House of Representatives
12 October 1965

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1965

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

page 1651

QUESTION

MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, TERRITORY OF PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr SPEAKER:

– Honorable members will be pleased to know that we have present in the gallery eight members of the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. I am sure the House would want me to extend to these honorable gentlemen a very warm welcome.

Honorable members. - Hear, hear!

page 1651

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Before the right honorable gentleman is installed as the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and High Constable of Dover in the United Kingdom, will he don his admiral’s uniform and steer his barge around Lake Burley Griffin as a rehearsal for his installation? In view of the right honorable gentleman’s great friendship for the Waterside Workers Federation will he arrange for a couple of wharfies to pipe him aboard?

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

– This is a very valuable suggestion. It had not occurred to me; but I think if I do as the honorable member has suggested, I shall arrange that the recruitment be conducted not by the Waterside Workers Federation.

page 1651

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Mr GIBSON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for National Development. The Minister will recall that in November 1964, in reply to a question from myself, he said that the Commonwealth Government had not received any application from the company that controls the Savage River iron ore deposits for approval for the export of iron ore. It is reported in the Press today that an agreement covering mining leases in the Savage River area was signed in Hobart yesterday. Will the Minister inform the House whether the application for an export licence has vet been finalised?

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

– The Commonwealth Government has received a request from the Pickands Mather company for approval to export pellets from the Savage River area. This is being looked at by the Government at present. The matter has not been finalised so I regret that I cannot give the honorable member any further information.

page 1651

QUESTION

INDONESIA

Mr GRAY:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for External Affairs. Is the Minister of the opinion that a government may soon be established in Indonesia that may be more favorably disposed to Australia? If this should happen, would the Minister favour making a worthwhile effort to assist the Indonesian people to secure peace and prosperity by offering aid in the form of expert assistance in any direction the Indonesians may request, backed by a free grant of, say, £100 million to purchase equipment and material in Australia for reconstruction purposes in Indonesia?

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for External Affairs · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The political situation in Indonesia following the recent coup and counter movement is still fluid and the eventual outcome, I think, is uncertain. So it would not be of much value for me to offer any provisional comment on what the future shape of the Indonesian Government might be. Of course, Australia is very deeply interested in the stability, prosperity and social welfare of the people of Indonesia. In the past we have done what we could, subject to limitations set by the confrontation of Malaysia, to promote the welfare of Indonesia.

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– I direct to the Minister for External Affairs a question relating to the confused situation in Indonesia and a report that the United States Government has decided to withdraw dependants of her diplomatic representatives. Is it the intention of the Australian Government to do likewise?

Mr HASLUCK:

– Some time ago the Australian Ambassador in Djakarta was given authority to use his own discretion in regard to the movement of Australians, whether they be official or non-official personnel. Up to date our Ambassador has not found occasion to evacuate any of his own staff or to recommend the evacuation of other people.

page 1652

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr GALVIN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Minister for the Army a question concerning national service trainees and the recent legislation dealing with waterside workers. As national service trainees come under his control once they are allocated to the Army, will the Minister give an unqualified assurance that, in the event of the regular division to which they are allocated being called upon to do work on the waterfront, these trainees will not be asked to perform such duties?

Dr FORBES:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I shall answer this question in the same terms as those in which my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, dealt with the matter recently. The Government has given no consideration whatsoever to this matter.

page 1652

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I preface it by saying that I am sure the Minister is aware that in certain areas drought conditions still exist and that, even where rain has fallen, in many instances it has not been sufficient to provide more than temporary relief. In view of the fact that our primary industries play an important part in Australia’s economy and have an important bearing on our balance of payments problem, I ask the Minister whether he will consider calling a special meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council to discuss the problem fully and to investigate the effect of the drought on the Commonwealth as a whole. This would allow steps being taken also to co-ordinate efforts to cope with all the associated problems.

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

– I do not think that the calling of a special meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council would be a direct answer to this problem. Two States are more directly involved than the others. The Premiers of those States have kept in contact with the Federal Government, and I know that the matter has been under consideration by this Government. If anything further can be done to help the affected areas, I shall be pleased to consider it and to submit to the Government any recommendations that I may feel disposed to make.

page 1652

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I ask the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry the following question: Does the Government intend to take any action to prevent the continuing rise in shipping freight rates, of which freight rates to South America are the latest instance? Does not the Minister admit that increases in shipping freights present an economic threat to this nation which is far greater than all the economic losses that the waterside workers are supposed to have inflicted on the country?

Mr HASLUCK:
LP

– I think the latter part of the question was the subject of debate and of very clear exposition by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, when he introduced the Stevedoring Industry Bill. In relation to shipping freights generally, the Department of Trade and Industry and other interested Departments. are concerned about the problem and have it constantly under notice.

page 1652

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr CHIPP:
HIGINBOTHAM, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Labour and National Service seen statements by the Waterside Workers Federation which challenge the accuracy of the information that was given by him to this House about the numbers of men with criminal records whose names were submitted by the Federation in Melbourne? Is it a fact that, despite its earlier refusal to co-operate in the Woodward inquiry, the Federation is now complaining that the Government introduced the Stevedoring Industry Bill without awaiting the report of the inquiry?

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

– I did see a pamphlet that had been issued by the executive .of the Waterside Workers Federation. I should say immediately that whenever any propaganda or publicity is issued on behalf of the Federation it has to be accepted with the greatest reserve, because the statements made in such publicity or propaganda are seldom correct. As to the first statement which was made in the pamphlet and which has been mentioned by the honorable gentleman, I confirm now that I stated that of the 990 men who were recommended by the Federation, 260 had criminal records. I also state that when the breakdown of the kinds of persons who were nominated by the Federation is looked at, all the statements made by the Federation other than the two that I have just mentioned will be found to be incorrect. 1 illustrate this by pointing out that the pamphlet claimed that some 140 men had been rejected for medical reasons. A large number of these also had criminal records, and if they had not been rejected on medical grounds they might well have been rejected for other reasons.

As to the second part of the honorable gentleman’s question, this is a matter for strong comment. The Waterside Workers Federation is now attempting to create the impression that it is willing to co-operate in the Woodward inquiry, despite the fact that only a few weeks ago the Federation denounced this inquiry as being bogus and an attempt to help the Government and has flatly refused to co-operate with Mr. Woodward in the holding of the inquiry.

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a supplementary question. I ask: Will he allow me, as Leader of the Opposition, to sec the files or the names and particulars of the alleged convictions of the persons included in the 260 about whom there is some disputation between himself and the Waterside Workers Federation?

Mr McMAHON:

– I made it clear in this Mouse that in no circumstances am I prepared to permit the names-

Mr Calwell:

– I tell the Minister flatly to his face that I do not believe him.

Mr McMAHON:

– I do not mind what the honorable gentleman is prepared-

Mr Calwell:

– The Minister can give this information confidentially if he likes. If he will not do that, I am not prepared to believe him.

Mr McMAHON:

– I am not prepared in any circumstances to have the names of the individuals made public or made known to anybody.

Mr Calwell:

– I do not want to have them made public.

Mr MCMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Then what does the honorable gentleman want them for?

Mr Calwell:

– To prove that the Minister is not telling the truth.

Mr McMAHON:

– I stand on the statement that these details have been checked and rechecked.

Mr Calwell:

– By whom?

Mr McMAHON:

– By the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, my Department and myself. I repeat now that of the 990 named in Victoria, 260 did have criminal records.

page 1653

COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. WENTWORTH__ My question is directed to the Acting Treasurer. It concerns the surplus in the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund which became apparent some years ago and to which the subscribers to the Fund are entitled. I ask: Since the distribution of this money has been delayed by legal and accountancy complexities, and since it may be some time before the distribution can be made in a final form, will the right honorable gentleman consider the possibility of making a substantial interim payment pending the settlement of the final details, so that those people who are entitled to payments from this surplus shall receive some payment reasonably promptly?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– As the honorable member has rightly pointed out, there has been an immense degree of complexity in the working out of actual sums. The number of calculations appears to run into millions, not thousands. Because of the shortage of actuarial capacity, the calculations will take some time. The honorable member has made the positive suggestion, which I regard as very constructive, that perhaps, within certain limits, there might be an interim payment. I can assure him that that matter is under close examination in the Treasury and I expect that when the Treasurer resumes his duties here he will be in a position to make a statement about it.

page 1653

QUESTION

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Attorney-General whether it is a fact that Mr. Bolte, the Premier of Victoria, has stated that his Government will have nothing to do with the Commonwealth’s restrictive trade practices legislation. If this is a fact, does it mean that the legislation will be ineffective because it will lack the support and cooperation of all six State Premiers?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Attorney-General · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I have seen Press reports which made reference to what Mr. Bolte had said. 1 do not know what Mr. Bolte said, but I do not read in the Press reports any statement by him that he will have nothing to do with the legislation. As to whether it is necessary to have legislation from all States, the answer is: No, it is not necessary. The Commonwealth’s Bill is a piece of legislation which will run to the extent of the Commonwealth’s legislative power.

page 1654

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I preface a question which is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service by reminding him that under the present system of calling up national service trainees it is possible for a family to have more than one son serving at any given time. I refer particularly to twins or two boys who are born within 12 months or so of each other. Has the Minister given any direct instruction to magistrates who are hearing applications for deferment on hardship grounds, other than in the terms of the statements he has made to the House? Will he consider instructing magistrates to take into account the number of persons in any one family who are affected by such call-ups?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have tried to point out to the House that if there is an application for deferment on the ground of great personal hardship it must be heard by a judicial authority. I am not in a position, nor is my Department, to direct the judicial authority as to how it is to act. We have decided to ensure that when our own officers go before the judicial authority they must attempt to present all the facts and then let the authority make up its own mind as to what the decision will be. We have attempted to achieve, and I believe we have achieved, uniformity of procedure in presentation of the facts so that the judicial purpose will be served. As to the second part of the honorable gentleman’s question, which relates to a matter that has already been raised by the honorable member for Maribyrnong, the Department has been looking at the problem of two members of the same family, and of twins, being called up for service at the same time. We are looking at this matter administratively and I hope that I shall be able to make a statement about it soon.

page 1654

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the

Prime Minister whether it is a fact that amendments have been made recently to the regulations governing employment of women in the Reserve Bank. If it is a fact, will he instruct the Public Service Board to amend the Public Service Regulations correspondingly and quickly?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– 1 am not aware of what may have been done in the Reserve Bank, but I shall find out and I shall discuss with the Public Service Board whatever facts may emerge. At the moment, I am not informed.

page 1654

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the PostmasterGeneral say when the two television stations now being constructed in Western Australia at Mawson and Mount Barker will in fact be on the air?

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am sorry, but I have not in my mind the actual dates relating to these stations. I shall find out and let the honorable member have a note in due course.

page 1654

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MILITARY FORCES

Mr BEATON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Army a question supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Kingston. It relates to the possible use of troops on the wharves. Was all leave cancelled at Puckapunyal military camp in the week-end before last? That is the week-end after the passage of the Stevedoring Industry Bill through this House and before its passage through the other House. If all leave was cancelled, I ask: Why?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– If it was, I have no knowledge of it.

Mr JESS:

– I desire to ask the Minister for the Army a question. The Minister will remember that some time ago I asked him about the crash programme for housing at Puckapunyal, particularly in relation to 81 houses that are to be built in the

Puckapunyal camp area. Can the Minister inform me whether the erection of these houses has as yet commenced? If not, why not?

Dr FORBES:

– My understanding is that a contract has been let for the building of these houses.

page 1655

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Is it correct that the cost of constructing the town of Exmouth at North West Cape is being borne to some extent by the Commonwealth? Is it also correct that it is now recommended that a hospital, a single men’s hostel, a swimming pool and a certain amount of air conditioning are not to be provided? If this is so, can the Prime Minister say who was responsible for the recommendation to exclude these facilities? Will he also tell us whether he was correctly reported as referring to them as being unnecessary frills? If this report is correct, is this his attitude towards conditions and amenities for people in the north of Australia generally?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– I am grateful to the honorable member for telling me that I was reported as describing these matters as unnecessary frills. I can assure him that I have never said that or anything remotely resembling it. The situation is this: The original estimate has now been greatly exceeded, partly because more people are concerned, and there has been a discussion to determine what ought to be included in the township to be established. I have some views of my own on this, but I have not expressed them at all. We are in the course of having discussions at present, principally by correspondence, with the Western Australian Government. They are quite friendly discussions. We are both anxious to arrive at the best possible result. When the discussions have concluded, I will be delighted to make a statement to the honorable member and to others about what has occurred.

page 1655

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Can the

Postmaster-General tell the House whether the failure and destruction of a television mast at Mount Gambier in the south-east of South Australia will unduly delay the introduction of television to those areas of South Australia that are so ably represented by my colleague, the honorable member for Barker, and to those areas in the western part of Victoria that I represent?

Mr HULME:
LP

– I regret to inform the House, although it has been reported in the Press, that the tower at Mount Gambier collapsed. This occurred because of the failure at pre-tensioning of the guy ropes. We have been able to make arrangements for the use of the micro-wave radio tower at Mount Gambier for the installation of the temporary antenna. This will mean that the area capable of receiving television transmissions from the mast will be slightly restricted. However, the national station will be able to operate from the date that was originally planned, the 29th November. We could also accommodate the commercial station, but no request has as yet been received from that station, although we have grave doubt that it would actually be able to commence on 29th November.

page 1655

QUESTION

OVERSEAS RESERVES

Mr PETERS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question. Is he aware that overseas funds have diminished by £33 million in the last three weeks to £583 million and that, if they continue to diminish at the same rate, they will vanish within a year? What action is the Government taking to stop the calamitous erosion of our overseas reserves? Is the Government contemplating holding an election on 11th December of this year or on some such early date, as a prelude to tackling this disastrous balance of payments problem?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– Of course the Government is aware that the overseas reserves are falling; but they are still very substantial and we are delighted to know that they are very substantial because, after all, the purpose of substantial overseas reserves is to cope with this very kind of problem. We do not propose any special emergency measures on this matter. We watch it every week and every month, but we are not in any state of apprehension about it and therefore I have no proposals to put before the House for anything of an emergency kind. As for an election on 11th December - did the honorable member say “ this year “?

Mr Peters:

– Yes.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– Heaven forbid.

page 1656

QUESTION

ROADS

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. Is there any intention that the recently established Commonwealth Bureau of Roads shall dictate the roads policies and programmes of the States? If not, can the Minister state whether there is any action contemplated by the Bureau that could have caused the reported violent outburst against the Bureau by the Premier of Victoria?

Mr FREETH:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– It has never been the Commonwealth Government’s intention that the Bureau of Roads should in any way interfere with the administration of the roads policy of any of the States. I did read something in the Press that Mr. Bolte is supposed to have said, but I cannot account for it in any way.

page 1656

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ‘ ask the

Postmaster-General: Does he recall that about six months ago he declined to say that the Government would implement any of the recommendations contained in the report of the Senate select committee on television, but did say that his Department was carrying out inquiries and that within six months he would be able to say whether the Government could or would do anything to encourage the production of Australian films and other television programmes? As it is now well over six months since he said that, can he inform the House what inquiries have been conducted and whether he is ready to say whether the Government is able to do anything now to encourage the production of Australian television programmes?

Mr HULME:
LP

– At no time did I say that the Government would or would not accept any of the recommendations contained in the Senate committee’s report. Some six months ago I informed the House that I hoped that within a six month’s period I would be able to make some statement in regard to this matter. I am not yet able to do that, but members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board have been specially allocated to visit each of the capital cities to inquire of all people associated with the Australian film industry and the television industry what could or might be done in relation to this matter. I am hopeful that I will have something to report within the next few weeks and as soon as 1 have something to report 1 will put it before the Government for its consideration.

page 1656

QUESTION

ADVERTISING AND PACKAGING

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Has his attention been drawn to the charges made in the New South Wales Parliament and in various community organisations regarding misrepresentation in advertising and deceptive packaging engaged in by certain manufacturers of household products? Would effective action to curb such practices involve Commonwealth action? If so, has the Government any such action in mind?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– My attention has not been specifically directed to this matter. I have seen Press reports about it. A royal commission was conducted into deceptive packaging by a magistrate from Victoria. It was a royal commission on behalf of all States. The commissioner presented a voluminous report which is being studied by the appropriate Minister in each of the States. This is not necessarily a law matter, but the appropriate Ministers have been studying the report and I think that there have been conferences between the States.

Mr Reynolds:

– Is the Commonwealth coming in on this at all?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Commonwealth would come into the matter only as it affects the Commonwealth Territories.

« VOYAGER » ROYAL COMMISSION.

Mr JESS:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Navy. I remind the honorable gentleman of a Cabinet subcommittee which was set up after the inquiry into the “ Voyager “-“ Melbourne “ accident. The sub-committee reported, I think, that one of the main things arising from the inquiry was a need for a change in signalling procedure and that it was necessary to get the concurrence of other nations in this.

Has this concurrence been obtained? Further, I ask the Minister: Was a group of naval officers sent abroad to study the means of training crew -members and technicians for the Charles F. Adams class destroyers and so on in Australia? If so, has a report been received, and has any decision yet been reached?

Mr CHANEY:
Minister for the Navy · PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– In answer to the first question of the honorable gentleman, the report that was made on that matter has been given to the Naval Board for consideration. There are two aspects of the second matter referred to by the honorable gentleman. The first concerns the training of technical men on D.D.G. class destroyers. The second concerns all training. The report was particularly voluminous and is at present being studied. Where the suggestions made in the report can be put into operation, that is being done now.

page 1657

QUESTION

DECIMAL CURRENCY

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Acting Treasurer. Have 200 essential household grocery items increased in price at the request of the Decimal Currency Board which is anxious to ensure that commodity prices are converted to synchronise with decimal currency? Why was it necessary to increase prices four months earlier than C Day, which is scheduled for 14th February 1966? Did the Board have the authority and imprimatur of the Government in calling for price rises? If so, is the Government prepared to take full responsibility for the hardship which will result for many Australian families and for the serious inflationary trend which will inevitably follow?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– I have no personal knowledge of the. occurrence alleged by the honorable member. I will certainly have the facts looked at. I will find out everything that can be discovered in point of fact, and I will advise him.

page 1657

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Postmaster-General on behalf of the millions who will soon be sending Christmas cards to one another. Will the PostmasterGeneral consider permitting Christmas cards to be posted for 3d. instead of 5d. for this year’s Christmas greetings? Is it not gross exploitation of the season of goodwill to force Australians to pay the exorbitant price of 5d. to send a humble Christmas card? In view of the profits from postage last Christmas will the Postmaster-General seriously consider acting in a Father Christmassy way by reducing the postage on Christmas cards to 3d. for the benefit of the millions who will be sending cards this Christmas?

Mr HULME:
LP

– I would like to be in generous mood, but the Parliament expects the Post Office to be run as a business organisation. When the honorable member sees that the operations of the postal services last year resulted in a substantial deficit and when he realises that this deficit would be added to by reducing the rate for Christmas cards from 5d. to 3d., perhaps necessitating an increase in other postal charges, 1 am sure that he will feel it is better for the postage on Christmas cards to stay as it is.

page 1657

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr BENSON:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Social Services reveal the formula used by doctors in determining the percentage of capacity of applicants for invalid pensions?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Social Services · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The determination of a person’s eligibility for an invalid pension is a matter for a medical officer. It is beyond my competence as a layman to determine the extent of a person’s incapacity. Generally speaking a disability of 85 per cent, is accepted as a basis for eligibility for the invalid pension but the manner in which this assessment is arrived at is the prerogative of the medical practitioner.

page 1657

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Will he cause an investigation to be made, of the present system of so-called rationalisation of air services to see whether more satisfactory services can be given to the travelling public? Will the Minister give an assurance that in view of the increasing volume of air traffic, Brisbane’s claim to a new passenger terminal is receiving the fullest consideration?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– I will draw to the attention of my colleague in another place the two questions that have been asked. I have had some discussions with my colleague on the matter of rationalisation of services. It seems to me that when an aircraft leaving an airport has to brake to allow another aircraft to take off for the same destination, that is called rationalisation. As I have said, I will bring to the attention of my colleague both this matter and the desire of the Queenslanders to have better facilities at Brisbane.

page 1658

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Labour and National Service say what types of criminal convictions he has in mind when he speaks of men having criminal records?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I stated in the House that in the case of the Sydney branch of the Waterside Workers Federation I had gone through the records and read cases of repeated convictions for such offences as assault and battery, thieving and receiving; such offences, well known to the honorable gentleman, as sodomy and similar offences; repeated assaults on females and procuring. There were many other types as well. All of those offences were shown in the records I examined. This is enough to convince me that the Government was fully justified in taking the action it did.

page 1658

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr TURNBULL:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration. I ask: Is he aware that migrant labour has played a significant role in the picking of the Australian dried fruits harvest? Does the Minister know that during the last two harvests labour available was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the industry? Will he, even at this early stage - the harvest is approximately four months away - endeavour to make forward arrangements for migrant labour to be available for the fruit picking?

Mr OPPERMAN:
Minister for Immigration · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes, I am quite aware of the value of migrant labour in the dried fruits industry and the citrus fruit industry, because I had the pleasure and privilege of accompanying the honorable member for Angas on an inspection of the Berri area when he handsomelywon the by-election for the electorate of Angas. For the past two fruit picking seasons we have made available some 230 Greek girls. For our efforts we have re ceived a letter of commendation, may I call it, from the manager of the Riverland cooperative organisation who has requested us to endeavour to obtain female labour for the forthcoming season.

Mr Turnbull:

– My question relates to migrant labour generally, not female labour.

Mr OPPERMAN:

– Migrant labour has also been employed in harvesting the fruit. We are well aware of the situation and are making inquiries to ascertain what labour we can obtain for the forthcoming season and with the co-operation of the Department of Labour and National Service. I can assure the honorable member that in the months which remain before the harvesting commences we will do everything possible to obtain sufficient labour for the industry.

page 1658

QUESTION

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIMES

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Services. The honorable gentleman will know that proposals by the New South Wales Government a couple of years ago to introduce compensation payments for the victims of crimes of violence foundered on the fact that if such victims received periodic payments or medical benefits while they were disabled they would lose their entitlement to sickness or unemployment benefits or invalid pensions which are paid by his Department. How far have negotiations now gone to permit the payment of Commonwealth benefits even if State parliaments pass laws for the payment of compensation along the lines which have now been established in Britain, New Zealand and the State of California?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– In the past, whenever there has been an increase in any pension benefit there has been a tendency in some States to reduce State benefits by a like amount. However, I will look into the question involved in the submission made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Whitlam:

– This is not workers’ compensation.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– No. I understand the position to which the honorable gentleman has referred. I will have the matter investigated and will explain to him in writing the position as it stands at the present time. j

page 1659

QUESTION

UNION ELECTIONS

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I address my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service and refer to a television programme in Brisbane on Sunday last during which it was claimed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that union elections in which unity tickets were allowed occurred only in Victoria. Is that correct?

Mr Calwell:

– I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question asks for an opinion upon something that happens inside the Labour Party and does not come within the Minister’s administration.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think the question can be allowed. The Minister has an interest in aspects of it.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I can well understand the position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is obviously attempting to divide the Victorian Executive from the rest of the Australian Labour Party.

Mr Cope:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What has this question to do with the Minister’s Department? You bar us from asking questions-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister may proceed.

Mr McMAHON:

– As is well known, the centre of the problem of unity tickets resides in Victoria.

Mr Calwell:

– I move -

That the Minister be no longer heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is only answering a question. He is not speaking to a motion before the Chair. I suggest to the Minister that he avoid any comment that is provocative.

Mr McMAHON:

– I will attempt to do so, Sir, and observe your ruling. I was pointing out that the centre of the problem resides in Victoria, but equally true-

Mr Bryant:

– I take a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that one may follow the burden of the answer, would you, Sir, explain exactly in what area of the Minister’s administration the question lies?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr McMAHON:

– Equally is it known that there have been unity tickets in both New South Wales and Queensland. It will depend upon the character of each local branch of the Australian Labour Party whether unity tickets take place in future. Whilst he was in Queensland I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the worst type of unity ticket.

Mr Calwell:

– What has this to do with the Minister’s Department? I move -

That the next business be called on.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It is necessary to give notice of such a motion.

Mr McMAHON:

– The worst form of unity ticket in Queensland-

Mr Hayden:

– I take a point of order. For the information of this House, in view of the fact-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will state his point of order or resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– When honorable members on this side of the chamber have made inquiries about matters relating to the Liberal Party-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is out of order and will resume his seat.

Mr McMAHON:

– I shall quickly complete the answer. I was referring to the sharing of leadership between Communists and members of the A.L.P. in Queensland, where the Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council is a member of the Communist Party.

page 1659

TERTIARY EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
KooyongPrime Minister · LP

– I present the following paper -

Tertiary Education in Australia - Report of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia to the Australian Universities Commission (Volume III).

Honorable members will recall that I presented volumes I and II of the Report in March of this year. At that time volume III was not available. The Government received it from the Australian Universities Commission on 24th September.

page 1660

DROUGHT RELIEF

Ministerial Statement

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
KooyongPrime Minister · LP

– by leave - I make this addendum because several honorable members have raised with me and with other members of the Government points in relation to the statement on drought relief which I made on behalf of the Government, and have sought clarification of it because it is said that there is some misunderstanding of the position of the Commonwealth Government. In the course of my statement on 26th August, I indicated that the provision of assistance to drought-affected primary producers in New South Wales and Queensland was properly the responsibility of the two State Governments and that we had decided after careful consideration that it would not be appropriate for the Commonwealth to participate directly in the financing of measures for the provision of such assistance. I emphasise the word “directly”. I went on to say, however, that we were very conscious of the strains that special drought measures might put on the finances of the two States and that, if as a result of the drought the States of New South Wales and Queensland found it necessary to meet abnormally large calls on their budgets that were established to be beyond their financial capacities, we would be prepared to consider assisting them by means of general purpose assistance grants.

Knowing of the interest of honorable members in the subject, I believe it is timely for me to inform the House of the present position concerning the provision of assistance to the budgets of the two States. The Premiers of New South Wales and Queensland have since replied to the letters that I addressed to them. Both referred to the effect of drought measures on their States’ budgetary situation and expressed appreciation of our willingness to consider the provision of general purpose assistance grants. The Premier of New South Wales indicated that his State’s position would become clear as the financial year progressed and that he would be in touch with me again when the situation warranted it. The Premier of Queensland outlined the possible consequences of the drought on his State’s finances and went on to suggest that the whole position be reviewed towards the end of the financial year when the actual effects of the drought would be more precisely known. I think it is proper to point this out because it indicates that we are working in co-operation with the State Governments.

I consider the two State Governments have taken the right course in proposing, in effect, that it would be premature at this stage for any precise determination to be attempted of the amount which it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to provide by way of general purpose assistance grants in 1965-66. Only a quarter of the financial year has passed, and happenings over the remainder of the year - not least the future course of the drought over the areas where drought conditions unfortunately still persists - could have a large bearing on the need for, and the extent of, Commonwealth assistance for the budgets of the two States. Later in the financial year, we shall be prepared to consider, fully and sympathetically, the situation of the two States in the light of the facts as they turn out to be with a view to taking action before the close of the year. All the present indications point to the likelihood that we will find it appropriate to provide some measure of assistance to the two States in conformity with the principles enunciated in my statement of 26th August.

I might add that the two State Governments will have access as necessary to treasury bill finance, at an interest rate of one per cent, per annum, to meet their temporary needs during the financial year. Deferment until later in the year of a decision on the question of general purpose assistance grants by the Commonwealth should not, therefore, present the States with any serious cash problems between now and then arising from the need to meet the cost of drought relief measures.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

– by leave - Honorable members will have a very ready recollection of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) making a statement to this Parliament on 26th August last concerning the drought situation and relief problems associated therewith. On that occasion I made a protest and suggested that the proposals made by the Prime Minister, which meant exactly nothing so far as direct assistance was concerned to the governments or the drought sufferers, were inadequate and would bring distress and misery to the hearts of the people concerned. On that occasion - exactly 47 days ago - I pointed out to the Prime Minister and to the Parliament that the drought this year was already of a most serious character as early as 7th July. The situation has been worsening over the whole period since then. The date at which the drought reached a serious situation can be confirmed from Press cuttings.

The “ Australian Primary Producer “ of 23rd July carried a headline “ Drought Leaves Farmer in Economic Void “. So the farmer has been allowed by State governments, the Federal Government and by all who have any governmental responsibility, to remain in an economic void. I shall quote again from the same newspaper, the “Australian Primary Producer “, which could not be classed as a party political paper. I have never seen a partisan political statement in it. On 20th August there appeared the statement: “ Drought Confirms Governments Have Failed the Farmers”. To which governments was the newspaper referring? They were the Liberal and Country Party Government of New South Wales and the Liberal and Country Party combination in office in Queensland, acting in concert with the Federal Government, which is another coalition. Those Governments have failed utterly to afford any positive relief to drought stricken farmers. This is an exceptional state of affairs.

The suggestion made by the Prime Minister on 26th August was completely irrelevant to the drought situation which confronted the nation. What was the effect of what the Prime Minister said on that occasion? He said that if the State Governments of New South Wales and Queensland found that they were inadequately equipped to provide drought relief to the people affected the Commonwealth would come to their assistance. Now, after 47 days, during which time pressure has been applied in this Parliament and from outside, the Prime Minister is impelled to come into the House and to make a statement, but all that he has done is to reiterate the statement that he made on 26th August. Although he clarified the earlier statement slightly, his statement today was a reiteration. He said today that drought relief is the responsibility of the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland’. He said that he had received their appreciation for what he had offered. But he has offered practically nothing. He went on to say that at a later period of the year it may be indicated that a larger sum is required, or words to that effect. But later in the year the position will be even blacker.

What would be wrong with the Prime Minister saying now that the Federal Government will back the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland with an appropriate sum on a £1 for £1 basis? That would give some heart to those Governments and to the people who are suffering from the effects of the drought. But he does not do that. He has said that the Queensland and New South Wales Governments will have access to treasury bill finance at an interest rate of 1 per cent. He has not said one word about what those Governments are to do with the money that they draw in treasury bills at 1 per cent. Is it proposed that the Federal Government will help the State Governments with a straight out drought relief grant? Is it proposed that the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland will offer money at a concession rate to the drought stricken farmers in their States? Are those farmers to be offered money at 4i per cent., which is the rate at which the Australian Wheat Board draws finance for the Reserve Bank of Australia? All those questions have been left unanswered. Those things are left to the imagination of the people down on the farm to work out for themselves.

Immediately the Prime Minister’s statement reaches the primary producers through the Press they will be scratching their heads and saying: “ What does this mean? I now apply to the Government for relief, but what will I get? Will I be granted relief in the true sense of the term? Or will I be informed that whatever I get will be a loan at 5, 6 or 7 per cent, interest?” - or at whatever rate of interest someone likes to pull out of the hat. There has been no clarification of those points. We heard only a negative statement of policy. I pointed out in this place on 26th August that the Chifley Government had acted positively. When Australia was faced with a drought the Chifley Government appreciated the situation and said that it would make a grant on a £1 for £1 basis up to a specific amount. That was to be a straight out grant with no qualifications as to repayment. The moment that the grant was announced every drought stricken farmer and his family knew exactly where they stood. Why cannot this Government pluck up the courage to take similar action? We now live in a relatively prosperous era compared with the period from 1944 to 1948 when a previous government, at a time when our safety was in danger, did the right thing. That Government provided similar relief for bush fire victims. But under the present Government the right thing is not done.

Apparently the Prime Minister has spoken with or written to the Premiers of New South Wales and Queensland and has said, “Now look, boys”, in the nice way that he can say it, “ I am in a rather difficult political corner. My friends who sit in the corner of the chamber are pressing me to do something of a specific character. If you boys do not make it too hot I will be prepared at the end of the financial year to consider favorably recouping whatever you have spent on drought relief.” But he will then term it as a general assistance grant to the States. What exactly is the Prime Minister’s interpretation of a general assistance grant? In the first place he puts an obligation on the State to pay 1 per cent. interest on the grant. The Prime Minister has not stated that the States must make a straight out grant before they will be entitled to draw on Commonwealth treasury bills, nor has he said anything to show that the State Governments will not be able to charge the people to whom they give relief whatever interest rate they choose.

On 26th August last, not only did the Prime Minister make a statement on the drought situation but also the Minister for Territories (Mr. Barnes) made a statement on drought relief in the Northern Territory. I ask honorable members to consider the differences and distinctions in the contents of the two statements. The Minister for Territories said that a maximum loan of £3,000 at 4½ per cent. interest would be available to drought stricken people in the Northern Territory. But there was no such concise or specific statement by the Prime Minister about interest rates to be charged on money that may be provided to people in other parts of the Commonwealth - not a solitary word. Of course, no money has yet been provided. Why is it that on the one hand the Government can guarantee that the drought stricken settlers in the Northern Territory will be able to borrow at 4½ per cent.–

Mr Jones:

– No long term finance for them.

Mr POLLARD:

– There is no long term finance for them. They can borrow at 4½ per cent. up to a maximum of £3,000, and the period of the loans is to be limited to, I think, seven years. But nothing has been said about the conditions on which relief will be provided for the farmers in New South Wales and Queensland, except those airy-fairy statements that the States can make application later if they find that they are in real difficulty. Let us look further at the finance position. When I was speaking on 26th August there strode into this chamber the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt). This is a Treasury matter, but the Treasurer is not here at the moment. When I said on that occasion that the Government in office in 1946 and 1947 made available to the States £1,500,000, and in another year £900,000, in straight-out grants on a £1 for £1 basis, he said that all that had been made available was £115,000. He knew full well that that was incorrect and he did not have the decency to correct the statement after I had produced documentary evidence to that effect. Lest it be thought that this is a political matter, let me point out for the benefit of honorable members what the question of interest involves. I have here a report published in the Melbourne “ Age “ of 9th July 1965 headed “ Bank flexibility and Drought Relief “. It stated -

State Governments and some sections of private enterprise, notably primary industry, have responded swiftly to appeals for help from droughtstricken areas of New South Wales and Queensland. But, as the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen) has noted, there is a suggestion that financial restrictions imposed on the general economy are unnecessarily hampering relief measures.

Even at 9th July, according to the “ Age “ relief measures were being hampered by bank restrictions and this was known to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr. McEwen) who was then Acting Prime Minister. The article continued -

Greater flexibility in the use of these restrictions would go a long way towards easing the hard and vital task of rehabilitating the worst hit parts of Australia.

They were worst hit then. What are they like now? What will they be like when this Government does something of a specific character? The article continued -

Generous finance will be needed for recovery and this is an operation that warrants a relaxation by the Reserve Bank of some of its restrictions so that trading banks can enlarge their credit schemes for farmers and graziers.

I have questioned the Treasurer previously, after a statement had been made on 26th August, as to exactly where drought stricken farmers were able to get money at a reasonable rate of interest. There was no response whatever from the right honorable gentleman. The article in the “ Age “ continued -

Meanwhile, more immediate, though possibly less ambitious, help can properly be given through the credit machinery of the trading banks.

We all know what the credit machinery of the trading banks means even in a drought. It means 6 or 7 per cent, or perhaps higher rate of interest. Another article published in the “Age” of 9th July 1965 stated -

The Government’s restrictive credit policy was making it difficult for trading banks to meet increasing financial demands from country areas affected by drought, the Chairman of the Australian Bankers’ Association (Mr. H. McE Scambler) said yesterday.

Then note this statement in the article -

Commenting on a statement by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen), Mr. Scambler said banks were worried that the quantitative lending directions stipulated by the Reserve Bank did not allow them sufficient flexibility.

If present restrictions were not relaxed, increases in lending to rural borrowers would mean less overdraft money being made available to other sectors.

Banks had been increasing the proportion of loans to rural areas in spite of pressures for finance from all sections of the community.

On Wednesday, Mr. McEwen said the Federal Cabinet had still not made a decision on requests from the New South Wales and Queensland Governments for drought relief.

So the New South Wales and Queensland Governments made a request to the Commonwealth Government for drought relief as early as 9th July 1965, according to this statement. Now apparently, although the drought is worse and three months have passed, the New South Wales and Queensland Governments are not as active in this respect as they were in July. The report in the “ Age “ continued -

A statement issued later said the Government was in touch with the Reserve Bank about the needs of farmers and pastoralists caused by the drought.

The Reserve Bank had been consulting the trading banks to ascertain the requirement and availability of banking assistance for drought relief.

Mr. McEwen said in explanation of the reference to the Reserve Bank that there was some question whether the policies of availability of its funds were inhibiting finance for farmers and pastoralists.

So far as bank assistance is concerned, therefore, the outlook is hopeless. The State Governments have nothing specific to go on, and perhaps that will be the position until the drought is over. By that time many people will be off their farms and will have suffered dire distress. That is the unfortunate position confronting us. A statement made today in the radio news session of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is not without very strong justification. Honorable members need not think that this is merely my opinion; the news item broadcast today highlights the fact that other people of different political opinions are saying something similar. This is an extract from the A.B.C. news broadcast -

The Country Party in New South Wales says it is concerned at a lack of Commonwealth reaction to the drought in both New South Wales and Queensland. The New South Wales Chairman of the Country Party, Mr. Ralph Hunt, said his Party was dismayed that six months after its first request to the Reserve Bank for the allocation of funds for low interest long term loans to ease the effects of drought no action had been taken.

A number of members of the Australian Country Party on 26th August apologised for the Government. The honorable member for Cowper (Mr. Robinson) said in effect that everything was rosy so far as the Government was concerned. The news broadcast continued -

The Country Party had now made a further approach to the Federal Treasurer, Mr. Holt, because of the growing seriousness of the drought in eastern Australia. Mr. Hunt said the Country Party wanted an early meeting between the Premiers of New South Wales and Queensland together with the Prime Minister to work out a formula to alleviate the hardship being experienced by the two State Governments and the rural community. He said neither State could meet the needs of the drought areas. The assurance of the Reserve Bank that credit for drought relief was available-

Mark these words - at high interest rates was of little incentive to stock owners. Mr. Hunt said in the Moree area alone it was believed more than 100,000 sheep had died in the past two months.

While my appeal to the Government to be specific and to do do something directly may be considered political, it is evident that people in every section of the community who know anything about the situation realise that the appeal is not being made exclusively in the interests of those who are suffering from the drought. It is being made with the full knowledge that if the farmers lose their stock and crops and are not given some financial assistance to prop themselves up and stage a recovery, the effects will hit every pocket in Australia. In the circumstances, I deplore the paucity of information from the Prime Minister and the inadequacies of the proposals that are now suggested as satisfactory to the right honorable gentleman.

Mr Beaton:

– I ask for leave to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Fairbairn:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Nelson:

– I ask for leave to make a statement as the Northern Territory has been mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Fairbairn:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 1664

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1965

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1664

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported -

Social Services Bill 1963. Wheat Tax Bill 1965.

Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1965. Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 1) 1965. Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 2) 1965. Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Bill 1965.

Australian Universities Commission Bill 1965. Repatriation Bill 1965.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill 1965.

Stevedoring Industry Bill 1965.

page 1664

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1965

Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 7). Mr. BURY (Wentworth - Minister for Housing) [3.45]. - I move - [Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 7t).]

THE SCHEDULE

AMENDMENTS OF PART II. OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF 1965 Customs Tariff Proposals No. 7, which I have just tabled, are consequent on recommendations by the Special Advisory Authority, whose report I shall table later this day. A temporary duty of 2s. 6d. per dozen pairs is imposed on certain polyethylene gloves, and it will operate from tomorrow morning. It does not apply to polyethylene gloves in direct transit to Australia on 3rd September 1965, which are entered for home consumption on importation. The longer term protective needs of the Australian industry producing polyethylene gloves have been referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report, and the temporary duty will operate only until such time as the Government takes action following receipt of the final report of the Board. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Allan** Fraser) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1665 {:#debate-33} ### POLYETHYLENE GLOVES {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Report of Special Advisory Authority {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr BURY:
Minister for Housing · Wentworth · LP , - I present a report by the Special Advisory Authority on the following subject - >Polyethylene gloves. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 1665 {:#debate-34} ### NATIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Discussion of Matter of Public Importance {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have received a letter from the honorable member for EdenMonaro **(Mr. Allan Fraser)** proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely - >The need for a decision now to establish a national conservation authority which will in due course incorporate the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority and ensure that the skills, experience and dedication of the Snowy Mountains Authority team are retained to tackle further great developmental projects. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) - {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- **Mr. Speaker,** yesterday I had to examine applications for an administrative position. There were 40 applicants, 10 of whom were members of the staff of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. This shows the demoralising effect that uncertainty about the future of the Authority is having on its staff. Several Ministers have said that the Authority should have a continuing role in Australia's national development. I propose to quote only what the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** has had to say. Other Ministers, including the Minister for National Development **(Mr. Fairbairn),** have made similar statements. The Prime Minister said in Brisbane on 22nd April 1963- >You do not want to see a great technical organisation like the Snowy Mountains scheme fade away. > >I am not contemplating that it will take years to evolve any scheme for its future. > >You can take it we are interested in getting full future benefit of the Snowy Mountains set-up. I suggest that the time is now overdue for an official announcement of the role that is envisaged by the Government for the Snowy Mountains Authority in the terms of the Prime Minister's statement. This is a matter in relation to which both sides of the House are united. The Chifley Labour Government established the Snowy Mountains Authority and the present Government has carried it on. I wish to say nothing that will import a party political note into this debate. {: .speaker-KAR} ##### Dr Gibbs: -- Oh, no. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Not on this occasion. I do not wish to say anything to delay or impede the Government in preparing a firm announcement on the matter. Some months have elapsed - I do not know how many - since the Minister for National Development submitted to the Cabinet his recommendation for the future of the Snowy Mountains Authority. Of course, the nature of his recommendation is not known to us, but the enthusiasm that the Minister has shown for the scheme since he assumed responsibility for the portfolio of National Development perhaps is good ground for the hope that his recommendation has been favourable. Just as the years have passed since the Prime Minister made his statement, so the weeks are dragging on since the Minister made his recommendation to the Cabinet. Accordingly, apprehension has steadily grown among the staff and people in the Snowy Mountains area generally. Whatever the decision about the future of the Authority is to be, it should be made known now. Surely no argument can be advanced for further delay. It is highly de sirable that the Minister should make some announcement when he speaks during this debate this afternoon. If it is not possible for him to do so, then our aim is to impress upon him the urgency of making an announcement as soon as possible. An overwhelming case can be made out for the retention of the Authority and for its incorporation in a National Conservation Authority. I should like to take a minute or two to explain to the House the nature of the Snowy Mountains Authority. It consists of a team of professional and sub-professional officers who are well qualified and experienced to accept the challenge of any developmental undertaking in this country no matter how great or how complex it is. The staff of the Authority numbers about 1,500, of whom 270 are professional engineers. The Authority is virtually self sufficient in terms of the engineering, scientific and administrative skills that are required to investigate, design and construct large dams of all types, tunnels, power stations, aqueducts, roads and townships. Its task, in the Snowy Mountains area meant setting up engineering laboratories in Australia for the first time to ensure that the most advanced engineering and scientific techniques were available. This is the first time that Australia has possessed such an organisation, and there is none other like it in the country. If we lose this one, its replacement will be very difficult indeed. What is the reason for proposing that the Snowy Mountains Authority should be retained and incorporated in a National Conservation Authority? Everybody will agree that great developmental works need to be tackled in this country. Therefore, it is unthinkable that we should destroy an organisation that is specially equipped to carry out such work. I cannot imagine that the Government will deliberately destroy it, but I point out that proscrastination is already causing the Authority to fade away. Its staff is already beginning to disperse. Further procrastination will complete that process which, the Prime Minister said in Brisbane two years ago, was most undesirable. Once it was lost the Snowy Mountains team would be exceedingly difficult to replace. It would take many years to establish a similar organisation. If the Authority ceases to exist, members of the team will scatter not only throughout Australia- but throughout many other countries from which they originally came for the express purpose of joining the Authority. It is sufficient to give one example of the difficulty that would be experienced. When the Authority was established in 1949 very few engineers in Australia had had any experience at all of works of the magnitude and complexity that the Authority was required to undertake. To overcome this difficulty, the Authority arranged for more than 100 of its engineers to obtain in-service training with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. It also established its own in-service training system for hydrographers, survey assistants and construction inspectors. This training, which was arranged by the Authority after much difficulty, has since been supplemented by the experience that has been gained in accepting the challenges of this immense project, and out of all that experience and the teamwork that has been developed has come the magnificent organisation that we have today. I shall not stress the obvious by stating the scope of future work in national development because every member in this chamber is well aware of that. I prefer to deal with the important question of whether it is, as I believe it is, essential that the Commonwealth provide engineering assistance in the development of Australia's resources, if they are ever to be developed. Undoubtedly, the belief exists in some quarters - it exists, I believe, in various State departments - that the continuance of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority would be detrimental to existing organisations in the States. That belief springs from the feeling that the Authority would take over tasks that can now be performed by State departments and that it would stand in the way of further expansion by State departments. That, I believe, is the crux of the issue as to whether the Authority should be continued. In the first place, when one looks at that issue, it is simply a statement of fact to say that the waters of the Snowy area would not now be generating electricity and irrigating fields except for the establishment of this Commonwealth Authority. It was shown over many years that the States were unable to tackle and carry through the task. But the task was eventually tackled by the Commonwealth under its defence powers, setting a precedent for the use of those defence powers on future tasks of national development. Further similar large works in the field of water conservation in this dry country cry out to be tackled. Is it common sense to disperse a Commonwealth Authority which can play so powerful a part and which is already established, equipped and ready to undertake the work, and to leave the task entirely to State Government departments, which would have to build a special organisation for each project as it was tackled? The Snowy Mountains Authority is particularly well fitted to undertake the construction of great dams, tunnels and control works, and the basic services that it would provide would bring a train of associated works that would use the full resources of existing State bodies to provide, for example, the services of irrigation, power and water supply in undeveloped areas. There are plenty of examples of the way in which the work of the Authority today is complementing the work of State Governments and providing additional work for State departments in the construction field. One of these examples is the development of the Coleambally irrigation area on the Mumimbidgee River - a magnificent irrigation development that exists today as a result of a direct partnership between the Authority and the New South Wales Government. I had the privilege of inspecting this development recently when I was endeavouring to prevent the present honorable member for Riverina **(Mr. Armstrong)** from winning that seat. Another example is the construction of the Blowering Dam, which is being built by the Snowy Mountains Authority for the New South Wales Government. The construction of this Dam will in turn give rise to very much work for State departments in using the waters stored. The simple fact is that the tackling of a vast project is a rare occurrence. For a State department, it means immense preliminary preparation in building an organisation. Organisations of the required magnitude do not exist, and cannot exist, in the six separate States. The members of such an organisation, even when it is built up, will not have had experience of working together as a team. Furthermore, the members of a special State organisation, on completion of its task, would have to be dismissed and the organisation dispersed, with the loss of teamwork and experience. Let us consider the Chowilla Dam in South Australia. This is a magnificent project and a cause for pride. It is to be built by the Engineering and Water Supply Department of South Australia on the lower Murray River. But the fact is that the South Australian Department has never encountered such a task before and is never likely to encounter such a task in the future. The Department has had to build up the whole staff and organisation required for this one job, and when the job is finished the organisation itself will be finished. A National Conservation Authority incorporating the Snowy Mountains Authority team could provide specialist assistance in such tasks. The United States Bureau of Reclamation exists and functions in very much the same way. The existence of the Commonwealth body that is envisaged would give State departments a better chance of obtaining funds for their projects. It would free them from the frustrations and inefficiencies of stop and go construction. A team of Commonwealth specialists would be available to give advice and assistance in all the highly specialised tasks associated with these great developmental works. In brief, the continuance of the Snowy Mountains Authority would aid, not stultify, State departments. At this stage, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I should like, in accordance with the terms of a note that I have already sent to the Minister for National Development, to incorporate in " Hansard ", with the concurrence of honorable members, a list of assignments already carried out by the Snowy Mountains Authority outside the Snowy Mountains area. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. ASSIGNMENTS CARRIED OUT BY THE AUTHORITY OUTSIDE THE SNOWY MOUNTAINS AREA. The building up of an integrated team of surveyors, hydrographers, geologists, materials specialists and electrical, mechanical and civil engineers has led to a maximum efficiency and skill being applied to all aspects of the Scheme. The reputation which the Authority now has throughout Australia and overseas, is well shown by the following assignments either carried out or in progress for other organisations - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Overseas - 1. Geological and engineering investigations including diamond drilling for two water resource development projects being planned for Mekong River in South-East Asia. This has involved teams working in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Construction of provincial roads in North- East Thailand and the training of Thai personnel to take over future construction and maintenance. {: type="i" start="iii"} 0. Investigation, design and possible future supervision of construction of the Prek Thnot Project. This multi-purpose project to provide hydro-electric power and water for irrigation is located on a tributary of the Mekong in Cambodia. 1. Hydro-electric investigations, assistance with establishment of a stream gauging network and training of hydrographic personnel in Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak. (The long-term political implications of the successful participation of Australia in projects such as these, both at present and in the future, cannot be over-emphasised.) {: type="a" start="b"} 0. In Australia - 2. Assistance in investigation and design for hydro-electric development in Papua and New Guinea. 3. Assistance in dam site investigations and design of works on the Cotter River in the Australian Capital Territory. 4. Assistance with the design of Callide and and Borumba Dams in Queensland. 5. Carrying out and providing training in photogrammetic methods of survey in Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia. 6. Field investigation for and design of stream gauging stations in Queensland and Western Australia. 7. Geological and engineering investigations for dams on the Dawson, Burnett and Gregory Rivers in Queensland. 8. Employment as consultants for the design of the Ord River Dam and Power Station in Western Australia. 9. Design and construction of Blowering Dam as agent for the State of New South Wales. 10. Assistance to the Electricity Commission of New South Wales in the investigation, design and supervision of construction of the cooling pond dam (containing some five million yards of material) required for the recently approved 2,000,000 kilowatt Liddell Power Station. {: type="a" start="x"} 0. In addition the Authority's services have been engaged by private companies seeking advice on various types of problems throughout Australia and also in Malaya, Hong Kong and New Zealand. The urgency of the need for an announcement by the Government can be shown by the fact that when the Snowy Mountains Authority was established in 1949 its work was scheduled for completion in 1983. In fact, investigation work is now virtually completed, design work will be completed in 1968, the last major project will be finished in 1972 and the whole Snowy Mountains scheme will be completed before 1975 - at least eight years earlier than was originally estimated. I know that the Minister is fully acquainted with the pump storage proposition and its possibilities for expanding the work of the Snowy Mountains Authority. So I shall not dwell on that issue. {: #subdebate-34-0-s2 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for National Development · Farrer · LP -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** first of all, I think, we have common ground in this House in that we all have a very high regard for the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. This has shown itself to be a particularly competent body. A highly competent and devoted engineer is in charge and tremendous keenness and enthusiasm are exhibited by the staff. After all, they are undertaking a project that is one of the great engineering wonders of the modern world. I believe that wc in Australia can be proud of the way in which this scheme has been carried out. Its success has been due not only to the great competency of its staff but also, I believe, to the Government's policy of adopting a system of contracts and bonus payments to encourage people to go to the Snowy Mountains area to work on the scheme. They are able to go there and work hard to put by a nest egg. Some of them go intending to stay only a few years and knowing quite well that they can make excellent wages and later return to the place from which they came with sufficient cash in hand for whatever purpose they have in mind. However, I do not believe that we should run away with the idea that the Snowy Mountains Authority is the only organisation in Australia that can do this kind of work. Admittedly, it is probably the one whose work is seen by most people, for there is a big flow of tourists to the Snowy Mountains. Many people see how good the work of the Authority is and perhaps they are inclined to say: "This is the only organisation that can undertake this sort of work." One has only to look at various other parts of Australia to understand that other existing organisations are capable of undertaking this sort of construction work. I notice that the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie),** who is Opposition Whip and who comes from Tasmania, is now in the chamber. I am sure he will agree with me that the Hydro-Electric Commission in Tasmania has shown that it is highly competent. It has carried out work similar to much of that undertaken by the Snowy Mountains Authority. Indeed, the installed power capacity of the Commission in Tasmania is at present about half as much again as that in the Snowy Mountains area, though it is true that from early next year, when the Murray 1 power station starts coming on stream, the capacity of the Snowy Mountains Authority will build up considerably. 1 just mention this to show that we cannot honestly say that without the Snowy Mountains Authority great works of this nature will not be undertaken. One could instance also the Kiewa hydro-electric scheme that has been completed in Victoria by the State Electricity Commission. In that scheme, a considerable amount of tunnelling, dam construction and the like was undertaken so that the waters of the Kiewa River could be- used for the generation of power. For that matter, all the States have bodies which are perfectly competent to carry out construction work. In most cases it is done by the relevant Department of Works. For example, if a dam is to be built in the Northern Territory the Commonwealth Department of Works would be perfectly competent to build it. In Western Australia, when we built the Ord diversion dam, that work was supervised by the State Department of Public Works. There are a number of bodies in Australia which are competent to carry out works of the sort mentioned by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro **(Mr. Allan Fraser).** But the honorable member wants a national conservation authority. Although there have been a number of alterations to the original design of the Snowy Mountains scheme, the basic plan was drawn up by **Sir Louis** Loder and some of his colleagues. This was agreed upon by the two States concerned and the Commonwealth. The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority was set up by the Commonwealth to carry out this work. What the honorable member for Eden-Monaro is suggesting is rather that we put the cart before the horse. He suggests that we set up the authority and then look at what it could undertake in order to keep it occupied. There are two questions that I want to ask. The first is: Do we have the constitutional authority to go into some part of some State and undertake a major work? The obvious answer to that is that we do not have the authority. It is quite true that if we were prepared to put up all the money for undertaking some work in one of the States, that State would probably be willing to allow us to do it, but we have not the constitutional authority to take our instrumentality into the States to carry out works there. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- What about the defence power? {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- I doubt whether the defence power would be sufficient here. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- It was used for the Snowy scheme. {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- That is so, but I am doubtful whether we could use it on this occasion, particularly so long after the war. The second question is: Is there anything that we can afford to do at the moment which we are not doing? It seems to me that we have both the technical skill and the technical ability to do anything that we have the money for. This is the great problem that faces us. I believe that if such an authority existed it would probably operate first of all in the northern areas, mainly because something like three-quarters of Australia's rain falls in northern Australia so that undoubtedly there is more scope for the use of dams and tropical irrigation in the northern areas than there is in the drier southern parts of the Commonwealth. But the big problem that faces us there is not only the assessment of the water resources but the assessment of land use. In actual fact, the engineering problem is a very small one and, I think, a very much easier one to solve. The first thing that has to be done - and it is being done through organisations such as the Australian Water Resources Council, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the State Departments of Agriculture and, for example, the research station in the Northern Territory - is to decide what water we have available, what land we have available and what we can grow in that area which we can sell. The last is the greatest problem of the lot. When we look at the possibilities of tropical irrigation we find there is very little indeed which can be grown in northern Australia which can be exported and sold on the world market. The local market would not be sufficient to justify any major expansion of tropical irrigation such as would be envisaged by a national conservation authority of the type suggested by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro. The answer to this problem boils down perhaps to cotton, and cotton is very difficult to sell on the export market because, as I am sure the honorable member knows, the United States of America, which has a virtual monopoly of the sale throughout the world of the particular type of cotton that could be grown in the north, subsidises the export of its cotton very considerably. Therefore, for Australia to compete on the world market it is not good enough for us merely to be able to produce cotton at the price at which America produces it; we must produce it at a much lower price in order to be able to compete with the American subsidy. What else could we grow in the north in a major scheme of the type that would be envisaged for this national conservation authority? We know that sugar can be grown very well in the north. But what is the position with relation to sugar today? As the honorable member for Leichhardt **(Mr. Fulton)** realises only too well, sugar is in glut supply in the world today, and I do not think the price has been lower during the last IS years than it is at present. Therefore, I suggest that the chances of building major dams to cater for increased production of sugar are out of the question at the moment. The same argument applies to the production of rice, which is probably one of the few other things which we could grow in major quantities up in the north. Up to now, the quantity of rice produced per acre has been disappointing, but there is no doubt that we can produce more. I suppose, too, that there is a possibility that we could irrigate pastures for the production of beef, but here again a tremendous amount of work would have to be done with relation to land usage before we would know whether we could go ahead with these major schemes or not. It has been suggested by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro that what we want here is something similar to the Bureau of Reclamation in the United States of America, but I do not think that there is really any true parallel in this field between Australia and the United States of America. For one thing, in the United States there are 48 continuous mainland States. Very often one river runs through as many as seven different States. Therefore it is essential to have an authority which has power to use water in a way that will be in the best interests of all the States through which a particular river passes. We have only one major river in Australia which runs through more than one State. That is the River Murray, which runs through three States. Ever since, I think, about 1913, we have had the River Murray Commission, and it has worked very well. The present indications are that every other river which is likely to be developed from now on runs through only the one State, so that we are not faced with the same problems with reference to reclamations as they have in the United States of America. Again, the rivers in America are much larger than ours. For instance, the Mississippi has an annual flow which is twice the total of that of all the rivers of Australia and it is essential that there be a major authority to control something of that magnitude. Another thing which led to the establishment of the United States Bureau of Reclamation was the fact that the United States Government retained title to much of the land west of the Mississippi whereas the only title we would have to land in the north would be in the Northern Territory. We have no title to land in Queensland or in Western Australia. So I cannot see any similarity between any authority that might be set up in Australia and the Bureau of Reclamation in America. I repeat that, in my view, to argue that we should set up an organisation and then look for something for it to do is to argue that we should put the cart before the horse. Some have suggested that such an organisation might generate tidal power. I have not the time to deal at any length with the question of tidal power, but I have heard it said by some very competent engineers that tidal power has come too late in comparison with atomic energy and therefore it is not likely that the world will see vast quantities of tidal power generated. Again, with that would be the associated problem of pump storage. Further, the most logical site for the production of the generation of this power is in the north of Western Australia, where at the present moment such power is not required anyway. Some people have suggested that the Snowy Mountains Authority should be retained as a consultant body. I agree that it could be. There may be some future for the Snowy Mountains organisation as a consultant body which could be approached in connection with work either throughout South East Asia or anywhere in Australia. Already, as my colleague has said, it has done a considerable amount of work. I think that in the last two years it has undertaken work valued at about £250,000, but this is not sufficient to keep an organisation of the same size as that authority going indefinitely. We are looking at the future. There is a long time to go before the major works cut out on the Snowy Mountains scheme. Tumut 3, which we have just agreed to proceed with, is to cost something like £65 million. There is still a considerable amount to be expended by the Snowy Mountains Authority. I think it is about £140 million. This will carry that authority on until about 1975. It is true that in some very small areas the work may reduce. I have in mind work such as that carried out by the Investigation Branch. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro spoke about pump storage. Unfortunately, pump storage is again a matter for the States and we have no authority to build pump storage for the States. In addition, this is not likely to provide the amount of work that would be required. It has been assessed that, from about 1975 onwards, the increase in pump storage required to cope with the peak load would provide work equivalent to only about £2 million per annum. This is not sufficient to keep together a body such as the Snowy Mountains Authority, which has been spending more than £10 million per annum and will spend about £21 million in this year. Finally, Jet me correct an impression created by the honorable member for EdenMonaro. He said that uncertainty about the future was having a demoralising effect on the staff of the Snowy Mountains Authority. I have figures for the 10 years ending 1964, and it is interesting to note that the resignations in 1964, as a percentage of the average number of staff of the Authority, were the lowest for the 10 years. To say that there is a demoralising effect, that people are drifting away and going overseas and into other organisations without waiting to finish this work on the Snowy Mountains, is completely incorrect. {: #subdebate-34-0-s3 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie .- A decision must be made now to retain the organisation of the Snowy Mountains Authority for the future development of Australia. The taking of such a decision cannot be delayed; it is of supreme importance. Australians everywhere must be dismayed at the disappointing speech made this afternoon by the Minister for National Development **(Mr. Fairbairn).** It was negative, defeatist and bankrupt of ideas. It must bring a feeling of disquiet to those employed by the Snowy Mountains Authority. The death sentence has been pronounced on the Authority by the Minister. This 'grand organisation, set up by the Labour Administration, is to die at the hands of a non-Labour Government. It will, however, live at the next election when the Australian Labour Party will be pleased to make this an election issue and give the people of Australia an opportunity to declare their belief that the Snowy Mountains scheme should continue and the men engaged on it should be allowed to serve this nation in the vast challenging work that lies ahead as Australia expands. The Minister said: "We do not want cotton and we do not want sugar. We must not have development because there is no need to develop. We must leave things as they are." What a travesty that is. It is a tragedy. Day by day in this vast empty country of ours we see the red dust drifting across the landscape and being blown out to sea. Our top soil is lost to us. Rivers rise in the mountains and are lost in the deserts. Despite the glorious example we have in the work of the Snowy Mountains Authority, the Minister in this National Parliament spoke as he did this afternoon. I am disappointed and dismayed. I regret very much that the Minister has not encouraged the nation and the Parliament and has failed to offer even a ray of hope to those employed by the Snowy Mountains Authority who have served this nation and the community generally. This is the driest of all continents. Men such as **Mr. Nimmo** and Professor Munro have spoken of the problems that face Australia. **Mr. Nimmo** has said - >Australia is by far the driest of the continents. Our average annual rainfall of 16½ inches is little more than half that of the United States; about twothirds that of Europe, Asia and Africa; but only one-third that of South America. > >The position is made worse by mal-distribution of precipitation in both space and time. The average annual rainfall ranges from some 200 inches to less than 5 inches, but the maximum variation is from nearly 300 inches to 1 inch. That is a most important statement. I have asked the Minister questions on this subject. I have asked him to tell me of any major water scheme that is in operation north of the 26th parallel. He has answered truthfully that there is none. Is this good enough? Have we exhausted our spirit of adventure and reached the end of our development? We are told by the Minister that no water scheme exists north of the 26th parallel. Is this nation to be satisfied with an answer such as that? Yet that is the Minister's written reply to my question. The Minister came into the House this afternoon to answer a case prepared in a fair and reasonable way by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, who pleaded the cause not merely of the Snowy Mountains Authority but also of the nation. The Minister has thrown cold water on our suggestions - water colder than any that is to be found in the Snowy Mountains scheme. The Government has a responsibility to do a thousand and one jobs. The water of the Gascoyne could be used to develop the area through which it runs and so enable it to provide vegetables for Australia. The development of the major scheme on the Ord River should be continued. The need for this development is well known and has been voiced by honorable members on the Government side of the House, who know that a major programme on the Ord is a matter of urgency. But now the Minister says that we must not have water conservation, reticulation or irrigation because we do not need the extra commodities that would be produced. Has not Australia the right to be the granary for this part of the world? Has it not the right to provide food for the people outside Australia who need to be fed? Would it not be better for our development if we were to invest in the production of food for these people rather than spend millions of pounds on some adventure overseas? Surely the feeding of people in other lands is an answer to the immediate problem today. It is undoubtedly inevitable that the work on the Snowy Mountains scheme will be completed and that the work force will no longer be required there. The expert band of planners, engineers and technicians will excavate their last tunnel and will install their last power station. Unless action is taken without delay, this skilled organisation will be lost to Australia. That would be a tragedy. That is the issue we are considering now. This organisation will not disband only when the entire project is finished, but, as each job draws to a close, engineers, surveyors, mining experts and key personnel will be lost to this country. They will move out. There will be no further work for them. This nation will also lose the contractors, with their skilled work force, machinery and equipment, who have made world records in tunnelling. This will be the result if the Government fails to act now, and I believe that it has decided against continuing with the Snowy Mountains Authority. Its blind folly will deserve the strongest censure not only of this Parliament but of the nation. The honorable member for EdenMonaro has not raised this matter as a censure in itself. This is a call for leadership in constructive nation building and a plea for action now. No-one will dare criticise the magnificent achievements of the Snowy Mountains Authority. It won world acclaim and it was fitting that the Minister, the responsible head of the Department, should pay a compliment to the organisation. But the future is uncertain and from the increasing loss of the solid core of skilled personnel in the 35 to 50 years age group from the Snowy Mountains project, the Minister should know that a critical situation has been reached. He referred to the fact that there was now a smaller call-up of such personnel than there had been for some time previously. The Minister should know that up to 15 per cent, of its engineers have been lost to the Snowy Mountains organisation each year. These are facts which he as the responsible Minister, can obtain. Those who went to work on the Snowy Mountains project did so because they believed there was a promise of permanent employment. The Prime Minister stated his belief that the work would last until 1984, but in fact it will terminate before the end of 1975. Furthermore, those engaged in the undertaking were led to believe their employment would be permanent. They went before the' Public Service Arbitrator who, in determination No. 97 of 1953, declared them to be public servants, as it was believed they would be permanently employed. This nation cannot afford to lose the services of these people. The challenging tasks of developing this nation are so great that we need everybody we can get here with technical skill, know-how, muscle and brain to play their part in the development of Australia. Of the engineers engaged on the Snowy Mountains project, 40 per cent, were recruited from abroad and we require the services of these people today. The Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Opperman)** could tell the Minister for National Development just how hard it is today to recruit anyone with skills from overseas to come to Australia and serve in this country. {: #subdebate-34-0-s4 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-34-0-s5 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for the Interior [4.27]. - On the question of expressing commendation of the work of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority I think there is unanimity of opinion on both sides of the House. This organisation has done a splendid job in giving Australia a much greater image in the eyes of the rest of the world. In being able to undertake large projects it has given the nation a certain degree of confidence that it can enter into big programmes and carry out big works. Today the Opposition is endeavouring to perpetuate this organisation by merely giving it a new name. Apparently honorable members opposite believe that giving the Authority a new name means that it will remain a permanent organisation. If it is to be made a permanent organisation the first requirement is to find jobs for it to do. As the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser · Richmond · CP said, the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** stated in 1963 that we wanted the Snowy Mountains Authority to be kept in existence in order to do jobs in the future. But there are constitutional problems involved in finding work for it. Apart from its own developmental work the Authority is today doing investigation work for all types of authorities. It is doing work for various State Governments and State authorities. It is doing work for private mining companies and also for certain overseas governments. In Thailand it is doing work connected with the building and construction of roads. In Cambodia and the Mekong Delta it is carrying out investigations into possible dam sites, river flow and other matters. It is therefore becoming a much broader organisation than it was originally intended to be. This organisation first got off the ground through the efforts of a Labour Prime Minister, **Mr. Chifley** who recognised the need for more power and for additional food production. At that time there were black-outs caused by a shortage of power, and a world wide need for food. The only way we could see to provide this power and food quickly was by starting this imaginative scheme, the Snowy Mountains project. It was such a gigantic scheme that it was impossible for either the Government of New South Wales or the Government of Victoria to undertake it single handed and so the Commonwealth Labour Government, using the defence power - I do not think that it had any constitutional rights whatever to do so - started on this project. For five years the validity of the Authority was in doubt in the courts and tribunals of this country. It was not until, with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government and the co-operation of the State Governments concerned supporting legislation was passed giving the Authority full power to carry out construction work in the Snowy Mountains area, that this difficulty was overcome. This points to the constitutional difficulty involved in this great project, as it took five years before the organisation had full authority to operate in the Snowy Mountains area. If anybody likes to study the difficulties that the Commonwealth and the Snowy Mountains Authority faced in the building of the Blowering Dam, he has only to have a closer look at the position. In the discussions on the original agreement, the New South Wales Government felt that it should do the job, and when the agreement was renegotiated in 1956 it still felt that it should build the dam. It was only a couple of years ago, when the whole programme for the release of water into the Murrumbidgee River was being delayed, that the Commonwealth Government came forward and offered the New South Wales Government a short term loan of half the cost of the Blowering Dam, and agreement was reached for the State Government to go ahead and build it. Having agreed to build the dam the New South Wales Government called in the Snowy Mountains Authority as its agent to construct the project. I state that case history in order to give honorable members an idea of the constitutional problems involved when it suggested that a Commonwealth instrumentality should go into a State to undertake a major power or irrigation project. I know that Tasmania, which the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie),** who is interjecting, represents, would very much resent the Commonwealth entering its borders to carry out any irrigation or other project, in view of that State's splendid record and its capacity to do the work itself. The Minister for National Development **(Mr. Fairbairn)** said that if the organisation is to be maintained we must first find projects for it to carry out. It is not just a case of finding a dam site in order to conserve water and put in a power project. It is also necessary to investigate the source of the water, land usage and the economics of the crops which might be grown in the area affected. This work is being undertaken by the Australian Water Resources Council, and the State Governments, in their respective areas, are carrying out surveys into land usage and the economics of crops. I imagine that when the States have reached conclusions on these various projects, if they feel that they have not the capacity to do the work they might make an approach to the Commonwealth. That is what happened in New South Wales in regard to flood mitigation. After a great deal of politics had been played, the Government of New South Wales approached the Commonwealth Government with a proposal, which it accepted. The honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti)** said: " We must know the future now ". Why must we know the future now? There is still 10 years to go before the Snowy Mountains scheme will be completed. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- There is not 10 years to go for the design staff, the construction staff or even half the construction staff. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- If the honorable member for Eden-Monaro is merely wondering about the design staff I can inform him that it is getting more and more employment in doing consultant work for the States and overseas authorities. It is doing all types of work in this regard and the staff is not tapering off. The work that is being done by the Authority is building up rapidly. This year the consultant work of the expert design section has been increasing more and more, and 1 imagine it will continue to increase as the years go by. {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- But the Government is closing it down. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- That is not correct. The honorable member asks merely that the name of the organisation be changed, because he thinks that a new name will give it perpetuity. I imagine that if the demand for it to do more and more expert survey and design work continues the Authority will develop a stature of its own- {: .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- But the Minister said that not the construction staff of the Authority but only the design staff would be continued, and on a smaller scale. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr ANTHONY: -- The Minister for National Development explained the position quite clearly to the House. How can the Snowy Mountains Authority become a construction authority unless definite projects are placed before it which the State Governments would allow it to undertake? There is a great difference between the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Snowy Mountains Authority. The American Bureau of Reclamation was set up in 1902 by President Theodore Roosevelt, lt was needed at that time because of the existence of a large number of poor States - the 17 irrigation States. Vast amounts of money were required to undertake major projects affecting all of those States. In the United States in those days there was no system of State grants or State loans such as we have in Australia. It is true that many of the Australian States have the capacity to undertake large works, but as I said before, if any State has a particular case to submit, the Commonwealth Government will look into it. The honorable member for Macquarie made one point which I think is very relevant. He said that if something is not done about changing the name of the Authority the matter will be brought up at the next election. I think it is obvious that the Labour Party is playing a bit of politics in this matter. The honorable member stated categorically that no major irrigation projects were being undertaken north of the 26th parallel. There may not be any actual irrigation works but certainly examination and survey work is being undertaken both by the Queensland Government and the Snowy Mountains Authority into dam sites in that State. There are some very large hydroelectric projects in train. There is for instance the Mareeba-Dimboola irrigation scheme which is north of the 26th parallel. This scheme, which is estimated to cost £15.6 million is a Queensland Government undertaking. It is no use the Labour Party trying to play politics and saying that the Commonwealth is not doing anything, or is not encouraging or showing interest in irrigation or water conservation schemes in the north. The Snowy Mountains Authority is a magnificent organisation and I am quite sure that with everyone's co-operation it will continue in existence. {: #subdebate-34-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The Minister's time has expired. {: #subdebate-34-0-s7 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie .- I support the honorable member for EdenMonaro **(Mr. Allan Fraser)** who has directed attention to the urgent necessity for the immediate establishment of a. national conservation authority which will in due course incorporate the Snowy Mountains Authority and thus ensure that the skill and experience of the personnel of that Authority are retained to carry on further developmental projects in Australia. It is only a very short time really since work was first commenced on the Snowy Mountains scheme. As everybody knows the scheme was initiated by a Labour Government which, despite strong opposition and criticism from members of the Libera! Party and Country Party was able to put the scheme into operation in October 1949. It is as well to remind the House that the Liberal Party was so strongly opposed to the scheme that, to show its attitude to what it termed unwarranted waste of public money, its members went so far as to boycott the ceremony held on 17th October 1945 to mark the beginning of what has proved to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scheme we have ever had in Australia. In view of the fact that honorable members now on the other side of the House were so strongly opposed to the Snowy Mountains scheme in the first place, and now show no interest whatsoever in any water conservation plans for the future, it is no wonder that people generally - not only those associated with the Snowy Mountains scheme - are becoming very disturbed at the definite possibility that Australia will lose the personnel who have the knowledge and experience which has made the scheme the great success that it certainly is. By the establishment of a national conservation authority we would not only retain the services of the skilled personnel and others who have become so well acquainted with the work, but we would also be able to retain and put into operation in further important projects, the very valuable laboratories and the huge quantities of equipment and materials that have been built up by or around the Snowy Mountains Authority. What great value all this would be, not only in major projects undertaken by the Commonwealth, but also in large or small jobs in the various States. How much cheaper it would be to survey, plan and carry out those developmental jobs if the necessary specialists, materials and equipment were readily available. The very absence of delays in acquiring whatever was needed would be of great assistance. Also, surely in cases where Commonwealth finance was involved it would be much more satisfactory to have the planning and estimating carried out by people who have had so much experience in such matters. On this point I refer to what has happened in relation to estimates for standard gauge work on the railways. The Minister for National Development **(Mr. Fairbairn)** and the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Anthony)** seemed to have three main problems. One was the constitutional problem. They suggested that the States would be opposed to the Commonwealth entering into their territory to do this sort of work. Surely no sane State Government would object to the Commonwealth offering physical as well as financial assistance. After all, did not the Governments of Western Australia and Queensland some time ago agree to co-operate with the Commonwealth? Are they not the two State Governments mainly concerned with northern development? The Minister for National Development asked: What can we grow that we will be able to sell on the market? All 1 can say is that the Government obviously has no real interest in water conservation in the north if that is its attitude. The third criticism was that the work for a northern development authority should be determined before the authority itself is established. The Minister for National Development said that to do otherwise was to put the cart before the horse. But that is one of the complaints of the Opposition: We have been saying for some time that the Government has no plans for national development or water conservation. Surely the benefits of the Snowy Mountains scheme, which was commenced in 1949, have been evident for some years now. The Government should be able to appreciate the value of the scheme and realise that in the north of Australia there are plenty of projects that could be put into operation. Provision should be made for the Authority to carry on with these projects as soon as it finishes the work on which it is now engaged. At the commencement of the Snowy Mountains scheme very few engineers in Australia were qualified to cope with the demands of the project, and therefore a special training scheme was put into operation. It involved both overseas training and what was termed " in-service " training. As a result of that training, combined with experience gained on the job itself, it can be undeniably claimed that the Snowy Mountains Authority has built up in Australia a strength of professional and subprofessional officers, competent and qualified to undertake any developmental work, regardless of its size, nature or locality. According to a publication issued by the Authority in 1961, its staff at that time numbered 1 ,400, including no less than 800 engineers and 136 scientists and assistants. In addition, the Authority had a labour force of 14,000. Admittedly the Snowy Mountains scheme is a very large and complex project, but I think that the figures I have quoted show that if we are to have any other major development work in Australia we will require a large force of professional and other types of workers. It appears from reports that the major projects of the Snowy Mountains scheme will be virtually completed during 1972, which is a mere six years to go. If the professional and subprofessional men have not already started looking for jobs elsewhere - the honorable member for Eden-Monaro says they have started - they soon will be. They will seek other projects on which to employ their skill and knowledge when the Snowy scheme is completed. Just recently I had an opportunity to speak to an engineer engaged on a rather large project in the north. I was surprised to learn from him that of several engineers on the job he was the only Australian, and that he had been engaged overseas and brought out here for that particular job. That suggests to me that most of our engineers are leaving Australia, or if they are in jobs in Australia they are so well located and so well satisfied and are not interested in jobs in the north. If that is so, once we lose the men from the Snowy Mountains Authority it will be very difficult to recover them again for any major development work that we may decide to engage upon. If we do not ensure that we keep these men we will find ourselves in the same position as we were in 1949. We will be faced with a shortage of men qualified to do the job. We will once again have to bear the cost of training these men, but this time the cost will be greater. It is not as though there was nothing else for these people to do in the way of development and water conservation work in Australia. The skill and knowledge of the people working with the Snowy Mountains Authority, both professional and otherwise, must not be lost to Australia if that can be avoided - and it can be. The Snowy Mountains scheme has shown what can be done in the supply of power and water when people qualified to do the work are given the opportunity to employ their skill and knowledge. It would be foolish to suggest that the Snowy area is the one place in Australia where projects of such magnitude may be established. Anybody with any sense of responsibility must appreciate the problems and difficulties that we face in this country in the supply of water and power. Lack of sufficient water presents a real problem over almost all of Australia. I do not think we will ever have a surplus of water, but undoubtedly the problem can be overcome substantially if we set out to conserve only a small percentage of what is allowed to escape. I am referring now not only to the north but also to many parts of the south. The future development of perhaps 75 per cent, of Australia depends entirely on the conservation of water. Water is our greatest need. Without it much of Australia can never be properly developed. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue for much longer, and there is no reason why it should continue. In most of the areas where water conservation is desperately required an abundance of water escapes to the sea each year. The water is there in sufficient quantities to meet all the needs of development, but we must seize the opportunity to store the water until it is required. The results that have been achieved in the Snowy area prove conclusively that, provided finance is forthcoming, we can conserve water in this country wherever we decide to do so. Surely nobody will suggest that it is not financially possible to start work immediately on some of our known water resources. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-34-0-s8 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** the matter befor the House is one that should be discussed quietly and having regard to the future needs of Australia, but the honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. Collard)** did not treat the subject in this way. He began by stating that in 1949 members of the Opposition parties, which now form the Government, boycotted the opening of the Snowy scheme. Of course, he did not tell us that the opening was a rush publicity stunt undertaken only a few weeks before the 1949 general election, which the Labour Government lost. He did not tell us that it was a publicity stunt held only for election purposes six miles from the site of the Eucumbene Dam wall. Is there any reason for anybody to attend a performance of that kind in those circumstances? The honorable member for EdenMonaro **(Mr. Allan Fraser)** said that the Snowy Mountains Authority was established under the Commonwealth's defence power and that this power could be used to extend Commonwealth activity into the State field in many other directions. In the middle 1950's it became clear that the Commonwealth's defence power was a shaky ground on which to rest the continued existence of the Snowy Mountains Authority. So the Commonwealth passed legislation and complementary legislation was passed by New South Wales and Victoria underpinning the Commonwealth's power so that the matter would not be in doubt. This suggests that if the Commonwealth desired to pursue this kind of activity in the future in a different area involving different States, not only would the Commonwealth have to act on its own behalf but it would also have to get the approval of the States and persuade the States to pass complementary legislation. The Opposition has not suggested that State approval for an extension of Commonwealth activity of this kind would be forthcoming. If the Authority is to have a continuing existence after its work in the Snowy area is finished it must have a positive role. Neither the honorable member for EdenMonaro nor other speakers from the Opposition side have tried to define that role. They have not tried to tell us what powers, functions, scope or influence should be vested in the authority which they believe should be established. Reference has been made by Opposition speakers to the need to preserve the skills of the men employed in the Snowy area, but there has been no suggestion that if the Snowy Mountains Authority is not continued those skills will be lost to Australia. The suggestion has been that these men will find employment in other areas in Australia - in government services or in private industry. They still would be performing a useful task for this country. We must ask ourselves what kind of authority is required if we are to have a practical instrumentality in the future. Is it to work only on a commission basis, doing work when the Commonwealth or the States take work to it? If we exclude the Blowering Dam, work of this kind done by the Snowy Authority in the last two years has been of the order of £250,000 a year. So it would seem to be up to the States and the Commonwealth in the next few years, while the Authority is in existence, to show whether growth of this kind of work justifies the continued existence of the Authority. Is the suggested body in the future to be a constructing authority, constructing for the States? There has been no suggestion that the States would want the Commonwealth to intervene in this field. Would the authority initiate proposals, advising governments not only on the technical aspects of a specific matter but advising which projects should be undertaken and which should not? If this is the -idea in the minds of Opposition speakers I suggest that an authority very different from the Snowy Mountains Authority would be required, because as I understand the position, the Snowy Mountains Authority was formed to construct a specific series of projects. This was after the Government decision had been made known and at a time when it was clearly understood what the power and water would be used for. This is a different task requiring different skills from those required in advising whether a particular project should be pursued. Other matters must be taken into consideration. If the underlying purpose of the Opposition is to have an authority established to advise governments generally, it has not suggested how this should be done. It is impossible to replace the normal relationships and negotiations between the Commonwealth and the States on any major undertaking in which both are interested. It is up to the Opposition to show how the extended authority will help governments to operate more efficiently to the benefit of Australia than they have up to the present time. In this regard we must take note of the sensitivities of the States and of their considerable resources in many fields. Would the States be prepared to accept a Commonwealth authority in these other fields? The Opposition has not suggested that they would. Governments must do their own work. It cannot be done for them. An authority cannot be given responsibilities which properly lie with governments. Reference has been made in the debate to northern development. It may be that the Opposition thinks that a permanent authority could assist in developing our north. What would be the function of such an authority? Northern development falls broadly into two parts - public development, such as the Ord River scheme and the possible future construction of the Ord River Dam, and private development of our great mineral resources, involving private capital and public companies. Where is the case for an authority in this field? lt does not lie in telling private concerns what to do or in advising them how to develop great mineral resources. This advice, I would think, would come from the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Would the authority's function- be to design a dam on the Ord River? lt might be, but this is a small project compared with the Snowy project. The existence of an authority of this kind would not be required for a job such as the Ord River Dam. Would the authority say whether the dam should be built? If this is the function of the authority as envisaged by the Opposition I suggest that it involves different skills, different techniques and different knowledge from those which have been developed and acquired by the Snowy Mountains Authority through a long and distinguished career. It may well be that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro had perfectly natural feelings about the town of Cooma, but if a permanent authority were established I would think it most unlikely that it would have its headquarters at Cooma. It would be much more likely to be moved to an area where there could be greater constructional activity at some time in the future, probably somewhere in the northern part of Australia. The support of something of this kind would do nothing to maintain the extreme prosperity which has existed in Cooma in recent years. The proposal now before the House may well be admirable in its intent but it has not received sufficient thought as to the purpose of the proposed authority, its function or its scope. {: #subdebate-34-0-s9 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- The honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. Malcolm Fraser)** has come forward with a new argument for the Government against the proposition that we have raised, namely, that Cooma would not be the most appropriate site for any national conservation authority and accordingly, if the Commonwealth is to retain an interest in the activities which the Snowy Mountains Authority has carried on for the last 15 years, it will do so from headquarters other than the present one. The two Ministers who have participated in this debate adopted an entirely negative, defensive and defeatist attitude. The Minister for National Development **(Mr. Fairbairn)** has again adopted, we are disappointed to see, the same attitude that he adopted towards a similar proposal earlier in this sessional period. On that occasion the Opposition deplored the Government's failure to ensure that Trans-Australia Airlines receive one-half of the inter-capital freight and passenger traffic. All the Minister did was to praise the record of T.A.A. He gave no indication of what the future of the organisation was to be. Today, when speaking to the matter which the Opposition has raised, he praised the Snowy Mountains Authority but gave no indication of what its future is to be. Both the Minister for National Development and the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Anthony)** took two lines of defence. The first was the practical one - what work is there for a conservation authority to do? If we adopted this argument, we would have no permanent State or Commonwealth Departments of Works. We would set them up when we found some work for them to do. Meantime one would assert that there was no future or certainty for them and therefore no need for them. So, then they ask: " Why have a Snowy Mountains Authority? What work will it do?" We all accept the fact that there will be a continuing, in fact an increasing, need for conservation in this country. This will mean an increasing need for Commonwealth interest in conservation because the Commonwealth has the financial resources which the States do not have and will never again have. Furthermore, the Commonwealth is responsible for the Northern Territory where more water rises than in all the Australian States combined. Above all the Commonwealth must assist in the north of the two largest States, Queensland and Western Australia, which are the States with the weakest financial resources. Not only must the Commonwealth assist them but it must also co-ordinate their activities with those of the Northern Territory for which it has sole responsibility. The other argument advanced by the two Ministers was the constitutional argument. The Minister for the Interior is familiar with this one. When **Mr. McGuren** was the honorable member for Cowper he advanced arguments in both 1962 and 1963 why the Commonwealth should assist in flood mitigation on the northern rivers of New South Wales and on the Shoalhaven. On each occasion the Minister for the Interior said that this was a State matter, that this was leading to unification and that this was an obnoxious proposal. I need not go through all the objections he raised but he spoke twice on **Mr. McGuren's** first proposal and once on the second. Afterwards it was found that the proposal was perfectly feasible. The Commonwealth Government is now assisting the State to carry out work on all the rivers from the Shoalhaven and the Hunter to the Queensland border. Just before the 1963 election the Government was contemplating co-operating with New South Wales and Queensland to conserve the waters of the border rivers. As soon as the election was over the proposal was abandoned. The waters of the border rivers between New South Wales and Victoria, the two most opulent and developed States, have been conserved by the Commonwealth acting through the River Murray Commission and the Snowy Mountains Authority. If Commonwealth assistance was found necessary there, is it not necessary as regards New South Wales and Queensland and still more, as regards Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory? When His Excellency the Ambassador to Ireland - or is it the Republic of Ireland? - was the honorable member for Riverina he used to object to the proposal that the Commonwealth assist with the construction of the Blowering Dam in New South Wales. When **Mr. Arthur** Fuller was the honorable member for Hume he plugged away at this proposal, and we found that it was feasible and it is now under way. I think I am correct in saying that **Mr. Arthur** Fuller's successor has never asked a question or made a speech relating to the Snowy Mountains scheme since he came to this House. The constitutional argument will not hold water. The Commonwealth can operate in any State with its authority. How else do the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics operate? As the honorable member for Leichhardt **(Mr.** Fulton) has asked, which State would knock it back? I believe that I am to be followed in this debate by a southern Queenslander. If he and his leaders were to go north - other than the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** who goes there on holidays - they would find intense resentment at the Commonwealth's attitude that development in Australia must be confined to areas south of a line from Rockhampton to Perth. Even then one ignores the Fitzroy River. What about the Burdekin, the Ord and all the other rivers which between them provide the best water supplies in Australia? The two Ministers asked what work there is for the proposed authority to do. One mentioned cotton, sugar and rice but he did not refer to water conservation for the cattle industry or the brigalow area. What about cheap hydro-electric water supplies for Gove and Gladstone and all the new industries which we can base on the minerals in the northern States and the Territory? All these things are possible. It is common knowledge that the Menzies Government came into office with a notable lack of enthusiasm for the Snowy Mountains scheme. Honorable members opposite claimed that it represented an increase in Commonwealth responsibility and that it was an intrusion into the Federal system. They boycotted the opening. Since then they have vied with royalty and vice-royalty to open each new section of the work. The work authorised by the relevant Act was to be completed by 1984. The work will now be completed 10 years earlier unless the skilled men, the engineers, the scientists and the technicians leave in increasing numbers, as they are doing at present. In fact, advertisements for skilled staff appear in the newspapers in the States. The turnover in staff increases and the work is delayed. The Minister said that the scheme will now be completed in 1975. These schemes do not come into being fully formed. They need investigation, they need design, they need construction and they need ancillary services. In all these respects the work is tapering off. First, let me take the matter of investigation. There are 15 engineers whose work in this preliminary field is now cutting out. In fact, it has virtually stopped. Secondly, there is the field of design in which there are 60 civil engineers employed. This work will chop out in two years, or at most in three years. I come now to major contract supervision, which will decline from the end of this year. It will plummet in three years. In this field 250 technical men are employed, including 50 engineers. Most of the work of the field construction division, where 30 engineers are employed, is now finished. About 40 per cent, of the skilled men - the engineers in the Authority - were recruited from overseas. They provide the greatest pool of skill and engineering morale and technique in this country. It transcends that of any university, any State department, and any Territory authority. Yet the Government in effect says: "There is plenty of work for the branches, but no work for the trunk itself ". The Snowy Mountains Authority can work in New Guinea, Thailand and Cambodia, but there will be no work for it on the mainland of Australia. {: #subdebate-34-0-s10 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-34-0-s11 .speaker-KAR} ##### Dr GIBBS:
Bowman **.- Mr. Speaker,** I am unable to agree with the terms of this subject for discussion except in so far as it implies a compliment to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. The Authority has done absolutely magnificent work and this country will be forever in its debt. **Sir, I** am sure that the gloomy prognostications of honorable members opposite as to the Authority's future are not at all founded on fact. It is not surprising to see that the Australian Labour Party is beginning to beat the big drum of national development. It has been searching desperately for an issue on which it might find favour with the people. The Labour Party is now grasping at this very fragile straw. How fragile it is can be seen from the contributions to this debate made by honorable members opposite. For the most part they displayed jejune emotionalism and paid scant attention to fact. Of course, it was not surprising to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** make some of his characteristically misleading statements about water resources. We all know how resourceful this honorable gentleman is from the point of view of water. It was not surprising that he threw a few of his characteristic ideas across the table. However, I believe it is time he realised that the House has reached saturation point in this respect. Arguments put by honorable . members opposite contrast with the strong case advanced by honorable members on this side of the chamber. We should not lose sight of the more sinister implication of this proposal; that is, that its implementation would of necessity result in a planned economy. The People the North Committee stated in its progress report No. 9 of 1st October 1965 - >The choice is to plan our future or let it happen. If the Government is to set up a statutory body for the north, it must first accept the principle of economic planning. That is quite true, **Sir. It** is the key to the situation. The Labour Party, after its disastrous attempts to socialise and imprison the economy in 1948 and 1949, has now resorted to back door methods to achieve that end. This is one such method. We all realise the vast scope for development in Australia, but it involves far more money than is available at present from any source. If a socialistic method of development got out of phase in some way, stringent economic measures involving penal taxation, loss of freedom and a fully socialised economy could easily be invoked, f strongly believe that private enterprise, aided by government advice and assistance, is the proper agency for national development, as it always has been in the past. It has worked in the past and will work in the future. The people of this country have no wish to be chained to this juggernaut of Socialist marque. In any case, what would the proposed authority do? Would it first plan what was necessary and then let contracts? If it is to plan, what data will it use? Water resources are of paramount importance to this country, and already we have the Australian Water Resources Council, which was brought into being through the initiative of this Government. It is actively prosecuting investigations of the amount of water available to us. Of necessity, such investigations must take some time. It takes years to obtain accurate information from this vast country with a very variable rainfall. If the Labour Party, when it was in power, had shown the slightest interest in this problem and had instituted such a council, possibly we would now have sufficient data at our disposal. But it failed to do so, which makes me doubt the genuineness of its motives at present. Once the proposed authority established the volume of our water resources, what would it then do? Would it then madly irrigate everything in sight, or plan to grow something which is reasonably economical? The Minister for National Development **(Mr. Fairbairn)** dealt very effectively with this problem. He pointed out the weakness of growing cotton and the difficulties involved in marketing it overseas. We are now almost at the stage when we can supply all our own cotton requirements. The Minister also referred to the difficulties associated with sugar and rice growing, and the uneconomic aspects of irrigating pastures at present. I come now to the problems associated with wheat. Someone said that we could be the granary of South East Asia. That would be very fine, but even now we are having difficulty selling our wheat. Surely Australian wheat growers, with the best will in the world, cannot afford to grow wheat and then give it away. We must be realistic and ensure that we are not buoyed up with emotionalism. We must get down to the facts and see exactly what can be done. Otherwise we are acting irresponsibly to the taxpayers of this country, who must bear the burden and pay for badly planned ventures. I believe that one product of great importance involved in this discussion is meat. I think that meat will surpass wool in importance quite soon. It is a commodity which we can grow effectively and economically and is not glutted on . the world's markets. There is an increasing world wide demand for meat and no sign of a significant fall in prices. The Government has played its part very nobly to develop markets for our meat. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has done wonders to assist meat production in northern areas and the associated problems have almost all been satisfactorily solved. Beef production in the north is in the proving stage at the moment, but I am sure that within the next few years we will see an upsurge. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition dwelt briefly and misleadingly on the constitutional problems involved in the setting up of the suggested authority. The fact remains that such an authority would run almost immediately into very serious constitutional difficulties. The most serious diffi culty is that agreement in such a matter must be reached by all of the States, and it is very difficult indeed to see such an agreement being reached in these matters. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- By all of the States? {: .speaker-KAR} ##### Dr GIBBS: -- Yes. The States would have to be in agreement before the proposal could be properly implemented. We saw a similar problem involved in the setting up of the Snowy Mountains Authority, the constitutional foundation of which is itself certainly pretty rickety. When the Snowy Mountains scheme was first being determined, although the Governments of Victoria and New South Wales reached rapid agreement and passed enabling legislation in their Parliaments, South Australia, the other State involved, held out and proved to be quite troublesome. It was only when South Australia had extracted her pound of flesh that the Snowy Mountains scheme could be allowed to proceed. That is the sort of problem that would have to be met if these empty ideas and emotional thoughts put forward by the Opposition were catastrophically attempted. Honorable members opposite said that the Minister for National Development and the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Anthony)** were being negative. They were not. They put forward a positive case in keeping with the positive line of approach that has characterised national development in this country. What has the Government done? I have referred to the setting up of the Australian Water Resources Council. Beef roads are in the course of construction and have definitely proved their worth. They will do so more and more every year. The Bureau of Mineral Resources and private enterprise are working together to establish new mineral fields. This is another great aspect of our country's future. Investigations of mineral resources have been going on for years and the investigations are now bringing forth results. We saw in the Press this morning that new deposits of lead and zinc of world significance have been discovered. A couple of weeks ago it was announced that a new bauxite deposit had been discovered in the northern part of Western Australia. There are very promising signs of phosphate. There is iron ore in Tasmania, as was mentioned by the honorable member for Denison **(Mr. Gibson),** and there is iron ore in plenty in Western Australia. All these things are contributing to a magnificent future for Australia, which is developing very quickly. I had the privilege of working in the north of this country some years ago when a Labour Government was in power. I can assure honorable members that it was just an empty backwater at that stage, despite the highflown statements of honorable members opposite in this place. Now, after a recent trip to that area, I know that the whole country has been transformed. The people in those areas are optimistic, ports are being established, new railway lines are being built and new mineral resources are being developed. There will be new centres of population which will certainly see this country progress. We must be responsible in this matter. The responsibility of this Government is something to be greatly applauded and the people of Australia, I am sure, appreciate it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The discussion is now concluded. {: .page-start } page 1683 {:#debate-35} ### EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1965 {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 30th September (vide page 1536), on motion by **Mr. McEwen** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX:
Henty .- On 3rd May 1956 the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr. McEwen)** introduced the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill. He stated that its purpose was to promote export trade and thereby to assist our balance of payments problem. The setting up of the Corporation encouraged exporters both of primary products and manufactured goods to seek new markets because it ensured that they could obtain insurance cover for up to 85 per cent. of the value of their exports against noncommercial risks such as the insolvency of the purchaser, the freezing of overseas currency, the imposition of import restrictions, non-payment due to such things as war, riot and insurrection, and the devaluation of overseas currency. It is interesting to examine the ninth annual report of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and to see the type of claims that had been made. In the financial year ended 30th June last, 76 claims were made for a total of a little more than £160,000. Seventeen claims were in respect of insolvency of buyer, 14 because of protracted default on payment, 22 for political reasons such as import restrictions, devaluation or freezing of currency, and 23 for default on contract. That the original Bill has achieved its objects is obvious. The original capital provided for the Corporation was £500,000. This was subsequently doubled to £1 million, and the Bill which we are now discussing proposes to double the capital again. The new capital of the Corporation will be £2 million. If we require any further evidence of the success of the Corporation I believe that this may be obtained in a number of ways. One example of the success of the Corporation is that the maximum insurance cover has been increased from 85 per cent. to 95 per cent. I believe that it is right that the exporter should bear some proportion of the risk because this ensures not only that he will not enter into business transactions with an utter disregard for the risks involved but also that he will have a real interest in any recovery proceedings with respect to any bad or doubtful debts that he may incur. As the business of the Corporation has grown, its maximum permissible contingent liability has increased likewise. Whereas under the original Act the maximum permissible contingent liability was £25 million, it is now £100 million. Whereas originally only transactions to the value of £100,000 or more could be insured by the Corporation, this Bill provides that transactions of £25,000 or more can be covered. This will ensure that a greater number of transactions will be eligible for insurance. A further indication of the success of the enterprise is the fact that progressive reductions have been made in the average premium rate for short term business. For example, in 1958-59 the premium rate per £100 was11s. 9d; in the last financial year the rate was reduced to 7s. 6d. per £100. Despite the reduction in premiums, the amount of the premium income has increased greatly because of the increase in the business covered. During the last financial year the number of policy holders increased by 17 per cent. and the face value of current policies increased by 25 per cent. One of the graphs included in the last annual report of the Corporation shows that since the first annual report of the Corporation was issued in 1958 the number of current policies has shown a steady increase. It may be of interest that more than 80 per cent. of the current policies are in respect of transactions involving amounts less than £200,000. Other indications of the success of the enterprise are, first, that the waiting time for the payment of certain types of claims has been reduced; and secondly, that the variety of risks originally covered has been extended. One example of that is that cover is now provided for default on contract, that is to say, the repudiation of a contract by a solvent buyer. The latest report shows that since the Corporation was originally constituted it has extended its branch representation to all mainland capitals and also that it will now provide unconditional guarantees to banks to facilitate the medium term financing of exports. The Act was amended in 1964 to provide for submission to the Government for insurance in the national interest of business commercially unacceptable. In the year just ended, one policy in this category showed a contingent liability in excess of £1 million. An increasing number of countries are experiencing balance of payment difficulties and for this reason and for a number of political reasons many have found it necessary to restrict the level of their imports. Consequently, there has been an intensification in the competition among exporting countries for a share of the business which is available. The Australian Government has found it necessary to adjust its policies to the changing climate in international trade. The Bill that we are now discussing extends the operation of the Corporation still further. It will enable the Corporation to insure certain types of Australian investment in overseas countries against noncommercial risks. As the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr. McEwen)** said when introducing the Bill, the investments to be covered are those which have been made to preserve our current and potential overseas trade, particularly with developing countries. He added that the developing countries are at the present time taking about 15 per cent. of our total exports. But broadly speaking the Bill has been designed to encourage Australian manufacturers to set up factories overseas. Many of the large exporting countries are already providing the type of cover that is provided in this Bill for their manufacturers or exporters. If we wish to increase our proportion of the trade which is available, indeed if we wish to hold that proportion that we now have, we must adapt ourselves to changing circumstances. As the population of the developing countries grows and their standards of living rise, it is inevitable that their demands for exports must grow. There are only two ways in which they can meet their higher export bill. Either they will have to increase their own exports or they will have to import capital. Therefore, anything that can be manufactured in those countries will not only help their balance of payments problems but also will assist greatly in providing employment for their people. To the extent that Australian manufacturers set up factories overseas, I suppose some of our own export markets will diminish. In the same way, to the extent that manufacturers from all over the world establish factories in those countries, some of our export trade will diminish also. But I think we can ensure that Australian manufacturers retain their share of the import requirements of those countries by establishing factories in the countries of which I am speaking. As the Minister has said, it is not enough simply to acknowledge the need for industrial growth in those countries and to recognise its inevitability. He said that there must also be a willingness to support basic international trading policies which will generate industrial development, and then to provide whatever practical assistance we can to help the establishment and growth of industries in the countries concerned. I believe it is also inevitable that we will derive a great deal of benefit in terms of friendship by assisting developing countries in this way. This legislation will provide insurance cover for the investments of Australian companies establishing factories overseas against such risks as expropriation, damage or destruction of property caused by war, riots or insurrection and the inability to transfer ether capital or earnings back to Australia. The Minister pointed out that the main purpose of the legislation is to protect and expand the market for our exports. He stated that when any Australian manufacturer established a factory overseas end arranged for materials or components to be brought from Australia and assembled or reprocessed overseas, such a transaction would qualify for insurance by the Corporation. He went on to say that the second principle we intend to apply is that there must be direct participation by the Australian investor in the overseas enterprise, and where Australian investors undertake joint ventures with investors in overseas countries the arrangement will need to provide for some direct participation in the enterprise by the Australian investor apart from the mere provision of capital. The original Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956 provided in section 13 (2) under the heading " Division 2. - Powers and Duties of the Corporation" - >The contracts of insurance which the Corporation may enter into under this section are contracts of insurance with, or for the benefit of, persons carrying on business in Australia . . . Personally, I do not believe this provision goes far enough. I should like to see the provision altered to bring it more into line with the legislation in the United States of America which provides something to this effect: Goods covered by credit insurance must be United States goods; that is, goods produced or manufactured in the United States and of which at least half the value has been added by labour or materials exclusively of United States origin. I believe if we had a similar provision in our legislation it would be more in keeping with the purposes of the legislation as expressed in the words of the Minister for Trade and Industry both when he introduced the bill for the original Act and in his second reading speech on this Bill. I support the Bill. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-K0O} ##### Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham .- This measure reminds me of the somewhat homely simile of a man who insures his house with a good reputable fire insurance company. That is all right so far as it goes; but the main problem to which I propose to address myself is the ultimate income of the man who insured his house with a reputable company. The legislation now in operation has been quite successful. There is no doubt that it provides very substantial guarantees to stimulate export trade. But I propose to address myself to how far we as a nation are able to participate in export trade at all. I have always had acute apprehension about our ultimate position as a trading nation. Naturally, as a patriotic Australian I have had very great hopes that we would become one of the outstanding trading nations of the world. But with the general position in terms of overseas investment and overseas control of our major industries - our key industries which will contribute mostly to the export of manufactured goods - I have every reason for the most acute apprehension. May I quote from a paper delivered by **Mr. E.** L. Wheelwright, Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of Sydney, to the Economic Society of Australia and New Zealand in Sydney in July 1959. **Mr. Wheelwright** is a man of considerable repute as an economist and a man of very long vision. He said - >Due to different historical circumstances, countries develop economically at different times. Australia is industrialising at a time when older capitalist countries are fully developed. They are bound to have advanced technology, and the vehicle which carries this technology to different parts of the globe is the international corporation . . . > >It seems clear to me that in the present situation, if we maintain a private enterprise economy we must expect it to be in part a private foreign enterprise economy. If we do not like this, then we must take steps to do the job ourselves. An essential part of this process is to break the link between- the new technology and the capital which comes with it. That is of the utmost importance. **Mr. Wheelwright** continued - >In short, to devise measures which will enable us to use and develop the new technologies without the incubus of a rapidly pyramiding overseas equity. Let us take the situation further, and in this context I quote from an article published in the latest issue of " Quadrant " and written by **Mr. Neil** Mcinnes. He deals with exactly the same subject - the impact of technology on the world today. **Mr. Mcinnes** made this comment, and it coincides with that of **Mr. Wheelwright** - >The reasons for this are in the new technology and the dynamism of the international corporation. > >One aspect of that new technology is its application to warfare and this is the most easily understood by those not concerned with the industrial process generally. **Mr. Mcinnes** points out that the strategic regrouping of the nations is only one particular aspect of the new technology. He shows that in the grouping of nations for economic action we can now have an industrial complex which covers such fields as electronics, nuclear energy, space science, modern metallurgy and synthetics. Such a complex - and I particulary want to emphasise this - lies beyond the competence of many nations even of SO million inhabitants. Let us examine the position in Australia. The Minister for Works **(Senator Gorton)** said not very long ago that a quarter of Australia's industrial capital was foreign owned. The Reserve Bank takes it further, as **Mr. Mcinnes** pointed out, because it states that the fraction is between one-quarter and one-third. That is the proportion of Australia's industry that is foreign owned. We can go further; and again I quote from the article by **Mr. Mcinnes** - >Looking at the more important industries . . . 93 per cent, of the motor car industry, 97 per cent, of pharmaceuticals and toiletries, 95 per cent, of petroleum refining and distributing, 83 per cent, of telecommunications, and 80 per cent, of soap and detergents are controlled from outside this country. > >So, too, are 85 per cent, of oil exploration, threequarters of bauxite and aluminium, three-quarters of iron ore (leaving out B.H.P.'s own captive supplies), at least 60 per cent, of chemicals, and half of food (and this is increasing). . . . A company may still be substantially controlled by overseas interests when it has an overseas shareholding of 20 or 30 per cent., because a shareholding of that order, properly mobilised, can effectively control the destiny and the policy of any major company. **Mr. Mcinnes** said also that of the 50 top companies in this country today 25 per cent, are foreign owned and controlled. When we are faced with a situation like that, we start to come down to the realities of the position in relation to foreign trade and what we can do to increase our exports. I do not want to play the role of devil's advocate, but I invite honorable members to look at the hard realities of the situation. Are we deceiving ourselves in a very real way? Australia is an island continent that is relatively well endowed with natural resources and which has every chance of progressing in the ordinary way. However, the opportunities for expansion, particularly in relation to exports, may be limited. Let me state the matter in another way. We may be able to do best by stimulating exports in the fields in which we have an advanced technology. I refer particularly to the export of iron and steel, but also to wool and meat production. Before I proceed further with my argument, let me draw attention to a comment that was made by **Sir John** Allison in the first annual export address to the Australian Manufacturers Export Council. **Sir John** stated the problem very neatly when he said - >If we want to achieve an average rate of growth of 5 per cent., a year over the next 10 years; if we spend 13 per cent, of G.N.P.- That is, the gross national product - on imports to sustain that growth; if our internal prices and the prices we pay for imports rise by as little as 1 per cent, a year; and if we allow for a modest increase of £10 million a year in the rate of capital inflow from overseas - then, by 1974-75, our annual exports will need to have risen to about £2,500 million in order to maintain a satisfactory level of reserves. . . . He said further - >Certainly, in the period ahead, it means a tremendous increase in the production of our great primary industries. . ' . . Traditionally, the primary industries account for over 85 per cent, of our total exports - I cannot see any reasonable basis in the next 10 years for saying that this dependence will be significantly lessened. Here is the rub - >Manufacturing industries in 1963-64 contributed £154m., or only 12 per cent, of our merchandise exports. In recent years, particularly in the postwar period, Australia's trading relations with various countries has changed very greatly. Whereas in 1957-58 Britain received 27 per cent, of our exports, she now receives only 18 per cent. It is common knowledge that the volume of our exports to Japan has increased. When we look at the other side of the spectrum and consider the composition of our merchandise exports, we find that in 1957-58 wool represented 46 per cent, of our total exports, but today it represents only 36 per cent. Significantly, the volume of our exports of manufactures has remained fairly stationary. In 1957-58 manufactures accounted for 10.9 per cent, of our exports, and in 1963-64 they accounted for only 11.5 per cent. Despite the passing of this much vaunted legislation, our export trade is not progressing, and there are very cogent reasons why it will not be able to do so. The main reason Ties in the impact that has been made by overseas companies which are successfully dominating our economy, particularly our heavy industries. It is public knowledge that this Government admits to, and contemplates with equanimity, a run down of approximately £250 million in our overseas reserves in the next 12 months. That is the best for which this Government hopes. The Government reacted as though it had been stung by hornets when the Vernon Committee's report was presented. That report contained the same trenchant criticism as has been voiced by the Opposition over many years about the degree of overseas control of our economy. The most damnable form of overseas control is to be found in the export franchises that are being imposed on this country by overseas monopolies. I do not subscribe to the views of those who condemn overseas investment in every shape and form. Overseas investment in Australia takes three quite distinct forms. There are some forms which per se are obviously obnoxious and ought to be the subject of restrictive legislation. There is another form of overseas investment that is entirely beneficial. I refer to investment that provides techniques that are otherwise unavailable in this country and which introduces special processes that can be used for development. There is a third form which provides short term benefits but in relation to which in the long term the debits far outweigh the credits. That form of investment should be stringently controlled. We completely lack any policy in relation to overseas investment and also in relation to the franchise and restrictions that are imposed on Australian exports. I have raised this matter repeatedly in the House. I have raised it with the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr. McEwen).** On 15th July the Minister wrote the following letter to me - >You will recall that I undertook to have a further look at the question you addressed to me in the House on 11th May last concerning export franchise restrictions imposed by overseas firms on their Australian subsidiaries and associates. > >As I said at the time, the Department of Trade and Industry has commenced collecting and analysing a great deal of information relating to Australian firms with overseas links. > >I have delayed writing to you until the position regarding the study had become clearer. The job is turning out to be somewhat bigger and more complex than originally thought and it will be some months before the Department will be in a position to release worthwhile information. I have asked the Department to forward such information to you as soon as it is available. I am not casting any reflection on the word of the Minister when I say that, until a pro per assessment is made of the impact and ramifications of these controls, we will not know exactly where we are going in terms of foreign trade. My guess, which is a rather calculated one, is that we are in a most difficult situation. I propose to quote now from an article by Professor Arndt and **Mr. Sherk** in relation to export franchises which appeared in the "Economic Record" of August 1959. Incidentally, this article was quoted in the Vernon Committee's report. That is one of the reasons why discussion of this report will undoubtedly be shelved until after the end of this sessional period. This is what Professor Arndt and his colleagues said - >Of some 650 Australian firms which are subsidiaries of, or have a manufacturing agreement with U.S. firms, about 275 recorded their interest in export. Of this latter group, about 40 per cent, are restricted by their principals from export to certain areas. . . . > >There are 560 Australian companies which are subsidiaries of or financially linked to British firms. The number of Australian companies linked to British firms by licensing agreements is not known, nor is the number of Australian companies with British affiliations which have an export interest. Of the 71 companies with British affiliations which have reported restrictions on their export franchises, 60 are subsidiaries of or financially linked to British firms. They said further - >Generally, the restrictions seem to be spread evenly through the range of manufacturing agreements. There is a suggestion that there is a specially high incidence of restrictions in the chemical and engineering fields where innovations and technical know-how are particularly important reasons for entering into a manufacturing agreement. Other prominent groups of products are clothing and cosmetics where fashions and brand names are major considerations. Until we free ourselves of these shackles, what hope have we of assessing where we are going in terms of exports of manufactures? Exports of primary products, of course, will continue, and they will still be our main source of export income. But until we have made a proper assessment of the impact of these franchises and restrictions, we just do not know where we are going. I venture to say that they restrict at least two-thirds of our potential overseas trade, **Sir.** What form do these restrictions take? The simplest is a geographical franchise under which a subsidiary, licensee or patentee of some overseas firm is told that it may export only to certain defined countries. It is notorious that alot of these restrictions prevent exports except to New Zealand and Oceania. Another form of restriction is a restriction on the quantity of goods that may be produced. Another ' restriction takes an entirely different form - that of an excessive licence fee. This, in itself, will permit an Australian company to continue to produce and sell the particular products in Australia but will simply price them out of overseas markets. There are other forms of control, too. One is a control over questions of policy. This is one of the most subtle and. most insidious forms, and it is not capable of exact definition or assessment. I venture to say that an investment of 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. is quite sufficient to give control over any major manufacturing corporation in Australia today, when the votes represented by that investment are properly mobilised and used at the dictates of an overseas company. The comments of the Vernon Committee, too, were particularly significant. It pointed out - this, again, is a reason for the Government's violent reaction - the initial obstacles, the gravity of those obstacles and the difficulties confronting Australia in even starting to get into the real export trade in manufactured goods. Let me take the matter further by quoting from the "Australian Financial Review " of 27th March 1962. In an editorial entitled "The Myth of U.S. Investment", this journal, which is published in Sydney, stated - >In the 13 years ended June 1960, Americans and Canadians brought into Australia some £122 million of their own money. Over the same 13 years, they took out of the country some £116 million in dividends and the like. > >And over the 13 years they also ploughed back into Australia some £201 million of undistributed profits. > >So over this 13 year period the plain fact is that, subtracting dividends remitted from " new money " brought in, Americans and Canadians brought into this country virtually no money of their own at all. They brought, instead, their skills, their superior products, their superior management ability, their superior selling organisations. > >But on balance they brought no money. > >Their big contribution has been, in the past, and may well be in the future, the provision of their superior technique. That, again, **Sir, is** where we face the question of superior technologies and their domination of the smaller countries. As **Mr. Wheelwright** said, we must definitely break the link - the link between international corporations and the technological advances that they are capable of bringing into a country. We need technological advances and we have to act in our own interests. In 1941, Australia learned a lesson that it has never forgotten. That lesson was that from then on we stood on our own feet. The protection of the parent country, Britain, and of the British Navy and armed forces no longer existed. We had to face primary risks and accept primary responsibilities. Above all, we realised that we had to produce our own equipment for our defence and, equally, that we had to establish our own forms of secondary industry. Governments, regardless of their political policies, have broadly continued that trend. But unless we are prepared to take an independent view and to have an independent foreign policy, we have not the slightest hope of advancing as we should and as we are entitled to advance in terms of overseas trade. Let us now have a look at some of the inroads of overseas investment and the difficulties that are arising, **Sir. Take** the industry that particularly affects my electorate - the coal industry. Here, we find again the domination of an Australian industry by an overseas company. The D. K. Ludwig group in the United States of America has bought up the collieries that supply two thirds of the hard coking coal exported from Australia. Matters have reached the point at which the New South Wales Minister for Mines has openly raised the question of whether, instead of exporting hard coking coal for the benefit of the Japanese steel industry, we should impose some sort of control on these exports. We have contracts that we need to honour, and they will undoubtedly be honoured. But the Japanese are notoriously hard bargainers. They want to buy at the lowest possible price. More than that, they want to transport their goods in the bottoms of the Japanese" merchant marine. Before we really start to get down to business in terms of exports, we have to consider where we are going and what a collection of idiots we are that we have not our own merchant marine and that as a result we are spending some £120 million or £130 million a year on freights. To pay this, we have to make further exports. We have the spectacle of Australian trade ships and trade missions being sent to the countries of Asia- countries that perhaps for a generation or two will not climb even within measurable distance of our living standards, unfortunately - to try to sell a handful of goods here and there. I give the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry credit for trying, but we are sending our exporters into battle with one hand tied behind their backs. They have not the slightest hope of succeeding. Let us look at insurance, which was mentioned by the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard).** Precisely how much are we remitting overseas for marine and fire insurance and other forms of commercial insurance? Why should not Australian risks be wholly covered within Australia in exactly the same way as the Government is insuring these kinds of export risks? The orthodox companies, perhaps, now regret that they did not come in to cover these export risks. All these matters relate to the requirements of trade, and until we have them in their proper perspective and group them together, we shall not know exactly where we are going. But I do know that this Government, because of its allegiance, is both incapable of doing this and unwilling to do it. Precisely where does the Australian Country Party stand on the question of restrictive franchises? I would say that this is one occasion when it is nearer to Labour than to its political ally. Members of the Country Party have to face up to this question: Precisely what do they intend to do? When the chips are down, will they be aligned with us in opposition to the further extension of foreign franchises and foreign control? I do not think they will when it comes to the showdown, and that will be to their eternal disgrace as Australians. Let us look at the matter from another standpoint, **Sir. Australia** has come into the export field very late. In foreign trade today, the law of the jungle prevails. In some countries, we come up against tariffs, import controls and other measures adopted by countries which, because of a low standard of living, can do nothing better than barter. Most of the countries with which we seek to trade have serious financial limitations. I have heard various assessments made. Take the Republic of India as an example. Only a few million people there have an income that is in any way comparable to ours and so are capable of buying goods. Again, take Japan. It is quite possible that we can continue to trade with the Japanese on an increasing scale, but they will be hard bargainers. They have a forced draught economy and a particularly brittle one and if we are tied to their chariot wheels I shudder to think of the ultimate consequences. They will drive the hardest of bargains and will extract their quid pro quo for every concession they give to us. In addition, by the very nature of their economy, they are in a most unstable and most uncertain position. They are denied the right to trade with one country which has an economy exactly complementary to theirs - China. That brings me to a further point that I want to make with relation to Indonesia. I have run through the list of petrol producing countries from which we import. It is appalling to see how much we buy from some of those countries and how little we sell to them. In every case we find in the background either British or American petrol companies dominating the oil economies of the small Arabian skeikdoms. It is time we struck a deal with those countries. It is time we told them that either they buy more from us or we leave them alone and deal with other countries that can and will trade with us. I am not interested in the political implications of the present situation in Indonesia, but if any country is economically complementary to another, Indonesia is to Australia. Precisely what we have, the Indonesians need and precisely what they have we need. It is time we got down to commonsense. We might make a better contribution to the pacification of that country by stimulating reciprocal trade than by the intervention in its affairs. In conclusion I say that no better contribution could be made to Australia's export trade than by stirring up the present steel monopoly. The standard technology of the Australian steel industry is as good as and perhaps better than that of most other countries. It has the added advantage of having some' of the best and richest iron ore in the world. It came into the field late, its techniques are good and its export potential is high. To see as much as £20 million or £30 million worth of steel imported into this country each year is nothing short of a major scandal. Our steel industry is a monopoly which should be capable not merely of supplying Australia's needs but also of getting out and successfully engaging in open competition with other countries on the world's markets. There is some economic feather bedding going on. Those connected with the steel monopoly are prepared to go for a guaranteed profit. They know that they have a guaranteed internal market, and very shortly there willbeneed for nothing short of national intervention to make sure that they honour their obligations not only to their shareholders but also to Australia. Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-KKB} ##### Mr JESS:
La Trobe .- Before the suspension of the sitting, the honorable member for Cunningham **(Mr. Connor)** spoke on the Bill. I am not an economist, but in my opinion much of his speech had much merit and common sense. I will admit that he started on a very good note. He analysed the situation as he saw it and made various suggestions. He said that, in the context of this Bill, the study that was essential in the circumstances of today was to determine how far we as a nation were able to participate in exports at all. He then led his speech through the overseas controls that he contended were being exercised over basic industries and industries that could perhaps be used more effectively to earn export income for us. He also spoke of the necessity to investigate the franchises that may be applied to the products of certain industries and he said that it may be necessary to take action in this area. I certainly do not disagree with much of his speech, but the problem he presented is the problem of most of the small nations that today are trying to expand their secondary industries and to compete with their products on the world markets. However, towards the end of his speech he said that we in Australia were not succeeding and we will not succeed. I do not accept this statement and I think that, if he looked at it calmly and coolly, he would agree that he had gone a little far. Before I leave his speech, I would like to make one further comment. He said that coal mined in New South Wales was being sold to the Japanese Government and that the Japanese Govern ment insisted on hard conditions. He said that the coal was transported from Sydney to Japan in Japanese ships, that this was not right and that we should take certain action in relation to international shipping and so on. Later in his speech he referred to the oil we buy from Indonesia and the balance of trade position between Indonesia and Australia. He said that as we buy all this oil from Indonesia we should impose hard conditions, that we should say. " If you do not do this, we will buy somewhere else ". Surely this is the situation with Japan. Japan buys a considerable quantity of our wool and other raw materials and in these circumstances perhaps we have to accept the conditions that Japan seeks to impose. The other problem that arises when we seek to increase our export earnings is that we have a large continent and a population of only 11 million people. We do not have sufficient capital to do all the things that must be done within the time in which I personally consider we have to do them. We could perhaps say that we will do only so much a year or within a number of years. In my opinion, this is the situation . that would develop if we depended only on money raised within Australia. Let me refer to the booklet " Australia, New Frontiers ", a copy of which was, I think, given to most honorable members during the suspension of the sitting. It is a report of a seminar on Australian development that was held in the United States of America. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** referred to capital and know-how and he is reported at page 12 as having said - >Industry has rapidly expanded encouraged by policies directed at creating a favorable environment for investment and enterprise. Investment from overseas has been encouraged. Capital has been made to feel welcome, and has been well treated. The result has been a total capital inflow since 1948-49 of $4.7 billion . . . 55 per cent, has come from the United Kingdom and 35 per cent. from North America. A total of 4.7 billion dollars has come into this country. Can honorable members opposite say where alternatively they would have found this amount. Perhaps I will revert to this subject later, because I have a suggestion as to how money would be raised by them. At page 62 the booklet sets out Australia's exports of manufactured goods. The honorable member for Cunningham said we were not succeeding, but let me give him these figures. The value of exports of metal manufactures increased from 74 million dollars in the period 1955- 56 to 1957-58 to 125 million dollars in the period 1961-62 to 1963-64. During this time, the value of implements and machinery exported rose from 18 million dollars to 31 million dollars, the value of drugs and chemicals from 11 million dollars to 18 million dollars, the value of refined petroleum products from 25 million dollars to 47 million dollars and the value of other goods from 65 million to 117 million dollars. Perhaps our export earnings are not advancing rapidly enough. Opposition members offer criticism but never say what they would do to rectify the position that they complain about. Luckily 1 have in front of me - it may be relevant - a journal called " The New Economics ". It is volume 5, No. 6, of October 1965. Page 7, which is headed " Two Points of View ", contains the following statement - >For some time past, one of our members - **Mr. C.** A. Haythorpe- has corresponded with **Dr. J.** F. Cairns, M.H.R., the discussion centreing around the " New Economics " standpoint on economic affairs, and the view held by the Australian Labor Party, of which party **Dr. Cairns** is a prominent member. It also says - > **Dr. Cairns** is to be commended for at least volunteering an opinion about economic developments, which is perhaps more than can be said for many other politicians - This perhaps is true - and he has willingly agreed to the publication of his letter. The letter is dated 4th June 1 965 and commences " Dear **Mr. Haythorpe** ". I will not read it all, because it is long, but let me read the final paragraph. It says - >I do not condone the creation of millions in money by private banks, which is in truth the property of the community. I, therefore, believe in the nationalisation of the banking system. > >Yours sincerely, > >F. Cairns. I do not comment on it. I merely say that this letter is written by the honorable member as the spokesman of the Australian Labour Party and perhaps this is how honorable gentlemen opposite would raise the money. I believe that this is one of the best Bills designed to increase our export earnings that I have seen in the short time that I have been a member of this House As we know. it amends the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act and does certain things, which I shall run through briefly. The Bill authorises the Export Payments Insurance Corporation to insure certain types of Australian investments in overseas countries against non-commercial risks that might arise in those countries. It increases the capital of the Corporation from £1 million to £2 million and increases by £25 million the maximum contingent liability which the Corporation can accept. There is also a reduction of the minimum value of export transactions for which the Corporation will provide guarantees. I think it is obvious, from their speeches, that honorable members opposite support the Bill, although there may be other matters affecting it, or affected by it, with which they do not agree. In his second reading speech the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr. McEwen)** said - >The investment insurance amendments will authorise the Corporation to insure Australian investors against three categories of risk - > >Expropriation. > >Damage or destruction of property caused by war, riot, insurrection, and similar happenings. > >Inability to transfer capital or earnings back to Australia. I think everybody who has been abroad recently, particularly to South East Asia or to the South American countries, where I had the honour to go in company with members of the Opposition, realises that this Bill meets a great need, which has been felt in those countries for a very long time. Indeed, the Bill serves two purposes. It seeks not only to improve Australia's export potential, but also to assist developing countries which are perhaps experiencing problems similar to our own. I feel that more should be done along the lines of the action proposed by this measure. I feel that we should examine the possibility of extending credit so far as company investment in these countries is concerned. I believe that in the past we have been too timid and have missed opportunities. Unless we quickly do more to overcome this problem, in my opinion we will in future miss greater opportunities than those we have already missed. I am sure all the members of the delegation which went to South America will agree that in the countries visited - and also in South East Asia - great interest was shown in Australia's development and industrial potential. When in those countries one is told time and time again: " You people in Australia have the knowhow and technical ability. Perhaps you would come and assist us to solve the problems with which we are faced." Perhaps this is said because the people of those countries are cautious and distrustful of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other great powers with which they have had dealings. But they know that although we are a small nation, and are not capable of exporting capital, we have the ability to show then how we have succeeded. It is interesting to read from the report of the Australian trade mission to South America in June 1962. As honorable members realise, in that year Australia sent a trade delegation to South America under the Leadership of **Mr. Donald** Mackinnon and it had wonderful success. It was greeted with a very good reaction and returned to Australia with glowing reports of the trade potential of the areas it visited. I think it is open to doubt whether that mission has been followed up sufficiently. I believe that members of the Parliamentary delegation which visited South America three months ago would contend that both this Government and industry should have done more to get into the South American market so that we could take our part there. At page 7 of the report of the 1962 trade mission **Mr. Donald** Mackinnon said - >That the Mission was a success is beyond doubt. While the amount of business booked may not have been great, it was. a good deal more than I, with many years of selling experience in South America, had expected. We were not entering markets where Australian labels are already in the grocers shops; nor where the machinery houses carry our goods. We started from scratch with our products practically unknown; there were no Australian banks or business houses, and there were pitifully few agencies, most of them sketchily arranged. He said, further- >There will, of course,, always be a credit risk, largely because of political instability, but as crises come and go, business goes on, sales are made and people make money. It means, however, that great skill and knowledge is required, not only to provide what the markets want, but to keep in touch with developments in these rapidly changing economies. > > In Australia's present market position, it is not enough to say, " I don't like the look of the business". It is necessary to find out how others are selling, getting paid and keeping their risks to a minimum. There is plenty of ability in Australia to do this .if we put our mind to it. Our future may well depend on our showing in the export field the same adaptability and ingenuity which enabled our forefathers to make much out of the country which a lot of others had decided " they didn't like the look of". This is so true. One finds that in South America and South East Asia Australian goods are not well known, because for too long we have lived within our internal trade sufficiency and have not gone out and endeavoured to sell. There is no doubt that if Australia wishes to progress, as it is necessary for her to progress, all of us - the Government, the Parliament and the manufacturers of this country - have to go out and sell. Indeed, we have to enter into joint ventures in these small countries where, as I have said, we already have a head start because of our good relations. If we show that we have confidence in those countries and demonstrate that we are prepared to help them and invest our money in them, they will accept the fact that there is a pound in it for us just as there is for them, but will be grateful for our cooperation and assistance. One may be asked what we can sell and how we can compete with some of the bigger countries in the world, but in South America, and particularly in the Argentine, certain types of our farm machinery are highly regarded. At present these countries have import licensing, and it may continue for a . certain time, but when they have realised the foolishness of it they will remove it. We must realise that the political troubles that exist in some of those countries will not continue forever. We must realise that South America alone has a potential population of 400 million people. The countries of South America have problems similar to ours. They are starting to develop or expand their industries and already have many of the raw materials required, but in some cases they have not the know-how. If the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan can go into these countries and make a success of their business and receive payment, while also creating better relations there, it is essential that we in Australia, if we wish to develop this country to a nation of any size and standing, must continue to go forward and in order to do this we must take risks. This small measure demonstrates the right type of thinking on the part of the Government - the type of thinking that this country, will require for a long time to come. If we can get over to our exporters the message that this insurance setup exists and is available to them and that the Government will encourage and stand behind them, I am sure that many more than have already done so will be prepared to look at this field and realise what is in it for them and for the development of Australia. It is not my intention to take the whole of the time available to me this evening and I wish only to say, in conclusion, that I support the Bill wholeheartedly. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP .- The Bill before the House provides for an amendment of an Act of Parliament passed in 1956. The Act set up in Australia the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, which is a body or organisation of public servants provided with public money for the purpose of insuring contracts entered into by Australian private enterprise which exports goods under certain conditions from Australia to other countries. The Corporation provides an example of using the public powers of government to benefit considerably and directly a section of the Australian community. It is a development that one would expect from a private enterprise government - the use of the powers of the nation to assist private business. I think it needs to be emphasised, to begin with, that a provision such as this can be of benefit to Australia as a whole indirectly but that it is a specific and direct benefit to private business organisations. The Corporation came into existence in 1956 and since then has gradually increased its business. I shall cite some details of that increase in a few minutes. The increase in business was not large between 1956 and 1959-60. After 1960 the increase was fairly considerable for a few years, and in recent times it has been of a more significant kind. This amendment will authorise the Export Payments Insurance Corporation to insure certain types of Australian investments in overseas countries because of noncommercial risks which might arise in those countries. First, the Bill authorises an increase of £1 million in the capital of the Corporation. That is, it authorises the provision of £1 million of public money to the Corporation to assist private business organisations in their export activities. Secondly, it provides for an increase of £25 million in the maximum contingent liability which the Corporation can accept under contracts of insurance and guarantee. Thirdly, it provides for a reduction of the minimum value of export transactions in respect of which the Corporation may provide guarantees. The figures in respect of the business entered into by the Corporation suggest that in recent years there has been a reduction in the value of individual export transactions, and that, apparently, there is present in the business being insured an increasing amount of relatively small business transactions. The. amendment also will authorise the Corporation to insure Australian investors against three categories of risk. These are new types of risks. First, it will insure against a risk of expropriation where an investment or a contract has been entered into with an overseas country and the government of that country - or a court, I suppose - might expropriate or take over the asset or the investment. In that case the insurance cover provides compensation. Secondly, where damage or destruction of property caused by war, riot, insurrection and similar happenings occurs, and the insured company loses, compensation is to be provided as a result of this insurance. The third risk covered is the inability to transfer capital or earnings back to Australia. This might occur . because of any restriction on the export of earnings of capital, the payment of dividends and so on. The second point to which I want to refer arises as a result of the speech of the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr. McEwen).** This amendment presumes that there is need to provide insurance cover of investment by Australian companies. It envisages, particularly in respect of underdeveloped countries with which Australian exporters will do business, that the business will be in association with actual investments in those countries by Australian companies. The Minister said - >In this situation, Australian exporters1 must be willing, as the need arises, to commence assembly or production operations within the market itself, if they wish to hold their overseas customers'. This is no doubt a result of the fact that in the development of underdeveloped countries - in fact the development of every country - mere is an increasing amount of autonomy or protection. A tariff wall or some other kind of restriction is raised around the country that is developing. If outside countries are to do more business with such a country the tendency is for them to invest inside that tariff wall. It is anticipated that this kind of thing will happen. The Minister continued - >In short, exporters may be faced with the need to invest in the market or see their share of it decline. They may well decide, of course, that the comparative safety of investment in Australia is more attractive than a new and unknown range of investment risks in another country and nobody would blame them for making this choice. But, in the long run, it might not be the best course from the national point of view. Therefore, we need to be able to remove the new and unfamiliar risks, of a non-commercial character, which might deter Australian manufacturers faced with this situation, from investing abroad. This is what we propose to do in this Bill, by offering insurance against these risks. In a later part of his speech the Minister said that he could not anticipate what countries would be involved and what Australian industries might be concerned. I think we are entitled to expect the Government, and the Department that stands behind it, to provide us soon, if not now, with some information about the countries in which they expect investment business of this kind to increase. We are also entitled to be told, and Australian industries are entitled to be told, what Australian industries the Government expects to be doing this. The Minister went on to say - >The second aspect relates to our position as a capital importing country. On the face of it, it may seem inconsistent that, as a country which needs and will continue to need developmental capital and know-how from abroad, we should now seek to encourage the outflow of some capital and know-how. We have heard endlessly over the last 15 years how necessary it has been for Australia to encourage the inflow of capital and know-how. This has been the great argument that the Government and its supporters have put forward to justify the very large amounts of capital inflow that have taken place in the past. Honorable members from this side of the House, particularly the honorable member for Scullin **(Mr. Peters),** have pointed out that there is no necessary correlation between the £4.7 billion mentioned by the honorable member for La Trobe **(Mr. Jess)** in relation to the balance of payments posi tion and the actual inflow of capital. A great deal of this money can be spent on consumption goods and, in fact, is. There just is not any necessary correlation and it would be quite loose to talk about it in this way. When an overseas company or concern buys an existing Australian industry or some existing Australian land at a few thousand pounds a foot, sooner or later this transaction increases the amount of dollars or sterling, or whatever the currency is, used by the purchaser on the credit side of the balance of payments, but it is not necessarily matched by an inflow of machinery or knowhow of an equal kind. Some of it can easily be, and invariably is, spent upon consumer goods that contribute nothing whatever to the development of Australian industry. The Minister for Trade and Industry identified this as a bad transaction and said that it is like selling a bit of the farm every year, as a result of which we do not receive any additional amount of capital. Capital to the economist is, broadly speaking, and quite correctly, an increase in the industrial capacity - machinery or techniques - with which we produce goods. Such a transaction does not necessarily increase this. The Minister said that having placed great stress in the past on the acquisition of capital and know-how, we are now trying to encourage the outflow from Australia of capital and know-how. He said that there is no inconsistency in this. In fact he said that it is a natural development of our industrial and trading growth. In his second reading speech the Minister said - >We have now reached a stage in our development at which we can, indeed must, pass on to other countries, at earlier stages of development, the know-how we have so far acquired. I do not think we are over much concerned about this. It sounds very good to say that we are doing these things, but I think we are doing them for other practical reasons which the Minister did not directly mention, although he referred to them later. Insofar as this procedure will have tangible results it will mean that there will be increased exports from Australia to set up industries in underdeveloped countries and those industries will amount to an increase in the capital structure of these countries. Exports from Australia will be increased to establish these industries. There is always an increase in these circumstance^ from a capital exporting country but not always to the full extent of the export. Then it is anticipated that there will be a flow of materials from Australia - I think this is very doubtful - to be processed in the Australian industries that will be set up in the underdeveloped countries. Lastly, it is anticipated that there will be a benefit to Australia from the return of dividends earned in those countries. One point to be emphasised here is that in the countries concerned the wage rate is relatively low. So this Bill will encourage Australian investment in low wage countries. This is an offsetting factor to the risks involved in investing in these countries. In recent times we have seen a dramatic example of what flows from an investment in a low wage country. The vast expansion produced in low wage Japan by extensive American investment in that country has created the situation where Japan can now export manufactured goods to the United States at prices ranging from 33i per cent, to 50 per cent, lower than the cost of production of those goods in the United States. It will probably be many years before this is a significant problem for Australia but the offsetting of the risks involved in' investing overseas, which this Bill seeks to cover by insurance, is one of the strongest economic incentives to investment in underdeveloped countries. The Bill is concerned with exports from Australia. It presupposes that exports are important to us and that we are a significant trading country. We are continually told these days that Australia ranks 12th or 13 th in the list of trading countries. This is probably true. I think that in 1964 - the last year for which figures are available - we ranked about 13 th. One point that should be made is that Australia has held this position for 10 or 12 years. In that time we have not improved our ranking. The best we have been able to do is to maintain our position. This is partly due to the fact that some other countries have experienced a better rate of growth than has Australia over the last 10 years. Australia is still fairly insignificant in the world. In the period 1948 to 1952 we had 2.5 per cent, of the world's trade. In 1958 the figure was down to 1.5 per cent., and in 1962 it was 1.7 per cent. The figure is still very low. As a trading nation we are not as important relatively as we were in 1948-52. This is because other countries have grown more rapidly than has Australia since the end of the Second World War. Some of those countries were more adversely affected by the war than was Australia and pardy for that reason they have had a more rapid rate of growth in the years following the war. We have 15 per cent, of the world's trade in wheat and 11 per cent, of the world's trade in meat. We have about 50 per cent, of the world's trade in wool. We are entitled to know something about changes in the important commodities of trade in Australia in recent years. If this Bill is to assist exports from Australia we want to know what has been happening to the various commodities in their relationship to the total of exports from this country. The first thing to notice here is that the Bill hopes to deal with manufactured goods. It hopes to deal with companies that are to invest in other countries. One of the significant things about trends in Australian trade over the last 10 years is that the proportion of manufactured goods in our total trade has increased considerably. It has risen by more than 4 per cent, in 10 years - from 6 per cent, in 1953-54 to 10.3 per cent, in 1963-64. We did not export any refined petroleum products in 1953-54, but in 1963-64 refined petroleum products made up 1.4 per cent, of our total trade. The next thing to notice is that the percentage of pastoral products - this is where wool is found- in our total exports has fallen considerably. Pastoral products represented 60.8 per cent, of our total exports 10 years ago. The percentage was relatively high that year. The figure was 48.7 per cent, in 1963-64. In the agricultural sector the percentage has increased from 19.2 per cent, to 26.7 per cent, in the 10 years from 1953-54 to 1963-64. This is primarily because of the increased significance of meat exports. The percentage of dairy produce fell from 5.8 per cent, to 3.7 per cent. Products of mines increased from 6.4 per cent, to 7.1 per cent. The percentages' accounted for by fisheries and forestry are insignificant. The total percentage of goods in the primary sector fell from 93.1 per cent, to 87 per cent, of our total exports. As this Bill is concerned with trade to underdeveloped countries we should know something of what is happening to the trade with those countries. The Minister told us that 15 per cent, of our trade was with underdeveloped' countries. That statement hides more than it tells us, because our trade with underdeveloped countries, expressed as a proportion of our total trade, has been falling. In 1948-49 we did 18.3 per cent, of our total trade with countries that may be classified as underdeveloped - India, Singapore and Malaya, Indonesia, some other Asian countries, the Middle East and Persia, the Pacific Islands, Africa and Central and South America. But in 1963-64 our trade with those countries represented only 14.9 per cent, of our total trade. The proportion of our trade with the countries that the Bill is specifically concerned with has been falling away. In 1948-49 we did 4.8 per cent, of our total trade with India, but in 1963-64 the figure had fallen to 1.3 per cent. That is a significant decline in the case of a country that is very important for the future of democratic government in Asia. With Singapore and Malaya our trade, expressed as a percentage of our total trade, fell in the same period. In the case of Indonesia there was an almost imperceptible increase-from 0.2 per cent, in 1948-49 to 0.3 per cent in 1963-64. So with all. the other sectors in that group our trade has fallen. It is worth noticing that there have been other very significant falls in relation to Europe. In 1948-49 our trade with the United Kingdom was 42.3 per cent, of our total trade but in 1963-64 it had fallen to 18.4 per cent. Apparently Britain does not have to join the Common Market to cause a vast reduction in the significance of our trade with her as a proportion of our total trade. In 1948-49 our trade with the countries now in the European Economic Community was 19.2 per cent, of our total but in 1963-64 it was only 14.9 per cent. If there has been a fall in the proportion of our trade with under-developed countries and with the countries of north western Europe, what has happened? How have we managed to increase our trade generally? Where are the increases to be found? Significantly, the increases lie in only four or five places. There has been an increase in our trade with Japan. In 1948-49 our trade with Japan was 1.4 per cent, of our total, but in 1963-64 it. was 17.5 per cent. In 1948-49, which was before the revolution, our trade with mainland China was 0.3 per cent, of our total trade, whereas in 1963-64 it was 6.1 per cent. Trade with the United States of America was 5.9 per cent, of the total in 1948-49 and 10.1 per cent., in 1963-64; with New Zealand, 3.2 per cent, in 1948-49 and 6 per cent, in 1963-64. In view of the significance of these figures I think that in some senses this Bill is kicking against the wind. It is trying to increase the proportion of our trade with countries in which our trade has been falling off fairly consistently. {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr Mackinnon: -- The honorable member has not mentioned import restrictions or balance of payment problems. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP -- I am not trying to explain the reason for this. That would take me another half an hour. If the honorable member feels that he can explain the reason there is nothing to stop him following me in the debate. On the other hand, if he would like to move that I be granted an extension of half an hour I will answer his questions for him. The amount of business which has been handled by the Export Payments Insurance Corporation has increased considerably. In 1958, the first year for which figures are available, 43 policies were written to a face value of £1 1 .1 million with a contingent liability of £5.7 million. In 1959 there were 91 policies current with a face value of £21.1 million and a contingent liability of £11.3 million. In 1962 we had reached a kind of plateau which was maintained for a time. There were 298 policies current with a face value of £33 million and a contingent liability of £17.6 million. In 1964, the last year for which figures are available, 436 policies were current with a face value of £63.7 million and a contingent liability of £33.3 million. It seems that the Australian cover provided under this legislation is comparable with, or even better than, that in most countries in a similar situation, but the overall volume of business and the proportion covering manufactured goods is very small. In this respect the Corporation does not seem to have achieved its objectives. There is .little risk involved in most of the transactions and it may well be that a large proportion of them would be entered into in any case so perhaps, in some instances, this is possibly an unnecessary subsidy. There can be no question about the importance of increasing our trade with underdeveloped countries. The gap between the low income countries and the high income countries is wide and increasing. Twothirds of the world's population has less than 20 per cent, of the world's income. Australia's policies should be more specific in the matter of trading with those countries. The Government's actions so far amount to steps in the right direction, but they are indeed very short steps. This afternoon we heard a very substantial speech from this side of the House pointing out what the Australian Labour Party would do if we were concerned with some of these things. It is apparent that Australia needs a national shipping line. That, could be a much more important contribution to trade with the underdeveloped countries than this export insurance scheme. The point is that the existing shipping lines are conditioned by history and by a long association with Europe and with countries in the rest of the world with which it has suited Europe to trade, and we have to fit our trade into that kind of historical shipping pattern. We have not a well developed shipping system available to serve the kind of markets to which Australia must look, so we must play some part in taking the initiative to overcome this problem. Then there is insurance on the ordinary carriage of goods. To date the Government has sought to insure those goods in which there is not much profit from carrying the special risks; but where there is considerable benefit to be obtained by a public insurance corporation the Government has very carefully kept its public insurance corporation out of the field and has left the high profits to the private insurance companies. The net effect is that in average years we must pay between £120 million and £140 million for insurance and freight on our exports. This is a considerable liability in our balance of payments. The Labour Party would develop an export finance corporation. In fact, in 1956 we proposed extensive amendments to the original Bill, for this purpose. Now, nearly nine years later, the Government is still not prepared to consider developing the Commonwealth family of banks, as it so fondly calls them,' in this direction. This is long overdue. Lastly, there is the question of export franchises, which also was dealt with this afternoon. Arndt and Sherk stated in an article in the "Economic Record" that of 650 companies questioned, 275 were interested in export and 40 per cent, of these were restricted by franchises, which are agreements entered into by companies in which there is overseas investment or which have been provided with overseas patents or processes. The Australian companies were required to enter into an agreement with the overseas organisations that they would not export from Australia. As I have said, 40 per cent, of the 275 companies which were questioned by Arndt and Sherk reported that they were restricted by such agreements. There was a high incidence of such agreements in the chemical, engineer ings - on the technical side - clothing and cosmetics fields. The Department of Trade and Industry recently approached 700 companies in Australia and learned that between them they had entered into 1,100 agreements. There is no doubt that these agreements provided for a limitation of exports which represents a very serious restriction on Australia's capacity to export. I should think that these franchise agreements probably reduce the value of our exports, certainly in the field of manufactured goods, by at least one-third and possibly one-half. I should think that the responsibility of the Government to deal with these export franchises is, even on its own standards, about the highest priority move that it could make in relation to Australia's exports. I wonder how long the Government will talk about these things, as it has talked about foreign capital and restrictive practices in Australia, and still fail to take any action. I think a long time will elapse before anything is done, but even this Government, the servant of monopolistic enterprises, as it is, will finally be compelled to take action in these fields. In one direction after another the Government is accepting proposals and propositions which were put forward by the Australian Labour Party five and in some cases ten years ago. This fact is sometimes overlooked, because the newspapers are not in business to demonstrate the truth of the priority in the formation of policy that the Australian Labour Party has possessed for over half a century. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- It would be easy because of the very good features of this Bill to praise it uncritically. This certainly would be the most pleasant course to follow. I must confess that although I see good features in this legislation - most of them have been referred to tonight - I have some reservations as to its details. I do not, of course, criticise the objective of increasing Australia's exports, particularly in ways where a small capital expediture will insure a big turnover. I am referring to the main part of the Bill; that is the proposal that insurance should be available not only for the normal trade, but also for the capital equipment which is required in some cases to maintain and expand that trade. I think I can claim that this is a concept with which I have had something to do. Ten years ago **Mr. Wheeler,** then the honorable member for Mitchell, and myself brought this concept to the notice of the Government shortly after we had been abroad. It lay dormant for a long time and a great deal of departmental cold water was poured on it, although it appeared in one of the policy speeches of the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies).** Here it is implemented to some extent and I am glad that even at this late stage the suggestion we put forward is bearing some fruit. lt must not be thought that in criticising some of the details of this Bill, I am criticising the whole of it. Indeed, I would claim from 10 years ago to have been advocating the principles embodied in this measure and, as I have said, **Mr. Wheeler** and myself were, I think, in the face of great discouragement, the first people to bring those principles to the attention of the Government. It seems to me that where a great deal of trade can be insured by a little capital expenditure, there is a very good case - an unanswerable case - for the types of provisions included in this Bill. In that respect, it is a good Bill. But, **Sir, there** are some catches if there are no limits to the application of the principles of this measure. I refer, for example, to a case where an investment is great in comparison with the annual turnover of exports. I shall list the possible disadvantages. First, there is the risk of very large loss. Ordinary premium experience gives no guide in this respect because persons in suring against war losses and expropriation losses either lose nothing at all or lose every-, thing. It could easily happen that in one year, one month or one. week the whole contingent liability could be called up. In this respect, it is quite different from the normal operations of insurance. Premium experience of the past gives no guide whatsoever. Big losses could be involved if there is a big contingent liability. Secondly, this Bill may result in a considerable exodus of total capital from Australia, for this reason: In overseas countries where conditions are unstable, the rate of return on capital is high. This is because the entrepreneur has to take the risk of war and expropriation. This Bill gives to the Australian entrepreneur a method of avoiding that risk so that he will be able to obtain a higher rate of return on his capital abroad than he would obtain in Australia. If the principles of the measure are developed to a great extent, a considerable drain of total capital from Australia may result. Australia's balance of payments today is not of such a character that we should encourage this result. Thirdly, and worse, it may result in a drain away from Australia of the precious margin of risk capital which is all too scanty in Australia's investment scheme. It is a reproach to us that we use all our gambling instincts on the racecourse, the lottery and the poker machines and do not use our gambling instincts in a way that would be socially useful; that is in taking business risks where sometimes we lose our money and sometimes we get a big profit. By reason of this risk taking, the whole Australian economy can be advanced. If the terms of this legislation are too widely used, a result may be the draining away of our precious margin of risk capital. I believe that like charity, enterprise should begin at home. We must maintain life in the Australian economy. We do not want the vital margin of risk capital to be spent overseas. It is in all too short supply on the Australian scene, which is the first place where we need it. I remind honorable members, for example, of the disgraceful history of our petroleum investment and our mineral investment. Overseas capital is taking over because of the shortage of risk capital available in Australia. When risk capital is so short here for the enterprises which should be so close to our hearts, we should not be sending it overseas. Fourthly, there is another technical point. It is possible that this Bill, as it now provides, could be used to allow overseas companies to exploit Australian Consolidated Revenue to insure their own overseas risks. In other words, as the Bill stands - and I remind honorable members that there are virtually no. limits on the way it can be administered - it would be possible if administered in a certain way for risk capital to be sent from abroad through Australia and, by reason of a wholly owned Australian company, insured by Australian Consolidated Revenue, so that Australians would be bearing the risk for foreign investors. Fifthly, and lastly, if there is great investment abroad, particularly of the kind envisaged by the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr. McEwen),** we run the risk of international ill-will. A few moments ago I listened to the honorable member for Yarra **(Dr. J. F. Cairns)** denouncing those overseas companies which are established in Australia and limited by their franchises from the full freedom of their operations. Let us look at the mirror from the other side for a moment. What about the Australian companies which are to be established overseas so that they are tied to the Australian economy? Does not this suggest to honorable members that overseas there might be raised against those companies the same kinds of criticism and ill-will - whether well or badly founded - as was evidenced only a few moments ago by the honorable member for Yarra in respect of foreign capital resident in Australia? There are two sides to a mirror and two sides to every coin, even if it is only a dollar. The exercise of the power of insuring Australian investment overseas should be limited. I am not saying for one moment that we should not insure selected investments; I am saying that we would be unwise to do so in this Bill without limit. Another principle involved in this Bill is the loss of the power of this Parliament. If honorable members will look at the details of the Bill they will see how considerable the loss of that power is. The Bill does not define the principles on which the Minister will give or withhold his consent and approval to each contract of investment insurance. The Minister set out some principles in his second reading speech, but they do not bind even the Minister, and far less do they bind any of his successors. If we pass the Bill in its present form we are signing a blank cheque. There is no principle set down in the Bill to state why this contract should be accepted and that one should be refused. It is perfectly true that what was set out in the Minister's second reading speech was unexceptionable, but the Minister will not always be the person administering this Bill. It may even be at some future date that the Bill will be administered by somebody who now sits on the other side of the House. I consider that to be a remote possibility. But, at least, it is a possibility which a prudent administration should consider. I believe that the Bill should define the principles which the Minister set out quite clearly in his second reading speech. It is not good enough just to have a speech. Let the Parliament keep its dignity by seeing that these matters are put in the Bill. Clause 15 sets out that although transactions shall be gazetted, the details and the names of the parties to the transaction shall not be gazetted. I think this is wrong. There is no real reason why a company which has invested should not have its name known. These transactions are different from the day to day commercial transactions where a company may have some particular reason for having a consignment kept anonymous from its competitors. But there is no real reason why in these long term investments - and it should be remembered that the Bill can guarantee investments up to 15 years - the name of the company should not be set out. Most importantly, there is no upper limit on the contingent liability which can be put on Consolidated Revenue. {: .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr Fox: -- It is £100 million. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- No, it is not £100 million. The honorable member forgets that the £100 million applies only to the ordinary day to day transaction. He has been misled by not reading the Bill properly. If he looks at the Bill he will see that in regard to investment insurances there is no limit. This is a very weak feature of the Bill. Therefore, I shall propose two small amendments and hope that the Minister will propose a third and, perhaps, more comprehensive one. I shall propose that the limit of investment insurance - this is apart from the ordinary commodity trade insurance - shall for the present be £10 million contingent liability. I think this figure will give the requisite scope. I believe that it is inadvisable that we should be insuring large long term investments which are not geared to a high turnover of Australian export*. Let me remind the House once again that this is not like an ordinary insurance. This contingent liability, if it is to be called up at all, is likely to be called up suddenly and in total. In the Bill in its present form we are giving to the Minister, whoever he may be, the power to put hundreds of millions of pounds, if necessary, contingent liability on the Australian taxpayer without reference to Parliament and without disclosing what he is doing. This would be very wrong. I do not think that the present Minister would abuse this power and I am not worried about him, but I am worried about the principle of the Parliament giving to a Minister an unlimited power that can commit Consolidated Revenue without him coming to this Parliament and getting authority to do so. I hope that everybody who believes in parliamentary government will support me in the small amendment which I believe does not cut across the principles of the Bill as set out by the Minister. In the second case I hope that in clause IS the words " without reference to the names of the parties to the overseas investment transaction to which the contract relates ", which appear in brackets, will be omitted. I hope that the Government will accept these two amendments which do not, I think, cut across any vital aspect of the scheme. There is a third matter. I do not intend to move an amendment with respect to it at this stage but I hope that the Government will think about drafting an amendment and putting it into the Bill when it comes to the Senate. In speaking to this Bill the Minister very rightly gave us the principles on which his decisions in regard to contracts will be based. I find nothing to quarrel with in the Minister's description of what those principles are. But I believe the principles should be drafted and put into the Act - not just left in the second reading speech. The drafting of these principles is a complicated matter. The two amendments that I spoke about earlier are simple matters and, perhaps, the drafting is of no consequence. Indeed, I may say, I suppose without giving away any secrets, that the Parliamentary Draftsman and I drafted independently the two amendments and when we came to look at them we found that our wording was almost identical. So the two amendments that I propose are very simple ones. However, the third one that I have suggested is not simple. It will require a fair bit of drafting. Consequently, I do not intend to move it in this chamber but simply express the hope that the Government will draft it in accordance with its own proper desires to express in the Bill the things which the Minister said in his second reading speech and that the Government will insert those principles in the Bill when it comes to the Senate. I thoroughly agree that we should be helping other countries, particularly the less developed countries, and that we should be doing this particularly in regard to trade where we can get a big turnover of Australian exports for a small capital investment. In other cases I think we might well be more generous with gifts, rather than hope to tie the less developed countries to us by the strings of foreign investment on a big and substantial scale. This is a matter of philosophy which it is not appropriate, I think, to discuss at this hour in this House. May I say in conclusion that I support the Bill with the reservations that I have expressed. I am very glad that it expresses at long last a principle which **Mr. Wheeler** and I brought before the Government with great discouragement, some ten years ago. We are glad that this principle is incorporated in the Bill, but I believe that some limits should be introduced to ensure that parliamentary rights will be preserved and that the Government shall not give itself or its successors a blank cheque in this regard. I hope the Government will consider favourably the two small amendments that I shall be putting forward in committee. {: #subdebate-35-0-s5 .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS:
Griffith .- In presenting this Bill, the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr. McEwen)** gave a broad outline of the principles involved. In the course of the debate, members of the Opposition who have spoken have stated clearly the attitude of the Australian Labour Party towards this or any other proposal designed to promote the sale of Australian goods overseas. I do not intend to analyse closely the Minister's second reading speech because it put the Government's view very clearly, but I propose to refer to the principles stated in this measure to extend the activities of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. In his second reading speech, the Minister referred to three broad categories of risk which will be covered by the Corporation. These are expropriation, the transfer of convertibility, and war and insurrection. These are matters of great moment to Australia because of our position in the Asiatic sphere of influence. In this eastern part of the world, changes are taking place day by day and there is no guarantee which way they will go. Consequently the risk to Australian property in this area from war and insurrection is very great. Some little time ago we had an example of the risk of expropriation. Australia has no great investments in manufacturing industries in other countries but honorable members will recall the expropriation of a prominent Australian company's interests in Indonesia. The products of this company manufactured in Australia are widely used for the relief and amelioration of pain. I refer to the Aspro company whose property in Indonesia was confiscated. I hope that under the supervision of the Indonesian Government, Aspro products now are helping the Indonesians to cope with the national problems just as. they have helped us to cope with ours. The Government has been at pains to ensure that failure to make a profit, or devaluation in an overseas country, are not risks to be covered by the Corporation. This is very important because it means that no encouragement will be given under this legislation to companies which might gamble, as it were; on overseas markets. I am pleased that this is set out clearly in the Bill. A speaker on the Government side stressed the great value derived from the visit by an Australian parliamentary delegation recently to the continent of South America. I hope that visit- will be of profit to the Australian people and to Australian industry. I was. not fortunate enough to visit South America but I was a member of a delegation which visited the continent of Africa some little time ago, and I can appreciate fully the importance of the reference by the Minister to losses which might be incurred by expropriation or as a result of war and insurrection. Australia has good trading relations with some of the countries of Africa and trade is expanding, but the risks of expropriation, war and insurrection in those countries are very great. In this connection one can point to the problems facing Rhodesia, the Republic of South Africa and Kenya. Australia has important trade relations with those countries but in each of them there is some hostility to the existing regime. In some cases this is justified; perhaps in others the justification is not so great. However, because of the risk, there is likely to be reluctance on the part of some Australian exporters to trade with those countries although they need the goods we have to sell. Provision is made in the Bill to meet a situation such as could arise in the countries I have mentioned. Australia's trading position is changing from day to day. The Bill is designed to encourage the export of Australian manufactured goods. Quite reasonably, the Government has shown a tendency to promote the sale of Australian primary products overseas, but the more this policy is pursued the more costly it is becoming to Australia. Our primary industries are relying more and more on subsidies and this tends to build up the cost of commodities to the Australian people because the Australian consumer and taxpayer must meet these added charges. The- trend of commodity prices is shown in a bulletin issued recently by the Bureau of Census and Statistics. I refer particularly to exportable primary products. Unfortunately in these days of increased charges and costs we find that the prices of all commodities we import are rising while the prices Australia receives for primary products we export are falling. As an example I compare prices in August 1964 with those in August 1965. The figures presented by the Commonwealth Statistician show that in that period, prices of Australian wool fell by 12.5 per cent. Prices of dairy products fell by 2.7 per cent, and of cereals by 5 per cent. Certainly meat prices have risen by 4.6 per cent, and prices for dried and . canned fruits by 1.5 per cent. but sugar, a very important export product produced mainly in my own State of Queensland, has fallen by 25.7 per cent. Our income from sugar exports in 1965 totalled £56 million compared with £78 million in the previous year. In the overall picture, the prices of our exportable primary commodities have fallen in 12 months by 7.3 per cent. That is an alarming drop. The few members of the Australian Country Party who are listening to me, three of them being Ministers and the other one the Whip - I suppose that is a compliment to me - realise the tremendous subsidy that is being paid to some of our primary industries. I refer particularly to the payment of at least £13.5 million a year on the production of butter, and extra subsidies that are paid in respect of dried milk and so forth. Moreover, a heavy charge is imposed on the Australian taxpayer in respect of the production of wheat. I make these points merely to draw the attention of the numerous listeners in this House, and the members of the Australian public who doubtless are listening to me through the courtesy of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, to the declining income that Australia is receiving for its export of primary products. I see great merit in the Bill, which is designed to reduce the risk of loss on our exports and to encourage the export of our secondary products. A great industrial explosion is taking place in Australia. There is great expansion in the industrial field here just as there is in other countries. We have a responsibility to the Asiatic world to encourage the export of our know-how and also, in our own interests, to export as much of our production as we can. We must search for more markets. Returns show that Australia is turning increasingly to the Eastern world to find markets on which to dispose of the goods that we produce. A table which I have before me and which covers the period from 1960 to 1965 shows that we had a surplus of our trading account with Eastern countries but a trading deficit with the Western countries. This table, which was prepared by the Commonwealth Statistician, shows that for 1960- 61 the excess of exports over imports in regard to Eastern countries was £117 million. In 1961-62 the excess was £213 million, in 1962-63 it was £178 million, and in 1963-64 it was £262 million. I am sorry to say that in 1964-65 the excess dropped to £176 million, which nevertheless was a creditable balance. But over the whole field of exports, in 1960-61 we had a trading deficit in relation to all countries of £118 million. In 1961-62 there was a surplus of £192 million, in 1962-63 a deficit of £5 million, and in 1963-64 a surplus of £204 million. In 1964-65 there was an alarming plunge of £330 million, which meant that for that year we had a deficit of £126 million. Those figures must cause great alarm to the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies),** the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** and any other member of the Government who is interested in the welfare of the country, of the primary producers and of the manufacturing industries. It is evident that we are experiencing extreme difficulty in placing our primary products on overseas markets. Perhaps you will bear with me, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** when I refer to a very brilliant address that was given by **Sir William** Gunn, Knight of the Order of me British Empire, Companion of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, and Chairman of the Australian Wool Board, at a seminar that was held at the Chase Manhattan Plaza only this year. I am indebted to the Treasurer for sending to me with his compliments the book from which I shall quote. **Sir William** Gunn was at pains to point out the difficulty that Australia, was experiencing in exporting goods to the United States of America, with which we have very great trade relations. Unfortunately, the advantage is on the side of the United States. In 1964-65 we exported to the United States goods worth £132 million, but we imported from that country goods worth £346 million. The deficit on our trade with this very great country - our great and powerful ally, as the Prime Minister describes it - was more than £200 million. **Sir William** Gunn, who is a very prominent member of the Australian Country Party, has made repeated references to the difficulty that Australia is experiencing in placing goods on this very wealthy and important market. We all know that the citizens of the United States are the wealthiest people in the world and that they have a great amount of money to spend on various commodities. But, by resolution of their own Government, they are prohibited from buying the goods that Australia wishes to place on that market. 1 propose to quote now from the very brilliant oration that was delivered by **Sir William** with the approval of the Australian Treasurer. {: #subdebate-35-0-s6 .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mackinnon:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA -- Order! I suggest that the honorable member might relate his remarks to the Bill. {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS: -- I intend to do so. I am referring to the difficulty that we have in placing our commodities on overseas markets and to the fact that this Bill is designed to provide for the insurance of export goods against the risk of expropriation and difficulty in the transfer of currency. I believe that it will be of interest to the public to know the difficulty that the nation is experiencing at the present time. We know that our principal export is wool. **Sir William** Gunn spoke about the very high duty that is payable to the United States on wool that is exported to that country. He said - i have referred to the tariff on wool, and the legislation which you - That is, the United States- have introduced aimed at reducing the imports of meats into this market. He was referring to the fact that the United States not only has attacked the importation of wool but also has caused a severe restriction to be placed on the amount of beef that is imported by that country. **Sir William** mentioned the duty of 25i cents per lb. that is imposed on wool imported into the United States of America. This is a most important matter to Australia. The great primary industries that are based on the backblocks are engaged mainly in the production of wool and beef, both of which are important export commodities for Australia. Most of our beef exports come from Queensland, and wool is exported in great quantities from every State with the exception of the island State of Tasmania. This heavy duty on wool exported to the United States by one of its important customers imposes great hardship on Australia and causes great difficulties with our balance of. payments. When we realise that our deficit in trade with the United States is £200 million annually, or about £20 per head of the Australian population, we realise just what an enormous burden is being placed on the people of Australia by that country. **Sir William** Gunn also mentioned difficulties that confront the beef industry. Not long ago, beef was an important Australian export, most of our exports of this commodity coming from Queensland, the State of which I am a son. Though not by any means its noblest son, I am at least trying to do my bit for that great State. {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters: -- The honorable member should not be so modest. {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS: -- I may be modest, but I just want to make that point. The problems that have arisen in the beef export trade, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** are causing a great deal of concern to many citizens, particularly a considerable number of electors in the Griffith electorate, which I represent and in which are located establishments that prepare for export most of the beef exported from Queensland. In 1963-64, beef exports to the United States returned Australia £70 million. In 1964-65, our beef exports to that country dropped to the amazingly low level of £46 million - little more than half the figure for the previous financial year. Notwithstanding negotiations for an agreement on meat exports, Australia's market in the United States has declined considerably. {: .speaker-JVB} ##### Mr Mortimer: -- And just as we appeared to be making the grade, freights were increased. {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS: -- As my friend has reminded me, just as we appeared to be making the grade with exports to the United States, the shipping companies decided to increase freights by 10 per cent. {: #subdebate-35-0-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! I suggest that the honorable member relate his remarks to the Bill. He has not mentioned export payments insurance for the last 10 minutes. {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS: -- Some of the exports of our primary products go to countries where there are still risks of war and upheaval. I refer particularly to the sale of wheat to the People's Republic of China. Nobody can honestly say that there is a great measure of stability on the Asiatic scene, especially in China. Many countries are attacking that nation with words. Where war dangers arise, there are instability and the risk of expropriation of property and money. To quote my friend, the Minister for Trade and Industry, war and insurrection risks are very great. The trade statistics produced by the Commonwealth Statistician show that our primary producers are very deeply involved in our export trade. No doubt, this Bill will help to insure them against risks. I trust that you will bear with me, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** while I discuss for a few moments the proportion of our export trade that goes to the People's Republic of China. The latest figures published by the Commonwealth Statistician are contained in Statistical Bulletin No. 106, entitled " The Wheat Industry ", which gives figures for 1963-64 and preliminary figures for 1964-65. In 1963-64, 36.8 per cent, of Australia's exportable wheat went to the People's Republic of China. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! This is not a Bill concerned directly with overseas trade. It relates to export payments insurance, and I suggest that the honorable member confine his remarks to that matter. {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS: -- Nobody agrees with you more heartily than I do on this important matter, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** I believe that there devolves on me an obligation to direct attention to the difficulties with which Australia's exporting industries are confronted at present and to express the hope that this measure will encourage our industries' to try to expand their overseas markets. The honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** reminded us of the gambling instincts of Australians. He mentioned the racecourses, and I suppose that that reference could be said to be particularly appropriate at the present time. He also mentioned poker machines and something else that was beyond me, for I am not a gambling man. The honorable member said that Australian industry was reluctant to indulge in a little industrial gambling in the national interest. This Bill will help to provide some insurance cover for those Australian manufacturers who are prepared to gamble in Australia's interests. I regret that it is necessary for the Government to extend insurance cover to those who need a guarantee to recoup losses should they occur, but, in these changing days, it is necessary for some encouragement to be given in this field. If exports by our manufacturing industries are encouraged and expanded, the nation will benefit, and so will the workers who support the Australian Labour Party, to which I belong. I believe that, generally speaking, this measure will be of value to all sections of the Australian community if it is administered in the way in which the Labour Party would like to see it administered. There is a great opportunity for Australian manufacturers to be bold and adventurous in searching for new markets. If we do not seize this opportunity and search for more markets, we shall die in the economic sense. We cannot rely on our primary industries to maintain the economic stability of the nation. We must turn more and more to the manufacturing industries and build up the economy of Australia. If we do this, we shall be a better and richer country and we all shall enjoy a higher standard of living. {: #subdebate-35-0-s8 .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS:
Scullin **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I agree that there is a considerable number of arguments to support the implementation of this measure, which is designed to promote exports. But this Bill alone is not sufficient to deal with the dangers that confront Australia in relation to trade. Much more is necessary if the disasters that loom ahead are to be avoided. I have before me reports on this matter that have appeared in various Australian newspapers. On 8th October 1965, the " Australian " carried a banner headline reading, " New call for import control ". On 20th September 1965, the Melbourne " Herald ", under the headline " Import level cannot be held says financier " printed the following report - >It was obvious that the current level of imports into Australia could not be sustained indefinitely, **Mr. Staniforth** Ricketson, financier and broker, said today. Our imports must be cut- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! I suggest that the honorable member cuts out the imports and gets on to export payments insurance. {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS: -- I am pointing out the reasons why the passage of this measure is imperative. Its passage is imperative because exports are necessary to pay for imports. If imports are to be held at the present level, it is essential, as various newspaper reports point out, that we. promote exports. Anything that I say in connection with the immense volume of imports is said in support of the provision of any legislation introduced into this House and which is designed to promote the export trade of Australia. Let me continue. On 8th September 1965, this statement appeared in the Press under the heading " Our Imports Must Be Cut "- >The Federal Government should act immediately to clamp controls on Australia's rising level of imports, the director of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, **Mr. R.** W. Anderson, said yesterday. Another article headed "Great challenges face nation, says export chief" contains a statement by **Sir John** Allison in which he points out how essential it is that the gap between our exports and our imports be narrowed. I have also a statement by **Mr. H.** G. Ferrier, under the heading: " Economic Threats Becoming Real, Government Told". In that statement **Mr. Ferrier** refers to the difficulties which result from the fact that the volume of imports flowing into this country is out of all proportion to the level of our exports. In other words, he speaks of imports for which this country cannot pay. Will the position get any better in the future? Of course it will not. We shall not be able to pay for our imports. How have they been paid for to date? They have been paid for by foreigners. They have been paid for by the United States of America and by the people of Britain who have invested their money in, and made loans to, Australia. Even at this moment there is flowing into this country capital from America, Britain and other countries, and all of it is being utilised to finance the immense quantities of imports pouring into Australia in a flood. But that position will not continue forever. In this evening's Press I read the following news item under the heading " New Warning on U.S. Balances " - >The United States balance of payments will go back into the red in the second half of this year. > >The deficit will come from tourist spending and booming imports, according to **Mr. John** Connor, Secretary of Commerce. The item goes on - > **Mr. Connor** said that . " no serious consideration" was being given to mandatory controls on overseas investments by US firms. Up to now, the President of the United States has been saying to American nationals who have been financing the imports of other countries: " You must not do this to the same extent as you have been doing in the past." So far no mandatory legislation has been implemented to restrict the outflow of capital from the United States. The American Government proposes to do that now. The report continues - >Companies were also asked to curtail or postpone new projects abroad. > >But direct overseas investments of US firms swelled to 2,000 million dollars during the first half of the year compared with 2,400 million in all of 1964. Despite the plea of the President of the United States, Americans are investing more money abroad today than they did previously with the result that America is getting more deeply into the red than she was approximately 12 months ago. It is for this reason that the United States Government proposes in the near future to restrict to a greater extent than ever before the financing of the vast flood of imports into Australia. I remember that as far back as 1951 I asked the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** a question relating to the trading of this country. The question was somewhat along these lines - >Is it not desirable that at this time- that was in 1951 when everything in the garden seemed to' be rosy - we should protect our overseas balances rather than allow them to be dissipated? And they were being dissipated at that particular time. The right honorable Prime Minister said to me - >The Government is watching the position closely. I and the Treasurer have our eyes on the position. I have before me statistics relating to the net gold and foreign exchange holdings of Australia. They reveal that in 1951 our net gold and foreign exchange holdings totalled £803,700,000. That was at the time when the Prime Minister was keeping his eyes on them. In 1952, they dropped to £372.5 million. The right honorable gentleman then went before the microphone and said: " The country is in .danger of international insolvency ". Today I asked the Prime Minister a question relating to our overseas balances. I pointed out to him that during the last week our overseas balances have declined by £33 million to £583 million. I said that if the balances continued to decline at that rate every week for a year then, at the end of the year, we would virtually have no overseas balances whatsoever. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honorable member is defying the ruling of the Chair in this matter. I ask him to confine his remarks to the Bill before the House and not to engage in a general discussion of the balance of trade. {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS: -- Up to date I am the only person I have heard who has even mentioned the Bill as a preamble to his speech. The honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** spoke about overseas investment. Other honorable members spoke in this Parliament about trade generally. I submit that this Bill has to do with trade. The object of the Bill is the promotion of trade. If I am to impress upon the community and upon this Parliament good reasons why this legislation should go on our Statute Book, I need to show that the trading position of this country is such as to necessitate our implementing legislation that will promote overseas trade. That is exactly what I am showing. I am pointing out the decline that has taken place in the trading operations of Australia. I am showing that now, more than ever before in the history of this country, it is essential that the Government implement not only this legislation but also other legislation in order to improve our trading position. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The question of other legislation is not before the House. We are dealing with the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- Exporting goods is trade. {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS: -- That is right. The legislation is designed to promote trade per medium of insurance. I certainly would be within my rights in moving an amendment to the legislation in order to implement certain other provisions in connection with operations that would improve the trading position of this country. Because I would be within my rights in doing that, surely I am also within my rights, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** in pointing out the dangerous position into which this country has got. Surely I am within my rights in pointing out how, because of the position of our overseas reserves, it is essential that, per medium of this legislation, we inspire every manufacturer and every primary producer in Australia to sell as many of his goods as he possibly can to any other country. Am I not entitled to do that? Am I not entitled to take up this table of statistics to which I have referred and point out that whereas in 1964 our overseas funds totalled £837 million they amount to only £583 million today and are declining rapidly? Because they are declining rapidly we as a nation must do something. The action being taken by America at this time is an immediate threat to the wellbeing of this country. Surely v:e are entitled to say to the Government: " It is your duty not merely to implement legislation that will give exporters certain concessions in relation to goods that they send overseas and protect investments they make in other countries; it is your duty to do more than that in the interests of the economy of this nation". I will refer to a statement made by **Mr. Ferrier.** Speaking of the economy and of our trading position, he said - >A pause can become a collapse overnight. That is what I am trying to point out. The pause that will result if the Government does not take immediate action to implement this legislation can become a collapse. We could then very quickly be in the position of not having the overseas resources that we need to purchase goods to provide employment for the people of this country and to ensure the smooth working of our economy. Why do we export goods? We do not export goods because we want to give them away. We export goods, not to improve the conditions of the people in the importing countries, but to improve the conditions of our own people. The object is to engage in trading operations that will enable us to secure the goods that are essential to the smooth working of our economy. We must export to obtain the funds to buy the goods that we do not have here and, because our population is increasing, we must keep on increasing our exports. At the same time, we must refrain from engaging in unnecessary imports. I will not take up very much time because I see, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that I am irritating you and there is no person in this Parliament that I have less desire to irritate than the present occupant of the Chair. This insurance scheme is a trading operation, but it is only one of our trading operations. The Government has tried other schemes before. It entered into a trade treaty with Japan. It tried to get itself out of difficulties by selling more primary products to Japan and in return it had to accept an increasing volume of manufactured goods from Japan. This did not get the Government out of its troubles. Recently, it introduced another proposition. This was a treaty with New Zealand, but under this treaty we will not send primary products to New Zealand and take manufactured goods in return, as we did with Japan. We now have the reverse situation. We will send manufactured goods to New Zealand and take primary products in return. Instead of destroying the secondary industries of this country, we will destroy the primary industries. This will make up for the import of manufactured goods from Japan. In reality, of course, this is a vicious circle. While all this is going on, the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr. McEwen)** is overseas. He is discussing a proposition called the Kennedy Round. If the Kennedy Round is implemented in full, it will reduce the tariff protection of our secondary industries by one-third to two-thirds. So where do we get? The difficulty with this Government is that it is an opportunist government. It is a stop and go government; it is a kangaroo government. It does one thing today and another thing tomorrow. It follows one course of action with one nation and the opposite course with another nation. It promotes primary industries on the one hand by destroying secondary industries and then seeks to promote secondary industries by destroying primary industries. Then it seeks to reduce the strength of all industries in this country by adopting the kind of promotion that flows from a Kennedy Round free trade proposition. I support the proposition that is before the House. I do not think it goes far enough and I do not hesitate to warn the Govern ment that the difficulties in which it found itself in 1960 and in 1952 as a result of the absolute erosion of our overseas funds are rapidly approaching again. The Government must take immediate action to reduce imports considerably, to increase exports considerably or to do both. {: #subdebate-35-0-s9 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- My contribution will be very short. I would not have spoken at all but for some remarks made by the honorable member for Scullin **(Mr. Peters)** towards the end of his speech. He referred to the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr. McEwen),** who is Leader of the Australian Country Party, being overseas. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Selling out. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- An Opposition member has interjected: "Selling out". The honorable member for Scullin said that the Minister is discussing the Kennedy Round and that these discussions really will make tariffs much higher for Australia. The Minister is overseas trying to get the best possible deal for Australia in the Kennedy Round talks. The honorable member for Scullin did no more than make this statement. He did not say that the Minister's object was to support the tariffs- rises that the honorable member mentioned. He left that to the imagination of the people. Having listened to the speech of the honorable member for Scullin, people would naturally think that the Minister is overseas doing as the honorable member for Kingsford Smith **(Mr. Curtin)** said, and that is selling out Australia. That is completely wrong and, as the Whip of the Australian Country Party. I am here to protect its Leader from such slanderous statements. Everyone knows that the Minister has been one of the greatest advocates for a square deal for Australia in the markets of the world. He has become a world figure and is known for the fight he has put up for Australia. The honorable member for Scullin said that the Government has been in all sorts of trouble on many occasions. It has not been in half the trouble that the Opposition has been in for the past 16 years. These statements must be made. I have spoken very briefly merely to correct the impression that may have been created by the honorable member for Scullin. 1 want to make one or two comments on what the honorable member for Griffiths **(Mr. Coutts)** said during his speech. He implied that Australia's primary industries were not playing their part and had to be subsidised. He did not say that our secondary industries are subsidised by the people because if their costs go up those industries place a higher price tag on the goods they sell. Everyone knows that Australia's primary products are, to a large extent, sold to overseas countries with lower standards of living than we have in Australia and, therefore, at prices lower than the Australian standard prices for primary products. Surely no-one in this House or anywhere else expects the primary producer to continue to buy all the goods he requires for his production in the high cost Australian market and sell a large proportion of his products overseas at lower than Australian prices and still keep producing satisfactorily. Therefore this Government, and the Opposition also when in government, have been strong in their advocacy that something should be done to keep the primary producer satisfactorily in operation. The only way of doing this that has been thought out - not only by this Government, because I give the former Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** credit also - and the only way in which the taxpayer can help the primary producer to continue in operation, is to have stabilisation schemes. These schemes have been operating satisfactorily- {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mackinnon: -- Order! I think the honorable member is getting away from the Bill. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- When a member of Parliament says the primary producers are not playing their part it is time someone objected. The purpose of the Bill is to encourage exports from Australia. We know very well that our secondary industries have priced themselves out of the export market. An honorable member opposite interjects that that is not so, but our secondary industries have priced themselves out of overseas markets to the extent that primary products constitute 80 per cent, of our export and the products of secondary industry only 20 per cent. Therefore if Australian manufacturers can be encouraged by this insurance scheme and if we can foster the export of their products, it is to the betterment of all. The Country Party strongly supports the Bill, but when incorrect statements are made about the Leader of my Party and his operations overseas it is up to me to rise in this House and state the case clearly. {: #subdebate-35-0-s10 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for External Affairs · Curtin · LP .- The Bill before the House is a measure to amend the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act by extending the operations of the scheme under that Act to insurance in respect of investments. The debate has ranged over a very wide field and has covered many topics but, so far as I have listened to it - I am not the Minister who introduced the legislation but am acting for him in his absence - very few questions have been raised about the measure itself. I think one could rightly assume that the Bill has the general approval of, and is found acceptable by, both sides of the House.with perhaps some qualifications here and there. In the discussion on the general trend of Australian trade and some of the factors which have a bearing on its development there were made one or two remarks which I think call for at least passing reference. The honorable member for Yarra **(Dr. J. F. Cairns)** referred, at the outset, to the fact that the Bill would assist private business organisations. I am not quite sure whether he thought that was a good feature or a bad feature of the measure or whether it was a matter of no great moment. But he rather pointedly drew attention to his view that the Bill would assist private business organisations. In one sense it will do so. I think there is possibly a fundamental difference of outlook between the honorable member for Yarra and me. I am not sure of this, and he can contradict me if I misrepresent him. We believe there are two possible ways in which we can develop Australia's export trade. We can look to the enterprise of the private person engaged in trade or we can create a State, trading organisation and place a large part or the whole of our export trade in its hands. For our part, for reasons upon which I need not enlarge, we would not for one moment contemplate creating a State export corporation or organisation in order to carry on Australia's export trade. We feel that the operation of the private trader, conducting his own business, searching out his own markets, backing his own judgment and taking whatever opportunity he can find anywhere in the world in order to gain trade, is probably the most enterprising and rewarding way in which this side of the country's economy can be conducted. {: .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: -- What about the Wheat Board? {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK: -- The honorable member for Bendigo asks: " What about the Wheat Board? " It is true that in respect of certain commodities, particularly when their marketing is associated with stabilisation schemes, the marketing arrangements and the handling of the marketing and sale of the goods may be placed in the hands of a statutory board, as in the case of wheat. That does not seem to me to conflict in any way with the general thesis I have advanced. But we have a definite preference for the private business organisation in developing trade. Do not let us think that under the provisions of this Bill the private businessman will not take some share in the enterprise and the risk. This is an insurance scheme. The private trader is brought within this scheme as the result of the provisions of legislation such as this and the private investor who will be brought under the scheme by this Bill will use his own judgment and will pay his insurance premiums. The Bill proposes that, because of the unusual nature of the risks that exist in trade with certain countries and because of the great national interest involved in encouraging enterprise in trade with all sorts of countries, the Government will help to shoulder the risk which is normally shouldered by the commercial insurance companies. In such situations no commercial insurance company would touch the risks involved and, no matter what premium the trader was prepared to pay, he would be left without any cover, and so the necessity for a scheme of this kind emerges. It becomes a matter of concern to the Government and the subject of a Government formulated scheme because of the great national interest of promoting trade. The honorable member for Yarra talked at some length and frankly admitted that he was not able to exhaust the subject. I think he said he would need another hour or so to traverse all facets, of this entrancing subject. He talked a good deal about the changes in the direction of Australia's trade and quoted percentages of trade which were going in certain directions to certain groupings of countries. It seemed to me that, although he may not have intended it in this way, he was helping to build up the case for this new scheme. Those changes in the direction of trade which undoubtedly have taken place over recent years have been due to many causes. Among the causes have been the fact that in some of the less developed countries and countries subject to political troubles or threats to their security, there have been risks and uncertainties that have acted against the continuance of existing trade. It is those risks and uncertainties that have affected the direction of trade that this Bill and the scheme introduced under it are trying to overcome. Then too there has been a changing pattern of demand in many of these countries. Attempts have been made at industrialisation in some of the less developed countries, and alongside that there has been the natural move to protect their own industry by restriction of imports in one way or another. It is because of those developments which plainly have taken place that it becomes necessary to consider a scheme such as the one that is now before us. It is a scheme of insurance for investment so that the Australian trader engaged in the export trade may hold markets which otherwise he might be in danger of losing and also so that he may be able to break into new markets and develop them for the benefit of the national economy. I mention those two matters because it seems to me that they touch on aspects of the Bill which are fundamental in the thinking of the Government. I turn now briefly to the Bill. As has been recounted before, the Export Payments Insurance Corporation was established in 1956 and commenced its operations early in 1957. It was designed at the outset to provide exporters with insurance against risks of non-payment for their exports. Its principal purpose, therefore, was to help expand exports by removing some of the risks involved to the trader. The original scheme operates independently in the sense that it is required to meet all claims against insurance contracts, but behind those insurance contracts there is the final backing of the Commonwealth Government in the event of the Corporation not being able to meet its commitments. In order that there should be no inconsistency between what the Corporation does and the overall economic policies of the Government, the Corporation is required to seek ministerial approval for the policies it adopts in relation to the types of insurance it offers and the nature of the risks which it covers, That is the scheme as introduced in 1956. We have now had eight years experience of the working of that original insurance scheme and I think that experience has been such as to justify the faith that was originally put in it. The scheme has had considerable success. As a result of the experience of its working, adjustments have been made. In 1961 the Act was amended to provide for . national interest contracts. These are contracts in which the Government itself in the national interest, as the Government adjudged the national interest, would be liable in the event of a claim. That amendment was designed to cover those cases in which, because the amount involved was large or the risk was great, the Corporation was unable to accept the insurance on anything resembling a commerial basis. The Act was further amended in 1964 in order to allow the Corporation to issue unconditional guarantees to banks which provide finance for export transactions. The guarantees to the banks supplemented the Corporation's normal insurance contracts and provided considerable security for exporters seeking finance for export transactions. Up to this point of time the activities of the Corporation have been wholly confined to the insurance or guarantee of export trade. Only trade transactions were covered in this insurance scheme. This Bill seeks to break new ground by the introduction of new powers to provide insurance on overseas investment transactions as distinct from trade transactions. This, of course, is clearly a major departure and has meant a considerable re-arrangement of the Act. Although the Bill makes numerous amendments to the parent Act the amendments fall into three quite clear groups. First of all there is the amendment mainly in clause 15 which provides for powers in respect of investment insurance. Another group of amendments are consequential upon that amendment. Throughout the Act adjust ments are made which are necessary because an additional feature has been added to the parent scheme. Where previously the words applied to trade transactions only, adjustments are now to be made so that the Act will apply to the new scheme as well as to the old. Apart from those two groups of amendments there is a third group which make changes, not of a fundamental kind, to the existing provisions in order to improve the existing operations of the Corporation in respect of trade transactions. I refer to amendments which increase the capital of the Corporation from £1 million to £2 million, which increase the maximum contingent liability which the Corporation can accept from £75 million to £100 million, and which reduce the minimum value of transactions on which the Corporation may provide the guarantees to which I have referred. I will not mention in detail any of the other provisions of the Bill which perhaps can be more properly dealt with at the Committee stage. It is plain from the debate that has taken place that all honorable members who have spoken appreciate the importance in the national interest of the development of export trade. With perhaps some reservations on minor points in the case of Opposition members, honorable members realise that the export payments insurance scheme applying to trade transactions and the extension of that scheme to apply to investment transactions are a commendable method of trying to promote exports and to overcome some of the limitations on our capacity to get into new markets or to hold existing markets. These limitations are presented by the uncertainties, the risks and the flux of changing conditions in some of the countries with which we seek to trade, and particularly in countries generally referred to as less developed countries. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. In Committee. Clause 1 (Short tide). Progress reported. House adjourned at 10.21 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1711 {:#debate-36} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated - {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Petrol Tax. (Question No. 1237.) {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Jones: s asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In what year was petrol tax first collected? 1. What amount of tax has been collected annually since its inception, and what amount has been paid to each State during each year? 2. What was the price of first-grade petrol during each year, and what was the rate of tax per gallon? 3. What conditions have been imposed by the Commonwealth on the States in respect of the payments made to them? 4. What does the Commonwealth do with that portion of the tax not distributed to the States? {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Petrol tax was first collected in the year 1903. 1. Table A shows the amount of petrol tax collected in each year since 1903; Table B gives details of Commonwealth payments to the States for roads during those years in which there was a statutory relationship between such payments and revenue from the petrol tax. 2. Table C shows retail prices of petrol in Sydney commencing 1948-49, the first year for which official statistics are available. Premiumgrade petrol was first supplied post-war in Australia in the September quarter,1955. Table D sets out the details of duties payable on petrol since the introduction of the petrol tax. 3. Commonwealth road grants to the States were first related to petrol clearances in the year 1931-32 and this relationship was continued until 1958-59. The terms of the Commonwealth legislation under which such assistance was provided during this period included the following conditions - Federal Aid Roads Act 1931. The only condition was that the financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth was to be used for the purpose of construction, reconstruction, maintenance or repair of roads: It was left to the Commonwealth Minister to employ such means as he thought fit to ensure that this condition was fulfilled. Federal Aid Roads Act 1936. This Act laid down no new conditions in relation to Commonwealth assistance. Federal Aid Roads and Works Act 1937. Under this Act certain additional assistance was made available to be used by the States for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of roads or " other works connected with transport as the State may think fit ". Of this additional contribution, the States could be required to use up to one-twelfth for maintenance or repair of public roads adjoining or of approach to Commonwealth properties (including works or other Commonwealth activities) within the States. Commonwealth Aid Roads and Works Act 1947. For the first time, specific provision was made for expenditure on "rural" roads. A lump sum payment to the States of £1 million per annum was to be used for this purpose. Of the remaining allocations, up to one-sixth could be spent by the States on "other works connected with transport ". Schedules of proposed allocations in respect of road construction works,including "rural" roads, were to be submitted to the Commonwealth Minister prior to the commencement of each financial year. The following additional conditions were attached to the "rural" roads provision - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Expenditure was to be on construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of roads through sparsely populated areas, timber country and rural areas or, if the State thought fit, upon the purchase of road-making plant for use in areas where the purchase of such plant was beyond the resources of local authorities. 1. Except with the approval of the Commonwealth, " rural " roads in this context were not to include State highways, main roads or trunk roads. 2. The States were to be responsible for the adequate maintenance of roads towards the constructionof which " rural " roads money had been applied. Commonwealth Aid Roads and Works Act 1948. The amount provided for "rural" roads was increased to £2 million per annum for the remaining two years of the Act on the condition that statements showing proposed expenditure on such roads in 1948-49 were submitted by the States to the Commonwealth Minister by the 31st December 1948. Commonwealth Aid Roads and Works Act 1949. The amount provided for " rural " roads was further increased to £3 million for the financial year 1949-50 on condition that statements showing proposed expenditure on such, roads in that year were submitted by the States to the Commonwealth Minister by 31st October 1949. Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1950. Expenditure of the grants received by the States under this Act was governed by the following conditions - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. At least 35 per cent, of the total amount payable to the States was to be used for " rural " roads, including developmental roads, feeder roads, roads in sparsely populated areas and in soldier settlement areas and roads in country municipalities and shires, but excluding roads which were highways, trunk roads or main roads. 1. All expenditure was to be for tha con struction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of roads (or in the purchase of road-making plant) or paid to local authorities for the same purposes. 2. One sixth of the amount not spent on " rural " roads could be spent on "other works connected with transport by road or by water ". 3. The provision of the 1947 Act requiring prior approval of programmes was dropped but to ensure compliance with the Act the States were required to submit certified statements each year showing how the amounts received from the Commonwealth in the previous financial year had been spent. Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1954. The only changes in conditions attaching to road payments to the States under this Act were as follows - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The proportion of the total amount pay able to the States to be expended under the " rural " roads provision was increased from 35 per cent, to 40 per cent. 1. The total amount which could bc spent on "other works connected with transport by road or water " was set at a maximum of £1 million per annum. Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1956. The conditions attaching to the road grants as set out in the 1954 Act were unchanged under this Act which merely amended the 1954 Act by increasing the Aid Roads allocations from the duties on petrol. The 1954 Act - as amended in 1956- remained in force until the introduction of the 1959 Act, when the relationship between road grants to the States and petrol clearances was discontinued. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. The entire proceeds of' the petrol tax are paid into Consolidated Revenue Fund and thus assist in financing the overall commitments of the Commonwealth. Table A Table C Table D DUTIES ON PETROL {:#subdebate-36-1} #### Census. (Question No. 1240.) {: #subdebate-36-1-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA n asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the population of Australia as revealed by each of the last three censuses? 1. Of the papulation revealed at each of these censuses, how many persons were (a) under the age of sixteen years, (b) females over 60 and (c) males over 65? 2. At the date of each of these censuses, how many persons were recipients of (a) child endowment, (b) invalid pensions and (c) age pensions? {: #subdebate-36-1-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {:#subdebate-36-2} #### Settlement of Refugees in Australia. (Question No. 1254.) {: #subdebate-36-2-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for Immigration upon notice - >From what countries, in what circumstances and in what numbers have refugees been allowed to settle in recent years? {: #subdebate-36-2-s1 .speaker-KMB} ##### Mr Opperman:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - >In the five year period 1st July 1960 to 30th June 1965, 38,050 persons whose stated nationality was that of an Eastern European country or who described themselves as Stateless, were admitted to Australia for residence. The figures for each nationality and for the Stateless group are as follow - > >This number comprised three main elements; (a) those who came direct from Eastern European countries generally on the nomination of relatives in Australia, (b) those who, having left their country of origin in Eastern Europe were selected in Western European (principally Austria and Italy) and .(c) those who came to Australia from Hong Kong after being nominated by relatives or friends in Australia or Voluntary Agencies here. > >Those in category (a) either made private arrangements to travel to Australia or received loans towards their travel costs from a Voluntary Agency and the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration arranged their travel to Australia. > >The majority of those in category (b) were assisted by the Australian Government with their travel costs and were brought to Australia under arrangements made between the Australian Government, the Government of the country of asylum and the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration. > >Those in category (c) received loans towards their travel costs from a Voluntary Agency and the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration in conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees arranged their travel to Australia. {:#subdebate-36-3} #### Industrial Arbitration: Penalties. (Question No. 1268.) {: #subdebate-36-3-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES y asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many fines have been imposed by the Commonwealth Industrial Court on trade unions in Australia during the last two years? 1. What was the *(a) name* of the union, (b) amount of the penalty, and (c) nature of the offence in each case? {: #subdebate-36-3-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 194. 1. The name of the union, the amount of the penalties or penalties and the nature of the offence in each case is set out below. FROM 20th SEPTEMBER 1963 TO 20th SEPTEMBER 196J {:#subdebate-36-4} #### Mangalore Aerodrome. (Question No. 1281.) {: #subdebate-36-4-s0 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have tests on the Mangalore aerodrome to determine its suitability for jet aircraft been completed? 1. If so, what were the results of the tests? 2. Will Mangalore continue to be an alternative airfield for commercial aircraft, including jet*, when the Melbourne airport is closed? 3. Did the tests indicate the need for additional works or equipment at Mangalore? 4. If so, when will such works be carried out or the equipment be installed? {: #subdebate-36-4-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - 1 and 2. The field tests on the pavements at Mangalore have been completed and they are now being analysed. The Department of Works anticipate having this completed by November. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Yes. 4 and 5. The answer to these questions must await the results of the analysis of the pavement tests, referred to in the answer to Questions 1 and 2. {:#subdebate-36-5} #### Waterfront Employment. (Question No. 1311.) {: #subdebate-36-5-s0 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: e asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - >How many man hours have been lost each year up to 30th June 1965, on ships operated by '.he Australian National Line as a result of stoppages on the waterfront? {: #subdebate-36-5-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - >The Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority does not keep statistics in respect of man hours lost on vessels operated by individual shipping lines. {:#subdebate-36-6} #### Taxation. (Question No. 1321.) {: #subdebate-36-6-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP m asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice - >How much tax was payable by clubs on their income from non-members in 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 in each State? {: #subdebate-36-6-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- Statistics which would enable an answer to be given to the honorable member's question are not maintained. Commonwealth Development Bank. {: #subdebate-36-6-s2 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- On 15th September the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. O'Connor)** asked the Treasurer in a question without notice why, as revealed in the Commonwealth Banking Corporation's annual report for 1964-65, the amount of the Commonwealth Development Bank's outstanding loans to the rural sector was significantly higher than the comparable figure for industrial loans. The Treasurer undertook to obtain detailed information from the Bank on the matter. The Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has confirmed that the basic reason for this situation is, as suggested by the Treasurer in his interim reply to the House, that the Development Bank has not had the same volume of inquiries from potential industrial borrowers as from primary producers. It will be noted from the Corporation's Report that in the year ended 30th June 1965 the Development Bank approved 2,294 rural loans (average loan £5,706) and 303 industrial loans (average loan £12,851). The figures for numbers of loans approved are a direct reflection of the numbers of applications received by the Bank in the respective fields of operation. A further factor which tends to increase the proportion of rural loans outstanding is that these loans are generally for longer terms than industrial loans. I understand that the Development Bank has taken steps from time to time to ensure that the availability of its facilities is widely known to secondary industry and amongst professional advisers to industrial enterprises. {:#subdebate-36-7} #### Shipping Freight Rates. (Question No. 1170.) {: #subdebate-36-7-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice - >On what occasions and by what percentages has each Shipping Conference altered freight rates in each of the last five years? {: #subdebate-36-7-s1 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP -- The following figures are provided as an indication of the general order of export freight rate variations in the major trades since 1960. General freight variations often exclude certain commodities, and the honorable member will appreciate it is only practicable to list therefore are indicative of the general movethe major groups of cargo. The figures ment which has taken place since 1960 - >In the Singapore/Malaya trade from Australia freight variations are not applied on an overall percentage basis but rather on individual commodities. It is not practicable to list here all variations which have taken place but an indication of the overall movement in freights can be obtained from the following comparison of 1960 rates and current rates on some of the major commodities moving in this trade - {:#subdebate-36-8} #### University of Tasmania. (Question No. 1230.) {: #subdebate-36-8-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is a special research grant being paid to the Tasmanian University? 1. In what years has it been paid, and on what conditions is the grant payable? 2. Is the grant to be reduced this financial year? If so, by what amount, and for what reason? {: #subdebate-36-8-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. A special research grant of £62,500 is available to the University of Tasmania for the 1964-66 biennium, on the condition that it is matched £ for £ by the State Government and the sum is used for research. An initial allocation of £37,500 was made for 1964. 2. The sum of £25,000, the balance of the triennial grant, is available over 1965 and 1966. The payment of £37,500 in 1964 was an advance payment only from the total research grant available for the triennium and was made to accelerate research training and enable the University to obtain research equipment which would otherwise have to be obtained over several years. The Australian Universities Commission's Second Report (page 51) stated that allocations for that year were "not necessarily related to the magnitude of the final allocations". The amount available for 1965 and 1966 was made on the basis of each university's needs to continue research, and also took into account the necessity to increase the allocations to some of the new and rapidly developing universities. The Honorable Member may also be interested to know that applications have also been received by the Australian Research Grants Committee from staff of the University of Tasmania for allocations from the research grant of £2 million to be shared equally by the Commonwealth and the States and to be used for approved specific research projects. The Committee will soon be making its recommendations to the Government. {:#subdebate-36-9} #### Aluminium. (Question No. 1234.) {: #subdebate-36-9-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: d asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many aluminium companies are now operating in Australia, and to what extent are they controlled by (a) Australian interests and (b) overseas interests? 1. Where are they located, and from what sources are the raw materials obtained? 2. What is the gross annual tonnage of aluminium produced in Australia? {: #subdebate-36-9-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are two integrated aluminium complexes in Australia at present. These carry out bauxite mining, process the bauxite to alumina and then to aluminium metal, and have semifabricating facilities. They are controlled by Alcoa of Australia Pty. Ltd. (49 per cent. Australianowned, 51 per cent overseas) and Comalco Industries Pty. Ltd. (7) per cent Australian-owned, 921 per cent, overseas). There are a number of fabricating firms, the largest being Australian Aluminium Company Ltd., which is wholly overseasowned. Companies engaging in development of other activities include Queensland Alumina Limited (preparing for production of alumina at Gladstone) which is 1 per cent Australian-owned: Australian Bauxite Company Pty. Ltd (to mine bauxite near Weipa from 1977 and to purchase supplies from Comalco before then) which is wholly overseas-owned: the Alusuisse-Nabalco Consortium (to produce alumina at Gove) which is 50 per cent. Australian-owned and 50 per cent, overseas-owned: Gove Mining and Industrial Corporation Ltd. (to mine bauxite at Gove) which is wholly overseas-owned: and United States Metals Refining Company (investigating bauxite occurrences in the Kimberleys) which is wholly overseas-owned. 1. Alcoa of Australia mines bauxite at Darling Range (Western Australia), produces alumina at Kwinana (Western Australia), and aluminium at Geelong (Victoria): semi-fabricating is at Geelong. Comalco mines bauxite at Weipa (Queensland), produces alumina and aluminium at Bell Bay (Tasmania) and imports some alumina: semi fabricating is at Sydney and is planned for Perth. Australian Aluminium Co. Ltd. has plants at Sydney and Melbourne: at present it purchases most of its metal requirements from the two integrated complexes. 2. In 1964, 79,024 tons of aluminium were produced in Australia, production in the first half of 1965 was 43,127 tons. {:#subdebate-36-10} #### Government Aid to Private Schools. (Question No. 1258.) {: #subdebate-36-10-s0 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What additional assistance is rendered from public funds to private schools by the Commonwealth and each of the States by means of scholarships, allowances, loans, transport concessions and equipment since he answered a similar question from me on the 18th August 1964 ("Hansard", page 334)? 1. Can he indicate where payments are made directly to the school authorities? {: #subdebate-36-10-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The following is information on additional assistance rendered by the Commonwealth and the States to both government and independent schools in Australia since F answered a similar question from you on 18th August 1964. The information given on additional assistance by the States has been gathered from public announcements, mostly recent announcements, and the honorable member will appreciate that the details in some cases have not yet been fully worked out. {: .page-start } page 1719 {:#debate-37} ### SCHOLARSHIPS (AND ALLOWANCES) WHICH ARE TENABLE AT EITHER STATE OR NON-STATE SCHOOLS New South Wales Ten thousand bursaries will be available to senior pupils in State and non-State schools as from the beginning of 1966. These will be awarded competitively on the results of the School Certificate Examination and will be subject to a means test. Maximum allowances payable will be £150 per annum if the student is living away from home and £75 per annum if the student is living at home. A textbook allowance of £12 annually will be paid to all bursars. Bursars may receive other awards of up to the value of £50 per annum and still retain the bursary. A textbook allowance will be paid to all secondary school children who do not receive text book allowances under other awards. These will vary from £2 in first and second forms to £8 in fifth and sixth forms. Western Australia A tuition allowance will be paid to children receiving secondary education in private schools. This will amount to £15 in first, second and third years and £18 in fourth and fifth years. Payment will be made to the school and the amount deducted from the school's account to the child's parents. This will be retrospective to 1st January 1965. CAPITAL. FACILITIES. Commonwealth A grant of £5,000,000 each year will be made available for science laboratories and equipment in government and independent secondary schools for a period of three years as from 1st July 1965. New South Wales In the 1964-1965 budget, £100,000 has been provided to help non-State schools meet interest on loans raised for approved building projects. Victoria Provision has been made for an interest subsidy to private schools of up to 5% on approved loans for secondary school buildings to a total outstanding principal amount of £500,000 in 1966 rising by £500,000 a year for the next four years and reaching £2,500,000 in 1970. Western Australia Provision has been made for the payment of interest charges, on money borrowed for the provision of residential accommodation in schools. Initially, interest may be paid up to 5 per cent, per annum and the amount borrowed paid off in equal instalments over a maximum period of 20 years. Any school which has borrowed money for residential accommodation since 1st January 1965, may apply for the payment of interest charges. All shools are eligible to receive a subsidy of a quarter of the cost of a swimming pool up to a maximum subsidy of £1,000. TRANSPORTATION CONCESSIONS. New South Wales As from beginning of 1966 country children will have free . school bus travel to the nearest " appropriate " school. This includes primary and secondary children, government and nongovernment schools. In determining the nearest "appropriate" school regard will be had to preference of parents for their children to attend a denominational school. EQUIPMENT. Queensland Independent schools in Queensland will as from the beginning of 1966 be able to buy school supplies available under State stores contracts at the same rates as State schools. This will include science equipment for secondary schools. South Australia It has been announced that textbooks will be supplied free in all South Australian primary schools, but it is not anticipated that this will be done before the beginning of 1967. Western Australia The range of items supplied to schools free of cost will be extended to include duplicating, firstaid and cleaning materials. {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Geological Investigations. (Question No. 1276.) {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many investigations involving (a) geological mapping on a 1 :250,000 scale, (b) geological mapping on larger scales, and (c) laboratory studies have been undertaken by the Geological Branch and the Sedimentary Basins Research Group of the Bureau of Mineral Resources during each of the last five years in (i) South Australia, (ii) Victoria, (iii) Tasmania and (iv) New South Wales? 1. What factors have limited the activities of these parts of the Bureau of Mineral Resources in these States? {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The following investigations were carried out by the Bureau of Mineral Resources involving- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Geological mapping on a 1:250,000 scale - 1. (i) Laboratory studies by Geological Branch - 1. Factors limiting the activities of (a), (b) and (c) above in South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales include - the natural tendency for the Bureau to concentrate work in the northern parts of Australia where the need for geological investigation is greatest; and the desire on the part of some of the southern Slates to carry out their own geological studies. {:#subdebate-37-1} #### War Service Homes. (Question No. 1245.) {: #subdebate-37-1-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: d asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the waiting period for applicants to purchase existing homes under the War Service Homes Act? 1. For how long has the waiting period operated? 2. What rate of interest are applicants paying for temporary finance, and from what sources can the finance be obtained? {: #subdebate-37-1-s1 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There is a waiting period of thirteen months in respect of applications for assistance to purchase existing homes under the War Service Homes Act. 1. The present waiting period has operated since 1st October 1965. 2. No information is Bt present available which would enable this information to be provided. Anti-dumping Laws. (Question No. 1137.) {: #subdebate-37-1-s2 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA b asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What action is being taken *to prevent* the dumping of goods into Australia from overseas countries at unfair prices? 1. Are Australian anti-dumping laws adequate) to deal with this form of unfair trading? {: #subdebate-37-1-s3 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has supplied the following answer to the honorable member's questions - >Since the introduction of the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act in May 1961, the Tariff Board has found that 30 commodities are being imported into Australia at dumped prices to the detriment of Australian manufacturers. Dumping duties are being collected on. all these goods. Furthermore, the Tariff Board is considering whether a further eight commodities are being sold to Australia under conditions which would make them also liable to the provisions of the Dumping and Subsidies Act. > >The Department of Customs and Excise is taking provisional anti-dumping action by collecting cash securities on twenty-one commodities currently under examination for possible action under the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. > >Generally speaking Australia's anti-dumping laws have been adequate to deal with normal dumping situations. However, certain practices have been detected which are designed to circumvent the payment of dumping duties which should be payable in accordance with the provisions of the existing legislation. > >A Bill has been now introduced which will amend the principal Act to enable these practices to be countered. {:#subdebate-37-2} #### Petrol Subsidy. (Question No. 1312.) {: #subdebate-37-2-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many localities are listed in the Western Australian Schedule of Petrol Subsidies which was formulated in connection with the operation of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act? 1. Of those localities, how many will receive no subsidy at all, and how many will receive a subsidy of (a) id., (b) Id., (c) lid., (d) 2d., (e) 2id., (0 3d. and (g) more than 3d. per gallon? 2. Did the increase of excise duty of 3d. per gallon recently imposed by the Government bring about an increase in price of at least the same amount as that by which the price of petrol would be reduced? 3. Is it a fact that, in ali localities in Western Australia where the subsidy is not more than 3d. per gallon, the price of petrol will, even after payment of subsidy, be actually higher than it was when the Government promised the people that the price of petrol would be reduced? {: #subdebate-37-2-s1 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answers to the honorable member's questions - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are 518 Western Australian localities listed in the Schedule of Subsidies made under tha States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The number of localities receiving subsidy on motor spirit at the various' rates operative, are as follows - One hundred and nine localities receive no subsidy on motor spirit but they are listed for subsidy on other eligible products. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Yes, the increase applied uniformly throughout the Commonwealth. 1. The excise increases for petroleum products recently announced by the honorable the Treasurer were imposed for general revenue purposes and people living in country areas of Western Australia in common with other citizens throughout Australia have to contribute to the finances necessary for defence, developmental and budgetary purposes of the Commonwealth. These revenue requirements are unrelated to the subsidy scheme and in no way destroy the beneficial effects derived from it Under the scheme, no matter what rates of duty apply, the relationship between country and capital city wholesale prices remains the same. {:#subdebate-37-3} #### Colombo Plan: Recognition of Qualifications. (Question No. 1243.) {: #subdebate-37-3-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - >Does every country to whose citizens Australia awards Colombo Plan scholarships recognise the degrees, diplomas, certificates or qualifications for which the scholarships are awarded? {: #subdebate-37-3-s1 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - >The formal status accorded to the holders of Australian degrees, diplomas, certificates and other qualifications in Colombo Plan countries varies from country to country. In practice qualifications gained in Australia by students who hold awards under the Colombo Plan are recognised when the students return to their own countries. Colombo Plan recipient governments have been asked to ensure that the degees for which trainees are nominated will be accorded appropriate status when the trainees return on completion of their training. {:#subdebate-37-4} #### Thailand. (Question No. 1307.) {: #subdebate-37-4-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Jones: s asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - >In view of Australia's association with Thailand through S.E.A.T.O., the Colombo Plan and arrangements for defence aid, is he able to furnish the following information concerning that country - > >Does it have a parliament; if so, how is it elected; > >Is there (i) a government and (ii) an opposition; > >Is there in existence a system of trial by jury; > >Does it have a free press; > >Are there any political prisoners? {: #subdebate-37-4-s1 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - >The system of Government of the Kingdom of Thailand is based on the provisions of the Constitution promulgated by His Majesty the King of Thailand in January 1959. A copy of this constitution is available in the Parliamentary Library. Information concerning Thailand's legal and administrative systems is contained in the Thailand Annual Year Book, the latest edition of which, for 1964, will be placed in the Parliamentary Library. Conventions. ! (Question No. 1171). **Mr. Whitlam** asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - 1. (a) To what conventions drafted or reviewed in the last year could Australia become a party? {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Where, when and under what auspices were the conventions drafted or reviewed? 1. Which were supported and which were opposed by Australia? 2. Which have entered into force? 3. To which has Australia already (i) become a party and (ii) decided not to become a party? 2. (a) Have any more of the United Nations conventions, listed in his replies to me of 18th August 1964 (Hansard page 338) and 15th September, 1964 (page 1114) entered into force? If so, when? 4. Has Australia reconsidered or completed consideration of any of the listed conventions to which she was not then a party? If so, what decision has been made? 5. What progress has since been made in the preparation of (i) Federal, (ii) State or (iii) territorial legislation which is thought to be necessary before Australia can become a party to any of the listed conventions? 6. Have any more of the transport conven tions, listed in the Acting Minister's replies to me of 22nd October 1964 (Hansard page 2305) and 16th November 1964 (page 3058) entered into force? If so, when? 7. Has Australia reconsidered or completed consideration of any of the listed conventions to which she was not then a party? If so, what decision has been made? 8. What progress has since been made in the preparation of (0 Federal, (ii) State or (iii) territorial legislation which is thought to be necessary before Australia can become a party to any of the listed conventions? 9. Has any other country since become a party to any of the listed conventions? If so, when? {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Has the Government accepted the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications in May 1964, that his Department's Treaty Series should incorporate "all international Treaties and Agreements in the making of which Australia has participated whether ratified by Australia or not "? {: #subdebate-37-4-s2 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - l.(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). It would not be practicable to provide the honorable member with particulars of every convention drafted or reviewed in the past year to which it might technically be open for Australia to become a party. The list appearing hereunder will, however, provide the honorable member with the information which he desires in respect of conventions which have been drafted or reviewed since 25th August 1964 at international conferences at which Australia was represented. {: type="i" start="i"} 0. Constitution of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization. Amendments to Articles 17 and 18 of the Constitution were adopted at the second extraordinary session of the Assembly of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, held in London on 10th-15th September, 1964. At the session, Australia supported these amendments and it has subsequently accepted them. They have not yet entered into force. 1. Agreement establishing the South Pacific Commission. An agreement amending this agreement was drafted at conferences held in London during 1964 and attended by representatives of the Governments of Australia, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, the Governments then participating in the Commission. Australia supported the amending agreement and has become a party to it. It has entered into force. 2. Declaration on the Provisional Accession of Argentina to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. A second procesverbal extending this declaration was adopted at Geneva on 30th October 1964, at a meeting of the Council of the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Australia supported the proces-verbal and has become a party to it. It has entered into force. 3. Declaration on the Provisional Accession of the United Arab Republic to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. A proces-verbal extending this declaration was adopted at Geneva on 30th October 1964, at a meeting of the Council of the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Australia supported the procesverbal and has become a party to it. It has entered into force. {: type="i" start="v"} 0. International Wheat Agreement, 1962. A protocol for the extension of this agreement was drafted at the United Nations Wheat Conference which was held in London on 4th-5th February 1965. Australia supported the protocol at the conference and has become a party to it. It has entered into force. 1. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. A protocol amending this agreement to introduce a Part IV on trade and development was adopted at the second special session of the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which concluded in Geneva on 8th February 1965. Subject to certain qualifications, Australia at the session supported the protocol and has subsequently accepted it with a reservation. It has not yet entered into force. 2. Convention on the Settlement of Investment isputes between States and Nationals of other States. This convention was drafted under the auspices of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and was approved by the Executive Directors of the Bank at Washington on 18th March 1965. Australia supported the adoption of the convention and the question of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. It has not yet entered into force. 3. Convention for the Facilitation of Maritime Travel and Transport. This convention was drafted at a conference convened in London during March-April 1965. under the auspices of the InterGovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization. Australia at the conference supported this convention and the question of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. It has not yet entered into force. 4. Second International Tin Agreement A Third International Tin Agreement to replace the Second International Tin Agreement was negotiated in New York at the United Nations Tin Conference which concluded on 14th April 1965. At the conference, Australia supported the re-negotiated agreement. The agreement is open for signature until 31st December 1965, and the qnestion of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. It has not yet entered into force. 5. Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment Underground in Mines. This convention was adopted as I.L.O. Convention No. 123 at the 49th Session of the International Labour Conference at Geneva on 21st June 1965. Australia at the conference supported the convention and the question of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. It has not yet entered into force. 6. Convention concerning Medical Examination for Young Persons for Fitness for Employment Underground in Mines. This convention was adopted as l.L.O. Convention No. 124 at the 49th Session of the International Labour Conference at Geneva on 24th June 1965. Australia at the conference supported the convention and the question of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. It has not yet entered into force. Convention on the Transit Trade of Landlocked States. This convention was drafted at a conference which was hold in New York under the auspices of the United Nations and concluded on 8th July 1965. Australia was represented at the conference by an observer. No decision has been reached on whether Australia will become a party to this convention, which has not yet entered into force. 2. (a) The undermentioned Conventions have entered into force on the dates shown - {: type="a" start="i"} 0. Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone - 10th September 1964. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages - 9th December1964. 1. l.L.O. Convention No. 119 (Guarding of Machinery) - 21st April 1965. 2. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea- 26th May 1965. 3. International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea- 1st September 1965. 2. (b) and (c) Federal legislation is being drafted with a view to giving effect in Australia to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In relation to the International Labour Organisation Conventions, I refer the honorable member to the answer provided by the Minister for Labour and National Service to his question No. 1172 (pages 879 and 880 of "Hansard" of 14th September 1965). In relation to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Commonwealth Statutory Rules (No. 120 of 1965) were made on 30th August 1965. Complementary State legislation has been passed in Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales. South Australia is expected to pass similar legislation very shortly. The preparation of the necessary Northern Territory legislation is in hand. As regards the 1962 amendments to the Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, Federal legislation has been passed (Act No. 4 of 1965). A complementary model State bill on the subject has been drafted and will be referred to the Australian Port Authorities Association before formal circulation to each of the State Governments for consideration. Consideration of any amendments which may be necessary in respect of territorial legislation is proceeding. In other respects the position remains as stated in the replies to which the honorable member refers. 3. (a) The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the Carriage of Passengers by Sea entered into force on 4th June 1965. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. and(c) The position in relation to each of the Conventions listed on pages 3059 to 3063 of "Hansard" of 16th and 17th November 1964 is as follows - Nos. 1 to 10, 14 to 21, 23, 24, 27 and 29 to 31. The Government's attitude is unchanged. Nos. 11 and 12. The position remains as shown in the reply to the honorable member's question No. 762 (" Hansard ") of 16th-17th November 1964 (pages 3060-3061). No. 13. Statutory Rules (No. 121 of 1965) complementary to section 162a of the Customs Act and necessary for the implementing of this convention have been made. In addition Statutory Rules under the Sales Tax Act will be necessary before effect can be given to the convention. These are under consideration. Nos. 22 and 28. The position remains as stated in the reply to the honorable member's question No. 252 ("Hansard") of 20th May 1964 (page 2211). Nos. 25 and 32. See 2(b) and (c) above. No. 26. The position remains substantially as stated in the reply to the honorable member's question No. 571 ("Hansard") of 22nd September 1964 (page 1398) with the exception that substantial progress has now been made in the drafting of the large., amount of Commonwealth legislation involved. No. 33. Consideration of this convention has not been completed. 3. (d) The undermentioned countries have since become parties to the conventions listed on pages 3059 to 3063 of "Hansard" (16th and 17th November 1964)- No. 9 Uganda. No. 11 Greece. No. 13 Rwanda, Uganda. No. 14 Cuba. No. 16 Portugal. No. 17 Luxembourg. No. 19 Denmark. No. 22 Denmark and Norway. No. 24 Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Roumania. No. 25 Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Kuwait, Morocco, Switzerland. No. 26 Burma, Canada, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Kuwait, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Republic, Yugoslavia. No. 28 France and Peru. No. 32 Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Jordan, Malagasy Republic. No. 33 Portugal. Due to a typographical error, the parties to the convention No. 18 were incorrectly shown in "Hansard" of 16th-17th November 1964 (page 3062) as being identical with the parties to the convention No. 19. The correct list of parties to the convention No. 18 should read - Austria, Czechoslovakia, Ghana, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Yugoslavia. In addition, it has been ascertained that the undermentioned countries should have been included in the lists of parties to the conventions Nos. 8 and 13 as published in "Hansard" of 16th-17th November 1964 (pages 3060 and 3061)- No. 8 Cambodia, Federal Republic of Germany, Israel. No. 13 United Kingdom. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications are still under consideration. {:#subdebate-37-5} #### Cigarette Advertising. (Question No. 1161.) {: #subdebate-37-5-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to an address by **Dr. Laurie** to the Australian Medical Association Congress in which he criticised doctors for not taking a stand on cigarette advertising and stated that without pressure no government was likely to take action to reduce cigarette smoking while it returned £83,000,000 in taxation? 1. Does he intend to take action to prevent cigarette advertising on radio and television? {: #subdebate-37-5-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
Minister for Health · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. It is not proposed to prevent cigarette advertising on radio and television, but on 8th October 1965 I announced that, following discussions between the Minister for Health, repre sentatives of the cigarette manufacturing industry and the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, a voluntary code to regulate cigarette advertising on television will be introduced by the Federation on 1st January 1966. CommonwealthLiteracy Fund. (Question No. 1279.) {: #subdebate-37-5-s2 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What sums in the nature of grants have been expended from the Commonwealth Literary Fund each year since the inception of the Fund? 1. Has the Fund materially assisted in the publication of Australian literature? 2. Does a need exist for the encouragementof the composition and publication of music and songs of Australian character? 3. If so, will he consider the creation of a Commonwealth Music Fund along the lines of the Literary Fund? {: #subdebate-37-5-s3 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. From 1908 until 1939 thesole purpose ofthe Commonwealth Literary Fundwas to grant pensions and other assistance todistressed writers and their dependants. Table I shows the amounts paid during that period for pensions. Since 1939, the Fund has made grants to encourage Australian writers and to develop an interest in Australian literature. Table II shows the amounts of money allocated to the Fund for these activities and for pensions during the years 1939-40 to 1949-50. Table III gives details of expenditure under the various headings in the period 1950-51to 1964-65. 1. Since 1939 about £51,000 has been made available to assist the publication of some 210 books and a number of literary journals. Many of the books assisted would have remained unpublished except for the financial support of the Fund. Therefore, the Fund has materially assisted the publication of the work of Australian writers. 3 and 4. Proposals have been received for the establishment of a Commonwealth Music Fund along the lines of the Commonwealth Literary Fund and these are under consideration. {:#subdebate-37-6} #### Wool Research. (Question No. 1304.) {: #subdebate-37-6-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - >What changes have taken place in Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation wool research policy since the report of the Wool Marketing Committee of Enquiry in February 1962? {: #subdebate-37-6-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - >The Australian Wool Board now has the responsibility for advising the Minister for Primary Industry on the research programme carried out by C.S.I.R.O., the universities and the State Departments of Agriculture. > >The Board is advised by the Wool Production Research Advisory Committee and the Wool Textile Research Advisory Committee on each of which C.S.I.R.O. is represented. > >In recent years research on reliable wool testing methods has been intensified. > >There is close liaison between C.S.I.R.O. and the International Wool Secretariat through a technical committee which includes Wool Board representation. As a result, the textile research programme is closely related to the technical problems of importance in wool production overseas. {:#subdebate-37-7} #### Electronic Voting. (Question No. 1272.) {: #subdebate-37-7-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - >Has he given any consideration to electronic voting similar to that adopted in the United States of America; if so, will he convey to the Parliament the result of his inquiries? {: #subdebate-37-7-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - >I am not aware of any electronic voting equipment being used in the United States although such equipment is used for computing the results in that country. Various types of mechanical voting machines are used in the United States and in other countries but these are suitable only for straight out first-past-the-post *systems.* > >The possible use of electronic and mechanical voting machines suitable for our preferential system of voting has been examined by my officers only recently, but indications are that the type of technical equipment which would be needed would be so costly- that its installation is not warranted. Developments in electronic and mechanical equipment suitable for electoral purposes are constantly reviewed. {:#subdebate-37-8} #### National Service Training. (Question No. 1284.) {: #subdebate-37-8-s0 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA n asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many applications have been received in (a) Australia and (b) Victoria for deferment from national service training? 1. How many applications for deferment from national service training have been approved to date in (a) Australia and (b) Victoria? 2. At what courts in Victoria have hearings been held? 3. How many applications for deferment have been (a) heard and (b) approved at each court in Victoria? {: #subdebate-37-8-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As at 16th September last, 700 applications for deferment of national service on the ground of exceptional hardship had been lodged throughout Australia. Of these, 177 had been lodged in Victoria. 1. The following table shows the position at 16th September with regard to the applications received: 3 and 4. The Courts in Victoria at which hearings have been held and the number of applications dealt with and granted at each are as follows -

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 October 1965, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1965/19651012_reps_25_hor48/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant