make i significant contribution to the operational affectiveness of the Vietnamese ground forces. The directive to the commander of the team does not prohibit members of the team from going into the jungle. 1. The tenure of duty for married members is less than twelve months and for single members s twelve to eighteen months. In view of the time required for instructors to become acclimatized to the local conditions and to become fully conversant with the weapons, doctrines and techniques employed by the Vietnamese ground forces, these periods of duty are considered to be the minimum. 2. When the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 and associated acts (such as the War Service Homes Act 1962) are proclaimed, members serving in Viet Nam will receive identical benefits of this nature to soldiers serving in the operational area in Malaya. Approval in principle has been given by the Government for income tax concessions for service in Viet Nam on the same basis as for Malaya. 3. On the night of 30th August, 1962, a company of Vietnamese infantry were ambushed by the Viet Cong while returning from night tactical training. An Australian officer had been with this company but had departed from the training area a few minutes before the incident occurred. As the role of the team is simply to assist in training the Vietnamese forces, the participation of members of the team in operations is undesirable and would be to the detriment of the team's primary function. {:#subdebate-41-6} #### Training of Thai Army Cadets {: #subdebate-41-6-s0 .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Thai Government requested permission to send two cadets for training at the Royal Military College, Duntroon? 1. If so, what was the reply? {: #subdebate-41-6-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - >No. However, several years ago, tentative inquiries were received as to the possibility of a Thai attending the Royal Military College. This was net practicable for various reasons, including the length and nature of the course, which rendered it unsuitable. Vacancies were, however, offered at the more appropriate Officer Cadet School and the Thai Government accepted this offer. {:#subdebate-41-7} #### Civil Aviation {: #subdebate-41-7-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has Trans-Australia Airlines ever sought the approval of the States to operate intra-state services within the respective State areas? 1. If so, in what instances was approval granted? 2. Where permission was refused, what reason was advanced for the State's decision? {: #subdebate-41-7-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following information: - >In answering these questions I should first explain that before Trans-Australia Airlines can operate intra-state services in a particular State, that State must first refer to the Commonwealth Parliament the matter of air transport (either in qualified or unqualified terms) and this Parliament must, in pursuance of such reference, amend the Airlines Act so as to authorize the commission to conduct intra-state services in that State. The commission has, from time to time, engaged in discussions with the appropriate authorities in all States on this subject. To date, Queensland and Tasmania have referred the necessary power and in both cases the Commonwealth, for its part, has enacted the necessary complementary legislation enabling the commission to operate intra-state services in those States. There is, of course, nothing which impedes other State governments taking similar action to that taken by Queensland and Tasmania. Also, if the existing operators in a particular State are unwilling or unable to provide adequate and satisfactory services, or if the volume of traffic on intra-state routes would sustain competitive services without subsidy, the Federal Government would be prepared to seek State co-operation to enable the commission to operate intra-state services in (hat State. This has always been the position and continues to be so. {:#subdebate-41-8} #### Defence {: #subdebate-41-8-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What has been the total amount expended by the Commonwealth for defence purposes from and including the year 1949-50? 1. Of this amount how much was spent on {: type="a" start="a"} 0. defence establishments, including maintenance, 1. equipment, (c) pay of service personnel, (d) supplies and (e) miscellaneous items? {: #subdebate-41-8-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP l. - The Acting Minister for Defence has supplied the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. An amount of £2,374,582,000 has been spent from the Defence Vote from and including the year 1949-50 up to 31st March, 1963. 1. The amount of £2,374,582,000 covers the following major categories, in accordance with the Defence Statistics circulated to Parliament annually by the Minister for Defence for debates on the Defence Estimates: - (i) Salaries, pay and allowances- -£922,419,000 comprising £650,789,000 for members of the Defence Forces and £271,630,000 for civilians, (ii) General expenses and maintenance services - £502,052,000. (iii) Maintenance equipment and stores - £285,442,000. (iv) Capital material requirements, machinery and plant- £468,111,000. (v) Buildings, works, acquisition of sites, &c- £196,558,000. {:#subdebate-41-9} #### Almonds {: #subdebate-41-9-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he state (a) what quantity of almonds has been grown in Australia during each of the last five years, (b) where these almonds were grown and (c) what quantity of almonds has been imported into Australia during each of the same years? 1. Is it a fact that large quantities of almonds are being imported from the United States of America at 7s. 2d. per lb.? 2. Does this price considerably undercut production costs in Australia? 3. If imports continue at this price, are they likely to endanger or destroy almond production in Australia? 4. Has he been requested to consider some protection for almond production in Australia; if not, will he now do so? {: #subdebate-41-9-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Acting Minister for Trade has provided the following answers: - 1 (a) and (b). Almond production, as recorded by the Commonwealth Statistician, in the three years 1957-58 to 1959-60 is set out below. Statistics for later years are not available. , {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Imports of almonds; kernels, pastes and meals cleared for home consumption in each of the last live years, are as follows: - 000 pounds weight. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The simple monthly average f.o.b. prices of kernels imported from United States of America in the first nine months of 1962-63 ranged from 7s. 61/2d. to 7s.11d. per lb. The landed prices of these imports were greater than the prices shown because of ocean freight, insurance and into store charges. 3 and 4. Imports are mainly of kernels for uses other than the manufacture of marzipan and these imports are dutiable at the rates of5s. 21/2d. per lb. under the British preferential tariff and5s. 6d. per lb. under the most-favoured-nation tariff, subject, in both cases, to a reduction by an amount of 75 per cent. or the f.o.b. value. The effect of this sliding scale tariff, determined on the recommendation of the Tariff Board after an inquiry in 1958, is that almond kernels are free of duty when the f.o.b. price is 7s. 4d. per lb. or more. The Tariff Board, in reaching this recommendation, took into account the need of an average selling price of 8s. 8d. per lb. for local almond kernels to enable the Australian industry to compete with imports. 1. No. Any application by the industry for an inquiry into its protective needs against import competition will be promptly considered, but the initiative in the matter lies with the industry which must be prepared to show that it has a prima facie case for such an inquiry based on changed conditions since the last Tariff Board inquiry. {:#subdebate-41-10} #### Department of Supply {: #subdebate-41-10-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: d asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What expenditure has been incurred by his department in each of the last three completed financial years? 1. What was the total expenditure in each State during this period? {: #subdebate-41-10-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Department of Supply incurred expenditure against appropriations and trust accounts in the following amounts in the last three financial years. This covers expenditure by the department from its own funds only and does not include purchases arranged by the Contract Board on behalf of other departments: - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The expenditure in each State by the Department of Supply from its own funds during this period was - {:#subdebate-41-11} #### Use of Royal Australian Air Force Aircraft {: #subdebate-41-11-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Air, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. For what purposes are aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force made available to persons other than service personnel? 1. Who exercises authority over the use of the aircraft for other than service purposes? 2. Are Ministers, including the Prime Minister, able to secure the use of these aircraft upon request without any questions being asked? 3. If not, has he or the authorizing officer to be satisfied, before approving the request, that the mission isone of an urgent nature and that commercial airline services are not readily available? 4. Is it the frequent practice of Ministers to use Air Force aircraft for transport purposes? 5. Have Ministers on some occasions been accompanied by members of their staff and families? 6. Will he have a statement prepared, covering each of the last three years and the expired portion of the current year, giving particulars of Air Force flights undertaken to transport other than service personnel and show the purpose of the journey in each instance? {: #subdebate-41-11-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 34 (ST) Squadron is a special transport squadron and its primary role is the carriage of V.I.P.'s, service or civilian. 1. Use of special transport aircraft of No. 34 Squadron is authorized by - (a) The GovernorGeneral for his own purposes, (b) the Prime Minister for his own purposes, and (c) the Minister for Air in all other cases. 2. With the exception of the Prime Minister the answer is, No! 3. As I have mentioned, the Minister for Air is the sole authority for the use of V.I.P. aircraft other than for the Governor-General and the Prime Minister. The honorable member may be assured that each request made to me is considered on its merits, its degree of urgency and the availability of aircraft. 4. The number of requests varies with the circumstances and the duties which the individual Ministers are required to perform. 5. It is possible that Ministers may be accompanied by their wives or members of their staff. As far as is known families of staff are not carried. Once a special transport aircraft has been allocated to a V.I.P. it is his prerogative to decide who will travel on the aircraft with him. 6. The preparation of such a statement would entail a considerable amount of work for my department. I have told the honorable member that V.I.P. aircraft are used by both service and civilian personnel on occasion on my authority. I can see no point in having a statement compiled which could only serve to confirm this. {:#subdebate-41-12} #### Commonwealth Railways {: #subdebate-41-12-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES y asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he received from **Mr. J.** Beale, M.L.A., Liberal Party member of the New South Wales Parliament, a number of uncomplimentary telegrams concerning the train known as the Ghan during delays caused by recent floods in the Northern Territory? 1. Was he equally uncomplimentary in his reply to **Mr. Beale?** 2. Will he make available to honorable members the full text of the messages exchanged? {: #subdebate-41-12-s1 .speaker-KMB} ##### Mr Opperman:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A number of telegrams were received from **Mr. Beale** expressing some criticism of various phases of Commonwealth Railways activities under the emergency flood conditions which prevailed and seeking information. 1. Replies were made clarifying the situation, which were acknowledged in appreciative terms. 2. As the matter was one which concerned an emergency no longer existing, no constructive purpose could be served by circulation of correspondence. {:#subdebate-41-13} #### Shipping and Shipbuilding Industries Overseas {: #subdebate-41-13-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Jones: s asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice - >What information has he with regard to subsidies, maintenance or taxation allowances, or other forms of assistance paid or allowed by other countries to assist their shipbuilding and shipping industries? {: #subdebate-41-13-s1 .speaker-KMB} ##### Mr Opperman:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >Many countries other than Australia provide some form of assistance to their shipping and shipbuilding industries, and the methods employed vary from investment allowances, financial concessions and subsidies to direct participation and protective legislation. According to the information available in my department, in the ten traditional maritime countries the following forms of Government assistance are provided: - > >United Kingdom. - Investment allowance of 40 per cent. in addition to normal depreciation. > >France. - An operating subsidy on " national interest" services. Accelerated depreciation valid until 1965. Payment of interest over 41/2 per cent. on ship construction loans. Statutory requirement that twothirds of crude oil imports must be in French ships. Reservation of certain trades to French ships. Shipbuilding subsidy of 15 to 20 per cent. to shipyards capable of international competition. > >West Germany. - Tax concessions on materials used in the construction of ships for export. Assistance to meet interest payments on some ship construction loans. Bank credits on shipbuilding orders from underdeveloped countries. Reservations on the coastal and certain export trades. > >Netherlands. - Previously existing accelerated depreciation and investment allowances brought into line with those for other industries. > >Greece. - Tax exemptions on ships up to seven years old transferred Greek registry. Reservation of coastal trade. > >Italy. - Operating subsidy on Government controlled lines. Government contribution of up to 31/2 per cent. of interest on ship construction loans. Shipbuilding subsidy on a tonnage basis. Scrapping subsidy on old ships for which replacements are ordered. > >Denmark. - Advance depreciation on new orders. > >Sweden. - Tax postponement on proceeds of ship sales set aside for replacement orders. Government guarantees of loans for small ships. Building guarantees. > >Japan. - Operating subsidies on certain export trades. Initial tax exemptions on export earnings. Special depreciation allowance of 10 per cent. in first year. Extended loans and payment of some interest differentials. Deferment of interest on loans granted to shipping organization mergers. > >United States of America.- Operating subsidies on essential overseas trades. Shipbuilding subsidies of up to55 per cent. Tax remissions on reserve funds for new ships. Mortgage guarantees. Low interest loans. Trade-in allowances on old ships to be replaced by new tonnage. Reservation of coastal trade. Reservation to United States flag of50 per cent. of government sponsored cargoes. > >A number of other nations have expanded their maritime activities by direct ownership, reservation of a proportion or the whole of their coastal and overseas trades to national flag vessels and by the provision of financial support to shipowners and shipbuilders. {:#subdebate-41-14} #### Armed Forces Training Colleges {: #subdebate-41-14-s0 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R Fraser:
ALP ser asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a condition of entry to the Royal Australian Naval College, the Royal Military College and the Royal Australian Air Force Academy that an applicant, to be eligible for selection, must be a natural-born or naturalized British subject? 1. In respect of entry to the Royal Australian Naval College, is it specifically a further requirement that the candidate must be "substantially of European descent "? 2. What is the reason for this additional requirement of eligibility? 3. Although this additional requirement is not publicized in booklets stating the conditions of entry to the Air Force Academy or to the Royal Military College, is it, in fact, applied to applicants to the academy and to the college? 4. Does the requirement, that to be eligible for entry to the Royal Australian Naval College an applicant must be substantially of European descent, mean that an Australian, substantially Chinese, because some of his ancestors came here during the gold rush, would be ineligible although he might be a natural leader, a brilliant student and of outstanding physical type? 5. Does this limitation mean that a boy whose parentage is substantially aboriginal is ineligible for entry no matter what outstanding qualifications he may possess? 6. Does it mean that the son of a naturalized Italian or a naturalized German who may have fought against Australia in a world war would be considered eligible while the Australian boy of substantially aboriginal or Chinese descent, whose father might have fought for Australia, would be ineligible? 7. Will he have the conditions of entry to the Royal Australian Naval College, the Royal Military College and the Royal Australian Air Force Academy examined and reviewed? 8. Will he then either state why the limitation referred to must be retained or take action to ensure that a candidate, otherwise qualified for entry, will not be denied opportunity for a naval, military or air force career because of the colour of his skin through Asian or aboriginal descent? {: #subdebate-41-14-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP -- The Acting Minister for Defence has supplied the following information: - >Conditions of entry to the Royal Australian Naval College, the Royal Military College and the Royal Australian Air Force Academy provide that an applicant should be a natural-born or naturalized British subject permanently resident in Australia. There is no requirement that candidates for the Royal Military College or the R.A.A.F. Academy should be substantially of European descent. In the case of the R.A.N. College, the Naval Board has for some time had a discretionary power to waive the condition that a candidate must be substantially of European descent and in practice such candidates are given every consideration. Formal action to amend the R.A.N. College Regulations to conform with established practice will be taken shortly. {:#subdebate-41-15} #### Customs Duties {: #subdebate-41-15-s0 .speaker-JYJ} ##### Mr Clay:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister seen any examples of trickery, deception and evasion by some importers to defeat the Tariff Board attempts to give protection to Australian manufacturers of fabrics fashioned from man-made fibres? 1. As it is obvious that subterfuge has been used to enable fabrics fashioned from man-made fibres to be imported under the title of embroidery, and it is clear that these fabrics are usable as shirtings, linings and dress materials, what steps does the Minister propose to take to prevent the calculated evasion of the higher duties imposed on the recommendation of the Tariff Board on fabrics fashioned from man-made fibres? {: #subdebate-41-15-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answers to the honorable member's questions: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes, I have seen samples of edge embroidered fabrics which I regard as evasion of customs duties. 1. The department is constantly on the look out for evasion of customs duties. Where it detects these breaches or they are brought to its attention full investigation follows and the duty evaded is required to be paid. If the situation warrants, court proceedings are also taken. {:#subdebate-41-16} #### Tobacco Advertising {: #subdebate-41-16-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Minister late last year advise the Australian Cancer Society to approach cigarette manufacturers with a view to securing action to limit the use of what the society described as glamour advertising? 1. Is the Minister able to say whether the approach by the Australian Cancer Society to the manufacturers met with any success; if so, what are the general terms of the agreement reached? {: #subdebate-41-16-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Late last year, at their request, I met representatives of the Australian Cancer Society with a view to discussing advertising by cigarette manufacturers. In the course of the discussions, the question arose as to whether the society should approach manufacturers in connexion with " glamour " advertising. I pointed out that the society was free, if it so desired, to approach the manufacturers. 1. It is not known whether an approach has been made to cigarette manufacturers by the Australian Cancer Society. Commonwealth-owned Cottages. {: #subdebate-41-16-s2 .speaker-KFG} ##### Mr Griffiths: s asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many cottages, exclusive of dwellings used for defence purposes, are owned by the Commonwealth Government? 1. In relation to these cottages - (a) How many are located in each of the States; (b) What are the names of the towns or cities in which they are located, and how many cottages are located in each; (c) What types (showing the number of bedrooms) are found in each locality; (d) What was the (i) purchase price, (ii) cost of erection and (iii) cost of ancillary services in each case; {: type="a" start="e"} 0. What is the Valuer-General's valuation of each type? 2. Has any municipal council or shire certified any of the cottages to be below local government standard? 3. Does the Commonwealth pay rates or make ex gratia payments to local government authorities; if so, what amount is paid to the Shire of Lake Macquarie each year? 4. How long is it since repair work or maintenance, including painting, has been carried out on cottages at Belmont North? 5. What has been the cost to tenants at Belmont North of repairs, painting and installation of other services during the years 1955 to 1962, inclusive? 6. What is the average rental of cottages in (a) Belmont North and (b) other parts of Australia? {: #subdebate-41-16-s3 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 3.Sofar as i am able to ascertain, no muni cipal council or shire has certified any of the Commonwealth-owned cottages to be below local government standard, but it is known that certain Nissen-type cottages and temporary cottages erected during World War II. are below the standard now acceptable to the local government authorities. In some cases, tenants purchasing these cottages from the Commonwealth are required to reconstruct them to approved plans within a specified period from the date of purchase. 4. (a) Yes. (b) £1,2930s. 8d. for the 1962 rating year. 2 (b), (c), (d) and (e), 5, 6 and 7. The information necessary to give a full reply to these parts of the honorable member's question is not readily obtainable and a considerable amount of work would have to be undertaken by officers of my own and other departments to assemble the information. I feel that the time and expense involved would not be warranted and I regret, therefore, that I must decline to answer these parts of the question. {:#subdebate-41-17} #### Medical Services Committee of Inquiry {: #subdebate-41-17-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the names of the members of the Medical Services Committee of Inquiry appointed in each State under the National Health Act? 1. What are the qualifications of each member of these committees? {: #subdebate-41-17-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - >The National Health Act provides that the Medical Services Committee of Inquiry established in each State shall consist of the Commonwealth Director of Health and four medical practitioners appointed by the Minister for Health from among medical practitioners nominated by the council of the branch of the Australian Medical Association in the State. Committees of inquiry have been appointed in each State in accordance with the provisions of the act. Each member of these committees is a legally qualified medical practitioner with wide experience. It is not the policy to publish lists of names of the members of the committees. However if the honorable member has a specific inquiry in regard to a committee I will be pleased to discuss the matter with him. {: #subdebate-41-17-s2 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many complaints have been made to the Medical Services Committee of Inquiry appointed in each State under the National Health Act since the commencement of the National Health Scheme? 1. What were the (a) types of complaints and (b) penalties imposed in each State? {: #subdebate-41-17-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Complaints are not made to Medical Services Committees of Inquiry. The functions of the Committees of Inquiry are to inquire into and report to the Minister for Health or the Director-General of Health on any matter referred to them by the Minister or the Director-General in respect of or arising out of the services or conduct of medical practitioners in connexion with: - (a) the supply of pharmaceutical benefits under Part VII. of the National Health Act; or (b) the provision of medical services to pensioners under Part IV. of the National Health Act. The number of cases referred to the committees since they were established in 1953 is not readily available. However, 34 cases were dealt with during the 12 months to 31st December, 1962. 2. (a) Matters referred to the committees for inquiry and report have mainly related to claims for medical services to pensioners to determine whether they were in excess of the number necessary for the adequate medical care of the patient and the irregular prescribing of pharmaceutical benefits. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The committees' reports on these matters have led to termination of the Pensioner Medical Service agreements with the doctors concerned in a small number of cases. Action taken in other cases has been in the form of reprimands, the disallowance of portion of claims, or repayment of the cost of benefits irregularly prescribed. The doctors' explanations have been acceptel in many cases. {: #subdebate-41-17-s4 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Medical Services Committee of Inquiry refused payment to some medical practitioners in New South Wales for what the committee considers to have been over-attendance on pensioners under the pensioner medical service. 1. If so, is the Minister prepared to give the details of each case during the past five years setting out (a) the amount of the claim and (b) the amount deducted? 2. Have any of the medical practitioners concerned taken legal action for the recovery of the amounts? {: #subdebate-41-17-s5 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP z. - The Minister for Health has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As a result of reports received from the Medical Services Committee of Inquiry for the State of New South Wales, the Pensioner Medical Service claims of a number of medical practitioners have been disallowed in part in respect of certain of their pensioner patients because it was considered that the medical services claimed were in excess of those necessary for the adequate medical care of the patients. 1. Figures are not readily available over such a long period. I have, however, figures for the cases dealt with during the twelve months to 31st December, 1962. These show that claims were disallowed in part in 34 cases. The total amount claimed by doctors in these cases was £128,512 of which a total of £43,588 was disallowed. 2. In two instances medical practitioners concerned have taken legal action as a result of the disallowance of part of their claims. 3. In one case the Supreme Court found in favour of the Commonwealth. In the second case the proceedings are at present awaiting hearing m (he Supreme Court. {:#subdebate-41-18} #### Pensioner Medical Service {: #subdebate-41-18-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - >What is the estimated cost of enrolling in the Pensioner Medical Service all those pensioners who are now deemed ineligible on the ground that they are unable to satisfy the means test introduced by this Government? {: #subdebate-41-18-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - >It is estimated that the additional cost to the National Welfare Fund for a full year would be about £1,400,000 if the Pensioner Medical Service was extended to cover those persons in receipt of age, invalid, widow and service pensions and their dependants, who have not been issued with Pensioner Medical Service entitlement cards. This cost relates to medical services under the Pensioner Medical Service, pensioner pharmaceutical benefits and the payment of 36s. a day to public hospitals for free public ward treatment of pensioners. {: #subdebate-41-18-s2 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many pensioners are entitled to medical treatment under the Pensioner Medical Service? 1. How many pensioners are ineligible for this treatment because of income in excess of £2 per week? 2. Of those ineligible, how many receive (a) a full pension and (b) a part pension? 3. Is interest on property (money in bank, investments, &c), although not taken into account in the merged means test, nevertheless taken into account in assessing income when determining eligibility for a pensioner medical entitlement card; if so, why? 4. As the cost of living has risen substantially since this restriction was introduced in 19SS, will the Minister give consideration to removing it or to extending the permissible income to a figure more in keeping with 1963 costs? {: #subdebate-41-18-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. At 31st December, 1962, there were 720,277 pensioners enrolled in the Pensioner Medical Service. 1. Pensioners not enrolled at this date totalled 96,060. As enrolment in the Pensioner Medical Service is voluntary, this figure includes those pensioners who, although eligible, have not chosen to enroll in the service as well as those not eligible for enrolment 2. This information is not available. 3. Yes. The means test for Penisoner Medical Service purposes was introduced by an amendment to the National Health Act in 1955. Persons granted pensions after 31st October, 1955, are eligible for enrolment in the Pensioner Medical Service unless their income from sources, other than their pension, would have rendered them ineligible under the income means test for pensions at the maximum rate under the provisions of the Social Services Consolidation Act 1947-1953 and the Repatriation Act 1920-1953 in force at 31st December, 1953. Under these acts income from property was taken into account in arriving at " income " for pension purposes. 4. The Government has this matter continuously under review, but it is not proposed to amend the existing means test at present. {: #subdebate-41-18-s4 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What has been the cost of the Pensioner Medical Service in each year since its commencement? 1. What would be the estimated cost of removing the means test and including all pensioners in the scheme? {: #subdebate-41-18-s5 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The cost of the Pensioner Medical Service for each financial year since its inception on 21st February, 1951, has been as follows: - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. It is estimated that the additional cost to the National Welfare Fund, if the Pensioner Medical Service was extended to cover those persons in receipt of age, invalid, widow and service pensions and their dependants who have not been issued with Pensioner Medical Service entitlement cards, would be about £1,400,000 for a full year. This cost relates to medical services under the Pensioner Medical Service, pensioner pharmaceutical benefits and the payment of 36s. a day to public hospitals for free public ward treatment of pensioners. {:#subdebate-41-19} #### Medical Benefits {: #subdebate-41-19-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - >What was the cost of the medical benefits scheme in each year since its introduction? {: #subdebate-41-19-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - >Benefits paid by the Commonwealth under the medical benefits scheme in each year since the introduction of the scheme were - {:#subdebate-41-20} #### Australian Territories {: #subdebate-41-20-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the (a) names and (b) dates of appointment of each of the administrators and their deputies of each of the Australian Territories? 1. What salaries and allowances are paid in each case? {: #subdebate-41-20-s1 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. The name, date of appointment and the salary and allowances of Administrators and Official Representatives in the Australian Territories are detailed hereunder. In the case of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island the senior government official is an " Official Representative" and not an "Administrator" as in the other Territories. There are no positions of deputy adminstrator in any of the Territories. Appointments of acting administrator or acting official representative as the case may be are made on each occasion as need arises. A fully furnished residence, domestic staff, light, power and water and motor-car are provided free of cost in all Territories. Northern Territory. - l.(a) Honorable Roger B. Nott, Administrator; (b) 1st April, 1961. 2. Salary - £4,725 per annum. Entertainment allowance- £1,000 per annum. Norfolk Island. - l.(a) Major-General R. H. Wordsworth, CB., C.B.E., Administrator; (b) 9th June, 1962. 2. Salary- £2,750 per annum. Entertainment allowance - £300 per annum. Papua and New Guinea. - l.(a) **Sir Donald** Cleland, C.B.E., 0.St.J., Administrator; (b) 23rd January, 1953. 2. Salary- £4,725 per annum. Entertainment allowance - £800 per annum. Nauru. - l.(a) R. S. Leydin, O.B.E., Administrator; (b) 1st May, 1962. 2. Salary- £3,275 per annum. ' Entertainment allowance £300 per annum. Cocos (Keeling) Islands.- 1. (a) C. I. Buffett M.B.E., Acting Official Representative; (b) 27th July, 1960. 2. Salary- £2,700 per annum. Entertainment allowance - £300 per annum. Christmas Island.- l.(a) J. W. Stokes, Official Representative; (b) 1st September, 1960. 2. Salary- £2,750 per annum. Entertainment allowance - £300 per annum. {:#subdebate-41-21} #### Civil Aviation {: #subdebate-41-21-s0 .speaker-KCB} ##### Mr Davies: s asked the Minister representing the .Minister, for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On what date did the passenger air subsidy granted by the Federal Government to AnsettA.N.A. in respect of air services to and from King Island commence? 1. What has' been the amount of this subsidy for each year "since its commencement? 2. On what basis is the subsidy calculated? {: #subdebate-41-21-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Subsidy for the air services to and from King Island was first granted to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in respect of the year ended 30th June, 1953. 1. In past years details of subsidy paid to individual companies has not been divulged because of the confidential nature of the information on which the subsidy is determined. However, the Minister for Civil Aviation has indicated in another place that he proposes to include in his report to Parliament for the year ending 30th June, 1963, details of subsidies paid to each operator. The King Island service has been combined with the Flinders Island service in assessing the subsidy required and it will not be possible, therefore, to state exactly what part of the subsidy paid is in respect of King Island services. 2. The amount of subsidy paid each year is calculated by deducting the estimated revenue to be earned on the service for that year from the estimated cost of operating an approved number of frequencies with approved aircraft (in this case DC3 aircraft) under efficient management. Similarly, revenue is calculated on the basis of actual traffic experience and an assessment of the traffic prospects for the year under investigation. {: #subdebate-41-21-s2 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many revenue passengers did MacRobertson Miller Airlines Limited, of Western Australia, transport during each of the last three years? 1. How many tons of freight, excluding air beef from Glenroy, did the airline carry over each of those years? 2. What was the revenue from (a) passenger traffic, and (b) freight traffic, excluding air beef from Glenroy, each year? 3. What was the profit or loss each year? 4. What was the amount of government subsidy paid each year? {: #subdebate-41-21-s3 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >1 I960, 54,937; 1961, 55,686; 1962, 66,855. > >1960, 2,288; 1961, 2,384; 1962, 2,585. > >The revenue from (a) passenger traffic, and (b) freight traffic is not set out in the airline's annual reports. This information is made available to my department so that submissions for subsidy grants from the Commonwealth may be examined. This information has always been regarded as confidential as between the airline and my department > >The consolidated net profit each year was- I960, £39,850; 1961, £56,531; 1962, £45,106. > >The amount of government subsidy is determined having regard to the level of revenue earned and the expenditure incurred each year in the operation of the airline. In past years this information has been regarded as confidential between the Government and the airline concerned and as such the details of subsidy have not been divulged. The Minister for Civil Aviation has now indicated in another place that he intends to include in his report to Parliament for the year ending 30th June, 1963, the amounts of subsidies paid to each operator. {:#subdebate-41-22} #### Poliomyelitis {: #subdebate-41-22-s0 .speaker-KFG} ##### Mr Griffiths: s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the incidence of poliomyelitis in Australia increasing or decreasing? 1. How many cases were reported in each State for the years ending 31st December, 1961 and 1962, and during 1963 to date? 2. What action has the Government taken to eliminate this dreaded disease? 3. Has any action been taken to compare the overall results in the use of (a) Salk injections and (b) Sabin oral vaccine, both in Australia and in all 2. other countries where both methods have been applied; if so, what is the result of the investigations? {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Is Sabin vaccine in short supply, or is it difficult to produce? 1. Can the vaccine be produced in Australia? 2. Does the vaccine have any adverse effect on persons using it? 3. If there is no adverse effect on the health of children and adults using the vaccine why does the Government not recommend its use? 4. Will the Minister provide a full and detailed statement of the Government's policy on the use of both Salk and Sabin vaccines? {: #subdebate-41-22-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The incidence of poliomyelitis is decreasing. The number of cases of poliomyelitis notified in 1951, the peak year, was 4,736. In 1956, when the mass immunization campaign began, there were 1,194. I invite the honorable member to compare these figures with those shown in answer to part 2 of this question. 3 to 9. Since July, 1956, a campaign for the mass immunization of the Australian population has been conducted by the Commonwealth with the co-operation of the States. The campaign has had most gratifying results, through the medium of Salk vaccine. This vaccine, which has long been proved perfectly safe and highly effective, is produced at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and subjected before distribution to the most rigorous tests for safety and potency. The vaccine is provided free of charge by the Commonwealth and is available for all persons, although I might add that since the campaign commenced the majority of the population has already availed itself of the opportunity to receive immunization. Very few cases of poliomyelitis have occurred among persons who nave had the full course of Salk injections, and even these cases are almost invariably far less severe than among persons who have not been vaccinated. Furthermore, protection commences with the first injection. Salk vaccine has been extremely efficacious in diminishing the incidence of poliomyelitis, and there is no reason to discontinue this form of immunization. Sabin vaccine has also proved to be a successful immunizing agent in a number of overseas countries, and the Commonwealth Government has given full consideration to its potentialities, particularly its value for emergency purposes. In recognition of its value as a supplementary agent, the Commonwealth Government last year authorized my department to import initially 1,000,000 doses of each of the three types of Sabin vaccine for emergency purposes and for pilot studies in the control of poliomyelitis in Australia. I might add that the National Health and Medical Research Council is of the view that Sabin oral vaccine should be used as a supplement to Salk vaccine in times of emergency. The council was of the opinion that Salk vaccine should continue to be used as the major method of immunization because of its outstanding success in Australia. {:#subdebate-41-23} #### Drugs {: #subdebate-41-23-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES son asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Minister able to say whether the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America was able to prevent in that country the wholesale occurrence of deformities in babies due to the drug thalidomide? 1. Is there any similar Commonwealth instrumentality which checks whether new drugs in use are really beneficial, are poisonous or have dangerous side effects? 2. If not, win the Government, in view of this grave deficiency as revealed in the distribution of thalidomide in Australia, consider setting up such a body to protect the Australian community? {: #subdebate-41-23-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Many cases of deformities in babies were doubtless prevented because the United States Food and Drug Administration withheld permission for the general use ofthe drug thalidomide for some time after permission had been sought. 2 and 3. A section is being established in the Commonwealth Department of Health to supervise the imports of new drugs from the safety viewpoint. This section will co-ordinate all the activities necessary for an effective system of drug supervision. It will work in co-operation with overseas drug administrations, the State health departments, the medical profession, the World Health Organization and the drug manufacturers. Action is also being taken to set up a committee of independent experts to act as an advisory body and to report on the safety of drugs generally. {: #subdebate-41-23-s2 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: son asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recently consider my representations that stemetil tablets should be provided as a pharmaceutical benefit under the provisions of the National Health Act; if so, what was the result? 1. For which ailments are these tablets generally prescribed? 2. What reasons were advanced to support the Advisory Committee's decision? 3. What pharmaceutical benefit is available as a substitute for stemetil tablets? 4. What is (a) the advantage of the substitute as opposed to stemetil tablets, and (b) the retail cost of stemetil compared with that of the substitute? {: #subdebate-41-23-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. The committee has recommended that stemetil tablets should not be added to the list of pharmaceutical benefits. By now the honorable member will have received my letter conveying this information. 1. I am informed that stemetil tablets may be prescribed for symptomatic management of migraine and kindred conditions; Meniere's disease and other labyrinthine disorders; giddiness of other origins; nausea and vomiting; psychotic illnesses. 2. This information cannot be made available. 3. Whether the prescribing of stemetil tablets is appropriate treatment for a particular patient's condition is a question which can only be decided by the patient's own doctor; likewise whether any other drug should properly be prescribed for a patient in particular circumstances is something that only the patient's doctor can decide. 4. In view of my reply to 4., the honorable member will appreciate that it is not possible to make any comparison of costs. {: #subdebate-41-23-s4 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: son asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister recently expressed concern about the high cost to the Commonwealth of the use of the antibiotic tetracycline? 1. What are the particular complaints for which this antibiotic is prescribed? 2. What was the cost of tetracycline to the Commonwealth for the last financial year as compared with the base year when it was first included as an item supplied under the pharmamaceutical benefits scheme? 3. What are the factors to which this high cost can be attributed? {: #subdebate-41-23-s5 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In the Senate last month in answer to a similar question, I stated that my DirectorGeneral of Health had recently issued a statement to be made to the medical profession on the trend in prescribing antibiotics. Included in this general statement was a reference to drugs in the tetracycline group. This reference compared the trend in the prescription of this group of drugs in the British national health scheme with their prescription under our own scheme. It referred to the rising absolute cost to the Commonwealth of the tetracycline group of drugs which is taking place despite price reductions. 1. The diseases and conditions for which the drug tetracycline may be prescribed as a pharmaceutical benefit are listed below - Actinomycosis; Acute and sub-acute bacterial endocarditisstreptococcus faecalis; Amoebiasis; As an alternative to penicillin in the treatment of any disease in a person in whom penicillin sensitivity has been established; Bacillary dysentery that is resistant both to sulphonamides and streptomycin; Bronchiectasis; Brucellosis; Chancroid; Fibrocystic disease of the pancreas; Granuloma inguinale; Infections due to Friedlander bacillus; Leptospirosis; Lymphogranuloma venereum; Mucoviscidosis; Pneumonia that does not respond to penicillin or sulphonamides; Pre-operative prophylaxis; Primary atypical pneumonia; Psittacosis; Puerperal infections; Rat-bite fever - Spirillum minus; Staphylococcal infections; Trachoma that does not respond to sulphoamides; Typhus and other rickettsial diseases; Urinary tract infections due to gram negative bacilli that do not respond to sulphoamides; Whooping cough (Heamophilus pertussis). {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The first drug in the tetracycline group of drugs available as a pharmaceutical benefit was chlortetracycline. This drug was added to the list of pharmaceutical benefits in 1950. Statistical records for the early years of the scheme are inadequate to isolate the information required. Since 1950 a number of other drugs in the tetracycline group have been added to the list of benefits. Expenditure on this group of drugs in 1961-62 was £6,024,000. This figure includes the 5s. patient contribution per prescription. 1. Several factors contribute to this high absolute cost. These are the expansion of the number of drugs in the tetracycline group that are available now as pharmaceutical benefits, the relaxation of the early severe restrictions placed on the use of tetracycline drugs as more diseases and conditions were proved to respond to this drug and the combination of these factors leading to an increased volume of prescriptions raising absolute costs in spite of price reductions negotiated by my department. {:#subdebate-41-24} #### Sale of Land to Overseas Purchasers: Overseas Investment in Australia {: #subdebate-41-24-s0 .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is he able to say whether Australian land is being sold in huge tracts to Asians and others outside Australia? 1. Can he say how many contracts between Australian vendors or their agents and Asian purchasers for the sale of Australian land were completed up to 30th March, 19637 2. What was the total area of land involved in these sales, and what was the total price paid? 3. Has he any information as to what other Australian land has been sold in the past seven years to non-British subjects living outside Australia or non-British-owned companies registered outside Australia? 4. Is overseas capital taking control of our biggest industries and crushing less fortunate opposition? 5. Is Australia rapidly becoming a nation virtually controlled by the dictatorial powers of a handful of cartels where opposition ceases to exist? 6. Is the take-over system getting out of hand and creating powerful monopolies? {: #subdebate-41-24-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 to 4. No statistics are available on the sale of real estate in Australia to non-residents. In the normal course of overseas investment in Australia there would, of course, be purchases of land by non-residents for the conduct of operations in Australia. However, I have no evidence that Australian land is being sold in large tracts to Asians or other non-residents. 5 to 7. The Government welcomes overseas investment, particularly when it is of a kind likely to help in the balanced development of Australian resources and brings with it skills and "know-how" needed for the successful fulfilment of the project concerned. Whether businesses in Australia are owned and controlled by nonresidents or not, they remain subject to Australian laws, and there is no question of control of our national assets passing out of Australians hands in that sense. For its part, the Government maintains close and continuous examination of the extent to which powers of control should be exercised, and has made it clear that, in general, it believes that the longer-term interests of overseas investors themselves, as well as of Australians, will be best served if Australian shareholders are taken into partnership in businesses established in Australia by overseas interests. {:#subdebate-41-25} #### Defence {: #subdebate-41-25-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he state what progress has been made in making good the disturbing deficiencies in defence equipment to which he directed attention in his speech in the Parliament on 4th April, 1957? 1. What proportion of the defence vote was allocated in that year to the purchase of equipment, and what is the proportion allocated for this purpose in respect of current defence expenditure? {: #subdebate-41-25-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Effective measures have been taken by the Government for the provision of modern arms and equipment and the development of the defence forces in successive programmes since 1957, with the result that the defence forces are in a state of readiness and are armed and equipped to a degree not previously attained in peacetime. The provision of modern equipment is a continuing high priority objective of the defence programme. The honorable member's attention is invited to the statements on defence made by myself and by the Minister for Defence, a list of which is given in the reply by the Acting Minister for Defence to another question by the honorable member on this subject. In addition, the Service and Supply Ministers give Parliament a review of the progress and development of their services when the Estimates are debated each year and on other appropriate occasions. To mention some highlights, the following are some major items of new equipment which have come into service, or have been approved, since April, 1957: - Navy. - Daring class destroyers, Type XII. frigates, minesweeper flotilla, anti-submarine helicopters, three guided missile destroyers, four Oberon class submarines, improved air defence and anti-submarine weapons, survey ship, and an escort maintenance ship. Army. - Light aircraft (fixed and rotary wing), landing ships, armoured cars, air portable vehicles, FN rifles, recoilless rifles, general purpose machine guns, 105 mm. howitzers and pack howitzers, ammunition of various types, mechanical transport and radar and radio. Air Force. - Hercules medium transports, Neptune long-range reconnaissance aircraft, helicopters, surface-to-air guided weapons, control and reporting units, Sidewinder airtoair missile, Mirage fighter aircraft, and Caribou short take-off and landing transport aircraft. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The proportion of the vote allocated for capital defence equipment is as follows: - 1956-57, 14.3 per cent.; 1962-63, 21.7 per cent. An outstanding commitment has been accepted for new equipment for the services amounting to over £300,000,000, which will be carried forward after 30th June, '1963. The financial provision for capital defence equipment increased over the period 1956-57 to 1962-63 by 72.2 per cent. In addition, considerable sums are spent on maintenance equipment and stores. The provision in this year's Estimates for this purpose will absorb 11.8 per cent, of the defence vote with a liability of some £20,000,000 carried forward after 30th June, 1963. {:#subdebate-41-26} #### University Finance {: #subdebate-41-26-s0 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - . {: type="1" start="1"} 0. During the current triennium what proportion of available university funds in Australia has been allocated to the supply of new buildings and equipment in the fields of (a) science and (b) technology? 1. What have been the main capital items supplied in these fields in each of the universities? {: #subdebate-41-26-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. Details of Commonwealth-supported capital and recurrent grants to State universities for the current triennium 1961-63 are set out in the States Grants (Universities) Act 1960-1963. For the Australian National University, it is likely that about £5,900,000 will be provided for capital works and services and about £10,000,000 for recurrent expenditure during the same triennium. The final figures are not available as they are dependent on the provision made for the university in the Commonwealth Budget for the 1963-64 financial year. As well as these grants, the universities, of course, receive income from fees and charges, grants for specific purposes from various Commonwealth and State government sources and also private benefactions. Comprehensive statistics of total funds available to Australian universities from all sources are published annually in "University Statistics " compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician. In compiling their statistics showing expenditure, university authorities do not attempt to make a distinction between science and other activities, much less a distinction between science and technology. Obviously such distinctions would, in practice, bo rather elusive. Certain main capital items can be identified as belonging to the general field of physical and biological science, but other important capital items including, for example, library and service facilities, are used in common by all university departments. In these circumstances the honorable member will realize that the information he sought is not available. Education in New Guinea. {: #subdebate-41-26-s2 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are many more qualified teachers required for service in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea? 1. What is the current estimate of additional teachers required within the next three years? 2. Have a great number of qualified applicants for teachers' college scholarships in the various States this year been unsuccessful? 3. In the circumstances will the Government give serious consideration immediately to increasing substantially its own teacher training facilities to serve both its local and territory requirements? {: #subdebate-41-26-s3 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Having regard to the resources that can be made available and the maximum practicable rate of expansion, it is estimated that the following additional teachers will be required within the next three years:- 1964, 800; 1965, 1,000; 1966, 1,200. 2. Teacher training in the States comes under jurisdiction of the various State governments. The responsibility for any comment on this matter lies with the appropriate State authorities. 3. At present, the Commonwealth has special teacher training facilities for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. These are located at Port Moresby, Goroka and Rabaul, and at the Australian School of Pacific Administration, Mosman, New South Wales. For its other territories, the Commonwealth has arrangements with State governments under which teachers are trained in State teachers' colleges or supplied by the State education systems. In the Territory of Papua and New Guinea the teachers' college at Goroka is soon to be replaced by a more permanent structure and another teachers' college for indigenous students is at present being built at Madang. The Minister for Territories has announced that the Government will establish a full standard multi-racial teachers' college in the Territory as soon as possible and plans for this are at present being prepared. Apart from the additional provisions for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea as mentioned above, the Commonwealth does not at present propose to increase its teacher training facilities. Australian Embassy Vehicles. {: #subdebate-41-26-s4 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- On 15th May, the honorable member for Leichhardt **(Mr. Fulton)** asked me about the use of Australianmade vehicles at Australian posts overseas. I said that I would obtain some further information. Australian missions overseas have used Australian-made cars since 1958. During that period agencies and servicing arrangements have been extended to a number of countries by the Australian manufacturers and the Department of External Affairs is kept fully informed of these developments. At present the Department of External Affairs has 50 Australian-made vehicles in use overseas and there are six in use by the Australian High Commissioner's Office, London. The policy is to continue with expansion of this practice as servicing facilities are provided. Hospital and Medical Benefits Funds. {: #subdebate-41-26-s5 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- On 1st May, the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti)** asked, in a question without notice, whether the Government would hold a public enquiry into the ramifications of all hospital and medical benefits funds. The points at issue in the occurrence which prompted the honorable member's question were resolved in subsequent negotiations with the Directors of the Hospital Contribution Fund of New South Wales, and new tables which remove any grounds for complaint have been approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Health. Likewise, new tables have already been approved for the great majority of those other registered hospital funds in New South Wales who have sought the Minister's approval. Regarding the activities of registered medical and hospital benefit t funds generally, all of these are required under the National Health Act to submit their annual financial statements and accounts to the Commonwealth Department of Health. These are closely examined to ensure that the financial stability of the fund is maintained and that the interests of the contributors are safeguarded at all times. Close attention is paid to the adequacy of contribution rates, benefits and the fund's reserves as well as to the need to keep administrative costs within the limits laid down as reasonable by the Department of Health. In view of these facts, the Government does not see the need for an enquiry as suggested by the honorable member. United States Naval Communication Station in Australia. {: #subdebate-41-26-s6 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- On 17th April, the honorable member for Stirling **(Mr. Webb)** asked me whether, having in mind that the United States establishment to be constructed at North West Cape will be a naval communication station only, consideration would be given to the establishment of a naval base at Cockburn Sound or some other suitable place on the western coast. I informed the honorable member that I would obtain the last professional view of the matter. The position is that although such facilities in the area would be of some advantage, no provision is being made for them in the naval programme due to the many commitments of much higher priority.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 May 1963, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1963/19630523_reps_24_hor38/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant