20th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator theHon. Edward Mattner) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 3597
Assent to the following hills reported : -
Cotton Bounty Bill 1952.
Wheat Export Charge Bill 1852.
States Grants (Administration of Controls Reimbursement) Bill 1952.
page 3597
– Is the Minister for Trade and Customs aware that there is grave uneasiness among the people as ‘ the result of lack of information concerning the true position in Korea and Malaya? Will the Minister make in the Senate at an early date a considered statement concerning the position in those two countries, especially in relation to Australia ?
-I am sure that not only all Australians, but also all freedom-loving people, are gravely concerned aboutthe happenings in both
Korea and Malaya. Consistent with the principles of security and out international obligations, the fullest information regarding events in those countries will be given to the Australian people.
– During the last twelve months, I have directed several questions to the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs about certain events in the Pacific area, but on no occasion have I been given a direct answer. I have had to wait until the proposals on which I have sought enlightenment have become faits accompli before obtaining any information about them. According to recent press reports, Australia has now entered into a military pact with certain other Pacific countries including the United States of America and New Zealand, and I should like to know whether the Minister can give the Senate any information about that pact. He might tell us, for instance, whether Australian forces would be committed in the event of an American attack on the mainland of China, or of bomb attacks on American vessels. If the Minister has not that information, will he table a copy nf the military pact in the Senate?
– My recollection is that a copy of the pact has already been approved by the Senate and that no member of the Opposition voted against it. I suggest that the honorable senator will be able to obtain all the information that he seeks if he will examine certain legislation of which he, himself, has
Approved.
– The AttorneyGeneral is mistaken-
– Order ! Senator Grant will resume his seat.
Later:
– The Minister completely misunderstood my question. I referred, not to the Anzus pact, which <vas recently signed by the Minister for internal Affairs on behalf of Australia, hut to a military pact between Aus tralia, New Zealand, France, Britain mid the ‘United States of America, the signing of which was reported in the press. I am not so uninformed as not to know about the
Anzus pact. I again ask the Minister if he has any information about this military pact. If he has no information concerning it, will he obtain a copy; of the pact and table it in the Senate?
– All I can say is that I have no knowledge of the existence of such a pact.
– Is it not a fact that the press reports to which Senator Grant has referred relate to a meeting in Washington of military officers, representative of Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France and the United States of America, and that the meeting was not called for the purpose of concluding a pact and that, in fact, it did not conclude a pact? The meeting of military officers was held merely to plan strategy in the. event of an aggressive war in the Pacific involving the countries of the representatives concerned.
– How does the honorable senator know that?
– The honorable senator knows more about the matter than docs Senator Grant.
– As I am not in charge of the department to which the honorable senator’3 question relates, I hesitate to give him a precise answer. The arrangements that we have made with New Zealand and the United States of America flow out of, and are subject to the limitations of, the pact that was approved by this Senate.
page 3598
– On Tuesday last, Senator O’Byrne, when asking a question relating to payments to be made to Australian ex-prisoners of war, sneered at the proposal of the Government to pay to each of them an amount of £32 following the realization of Japanese assets in Australia. The honorable senator also referred to the payment of £55,000,000 to Alfred Krupp, the German steel magnate, by way of compensation. Can the Minister for Trade and Customs state whether there is any relation between the payment of compensation to Alfred Krupp and the payment proposed to be made to former Australian prisoners of war?
– Frankly, I could not quite understand the relation between what the Australian Government proposes to do for our ex-prisoners of war and the payment of compensation of Alfred Krupp. I understand that Krupp was captured by the Americans in a zone in Germany which subsequently came under British control and was handed over to the British authorities. Later, the British authorities handed him back to the Americans for trial. He was convicted as a war criminal and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment, and his property was confiscated. He appealed from that decision to a tribunal of the United States of America, and his sentence was reduced to one of six years’ imprisonment. Subsequently, it was further reduced, and in 1950 he was released and his property was restored to him. When Mr. Attlee was asked a question about this matter in the House of Commons, he said, in effect, that the liberation of Krupp was essentially a matter for the United States of America. It would be just as unfair and improper for me, knowing so little about the matter, to criticize Mr. Attlee’s attitude towards it at that time as it is for Senator O’Byrne to impute improper motives to the present Government, since he knows nothing about the matter.
page 3599
– Is the Government making a further contribution this year to the United Nations Appeal for Children, and if so, what is the amount of its contribution? New Zealand has already contributed 140,000 dollars, and I trust that our contribution will not be less than that of New Zealand.
– I know that the Government is already committed to assist the very worthy cause mentioned by the honorable senator. If he cares to place his question on the notice-paper, I shall obtain for him the detailed information that he requires.
page 3599
– I address a question to you, Mr. President. Are you aware:
– The answers to the questions asked by the honorable senator are - 1. No; 2. Yes; 3. Yes.
– If, in the course of your investigations, you find that the hold-up is in the Government Printing Office, will you, Mr. President, take steps to approach private enterprise so that this book may be printed in record time, as was the report of the Auditor-General when it was done by private enterprise?
– I give the honorable senator an assurance that I shall do what I can to carry out his wishes. It is true that there has been delay in this matter of printing. I shall explore every avenue in order to meet the wishes of honorable senators in this regard.
page 3599
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Supply whether it is a fact that some of the machinery of the type purchased by the Australian Aluminium Production Commission for the Bell Bay aluminium project had already been regarded as obsolete for two years before its purchase and had been discarded by major English aluminiummanufacturing companies in favour of more modern plant? Is there any truth in the current rumour that that plant is to be sold to the British Aluminium Company Limited or to some other member company of the world’s aluminium combine, or, alternatively, that the whole project at Bell Bay is to be abandoned and the plant transferred to New Guinea for use in some project for the production of aluminium?
– I am not aware of the condition of the machinery at the time of its purchase by the Australian Aluminium Production Commission. As the Government of Tasmania is financially interested in this undertaking, I assume that it would have some say in the purchase of the machinery. I am not aware of any negotiations of the kind suggested by the honorable senator in the last part of his question. However, I shall refer the honorable senator’s inquiry to the Minister for Supply and obtain an answer for him.
page 3600
– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether the Government of Western Australia asked the Commonwealth for assistance in its efforts to combat the Argentine ant pest, and whether that application was refused? Has the Government of New South Wales asked for similar assistance? T.f an application by’ the Government of Western Australia was refused, I direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that Western Australia has allocated £36,000 for expenditure on chlordane for the eradication of Argentine ants during this year, and that the Government of Western Australia proposes to expend even more money on eradication of the pest in the future. In view of those facts, will further consideration be given to the application for financial assistance by Western Australia
– I am not aware of any application to the Commonwealth by the Government of Western Australia for assistance to deal with the very real menace of the Argentine ant. However, I believe that a formal request was made to the Commonwealth by the Government of New South Wales for assistance in this matter, and that certain negotiations have been entered into with that Government. Broadly, the attitude of the Commonwealth is that the destruction of this and other pests is a matter for the States concerned. It is, however, a matter in which the Commonwealth is vitally interested. I think that the Commonwealth offered technical assistance, but was not prepared to make a cash grant. I shall ascertain the precise outcome of the negotiations for the honor.able senator.
page 3600
– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce mid Agriculture inform me whether the Australian Government is negotiating with the Japanese Government in relation to the provisions of section 9 of the treaty of peace with Japan? If this matter has not been concluded, will the Australian Government take such action as is necessary to prevent the Japanese from obtaining fishing rights in the waters adjacent to the Australian coast?
– The matter raised by the honorable senator has been under consideration by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. I am not sure whether finality has yet been reached. I shall refer the question to my colleague and obtain a considered reply for the honorable senator.
page 3600
– According to a press report, the Prime Minister will attend the Commonwealth Economic Conference in London about the middle of next month. I understand that an agenda has been prepared for the conference. Will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform me whether the Government intends to publish the items on the agenda for the information of the people of this country before the conference is held?
– I am quite sure that the Commonwealth will do the right thing about the matter, and I am equally sure that it will not take any action which could possibly be the cause of embarrassment in the discussions, from which we hope to derive very beneficial results.
page 3600
– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs inform me whether any progress has been made in connexion with the application recently made by employers and employees of the match industry concerning taxation relief, which is necessary if the industry is to continue to exist in Australia? If the Minister has no statement to make at the moment, can he inform me when a reply may be expected to those representations ?
– The honorable senator and I have had discussions on this matter. A reference was made some time ago to the Tariff Board, which partly controls the economics of the match industry. In fact, the reference was made at the request of the match industry itself, but it had nothing to do with taxation. It was concerned with the excise duty, if any, which should be placed on mechanical lighters which compete with matches. That report’ has come to hand within the last few hours. I have not yet had an opportunity to peruse it, but I shall do so as early as possible. As soon as I am in a position to give the Senate information on this most important matter, I shall be happy to do so.
page 3601
– On the 21st October, Senator Laught asked me a question regarding the afternoon delivery of mail by air between Sydney and Adelaide. In the course of his question the honora’ble senator stated that the air mail from Sydney to Adelaide took considerably longer than between Adelaide and Sydney. I have made representations to the Minister acting for the Postmaster-General, and I understand that the position has been rectified. The Sydney to Adelaide service is now comparable with the Adelaide to Sydney service. I hope that the honorable senator, and those whom he represents in this matter, will now be satisfied with the service which is given.
– By way of explanation of a question which I address to the Minister representing the Minister acting for the PostmasterGeneral, I state that my attention was recently drawn by a member of the South Australian Parliament to the fact that the Postal Department has proceeded with the erection of certain premises in the Adelaide metropolitan area for the housing of certain equipment and that those premises do not conform to the standards that have been laid down by the local government authority in the area. This circumstance led to conflict between the Postal Department and the local government authority. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether it is the practice of the Postal Department to confer with the local authority concerned before commencing building operations ? If that is not its policy, will he seriously consider making it the policy of the department?
– I shall be happy to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Postmaster-General.
page 3601
– Has the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs been drawn to a statement made by Sir John Latham, who was formerly Chief Justice of Australia, when speaking of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, that the only practical remedy for the anomalies that exist in relation to the court is to increase the power of this Parliament to determine industrial conditions ? In view of the fact that such an eminent legal man has expressed that opinion, will the Minister consult his colleagues with a view to holding a referendum to seek authority to insert in the Constitution power to determine terms and conditions of employment. He will, no doubt, remember that such power was sought, by the previous Labour Government and that the move was bitterly opposed by honora’ble senators who are now on the Government side of the chamber, notwithstanding the fact that such power is most important to the good order and government of the Commonwealth.
– When the youthful honorable senator has had my experience, or when he reaches my age without having had my experience, he will hesitate, as I do, to rush to conclusions or express opinions on statements which appear in the press without first ascertaining the full context of them, particularly when they are attributed to such an eminent Australian as Sir John Latham. I think that the full context of the statement should be obtained, read, studied and, if possible, understood. Appropriate action can then be taken in regard to it.
page 3601
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture noticed reports in Sydney newspapers to the effect that the fixed retail price of meat has been reduced in New South Wales? Will the
Minister say what he considers to be the reason for this reduction?
– I noticed in today’s newspaper that there had been a substantial reduction of the price of meat. I think that the full credit for this reduction can be given to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and the Menzies Government. It demonstrates that the policy that the Government is pursuing is having good results.
page 3602
– Is the Minister for Trade and Customs aware that grave disagreement occurred in relation to policy between the representatives of the various States on the one hand and the Federal Treasurer and the Prime Minister on the other at the recent Australian Loan Council meeting? Is he aware that almost every State has been embarrassed by the restrictive policy of the Government and has had to suspend certain public works and discontinue developmental works, thereby causing unemployment? “Will the Government report to the Senate on the proceedings of the last Australian Loan Council meeting in order to provide an indication of the Government’s attitude to the States and permit the representatives of the States in this House to deliberate on matters which vitally affect their States?
– The proceedings of the Australian Loan Council are confidential and I am not prepared to avail myself, even if I could, of information which might come to me by way of a breach of confidence. I have not the information that the honorable senator seeks and am therefore not in a position to reply to his question. I am amazed that the honorable senator should use information which he knows or should know could only have been divulged by a breach of very solemn confidence.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
In the event of the Australian Loan Council, at its meeting on the 17th October next, deciding to seek a public loan at an interest rate higher than the existing rate, say 4 per cent., how much will it cost to provide the existing holders of inscribed stock with the right to convert their holdings into any new loan?
– The Treasurer has furnished the following reply: -
Commonwealth securities, both inscribed stock anil Treasury bonds represent debts of the Commonwealth and States, and are the responsibility of seven Australian governments. The securities have been issued on various terms, rates of interest, and for various periods, and no question of conversion can arise until a security1 matures.
page 3602
– I invite the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Supply to the fact that I have had question 34 on the notice-paper for the last three or four weeks. I do not know whether this question contains delayed action or not, but I ask the Minister whether I can expect an answer during the present sessional period of the Parliament or during the next sessional period ?
– The honorable senator, having been a Minister, must be aware that Ministers are unable personally to provide information in reply to questions addressed to them concerning the’ department of a Minister in another place whom they represent. I have conveyed the honorable senator’s question to the Department of Supply, but I have not yet received an answer to Lt. I presume that the department will provide an answer when they have the necessary information.
page 3602
– Will the Attorney-General take steps to have the inquiry by a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization official into the alleged outbreak of myxomatosis amongst cattle in the Albury district extended to investigate the relationship of the myxomatosis virus to the appearance of foot and mouth disease in the Riverina and the incidence of pleuro-pneumonia amongst cattle around Albury? There is a belief in some quarters that the spread of myxomatosis virus is in some way associated with the mysterious outbreaks of certain diseases in the affected areas and I should like the Attorney-General to make a statement on this matter to relieve the minds of people living in those districts.
– I said yesterday that officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization had stated that investigations of allegations that the myxomatosis virus had been responsible for outbreaks of certain other diseases had shown in every instance that there was no such association. However, I shall convey the honorable senator’s questions to the appropriate authorities and ascertain whether a statement can be made on the matter in this chamber.
page 3603
– Last Thursday, the Prime Minister announced that a. delegation from Pakistan would come to Australia to inspect the Blair Athol coal-field to decide whether Pakistan would purchase Blair Athol coal. In view of the statement that a huge amount of capital would be needed and the implication that developmental work of great importance to central Queensland would be involved, can the Minister for National Development advise the Senate when the Pakistan delegation will arrive in this country ?
– The latest information I have is that the delegation is expected to arrive in Sydney next week. The information is unofficial and I have not yet had it confirmed by the High Commissioner for Pakistan. If the delegation arrives next week, I should think that it would go to Queensland very soon after arrival for the purpose of con.ferring with the Queensland Government. As honorable senators are aware, the development of Queensland coal deposits is the responsibility of the Government of that State and not of the Commonwealth. I think that it. would be fair to say that honorable senators on both sides of the Senate are just as keen ns is the Queensland Government to sec the Blair Athol coal deposits developed. If the Australian Government can assist in that desirable development it will do so within reason. As the Prime Minister said in his press statement on this matter, the Australian Government does not want to foster the impression that the arrival of the delegation will necessarily result in the development of these de posits. Previous attempts to develop the deposits have failed because those concerned have said that they wanted to be assured of a market for the coal. In this instance we are working in reverse gear. I understand that Pakistan needs annually approximately 1,750,000 tons of steaming coal and 250,000 tons of coking coal. The information that we have is that suitable coal in such quantities can be made available from the Blair Athol deposits. The problem that faces us in this instance is very different from that which existed in the past. Now, we are ascertaining whether it is possible to make arrangements for Pakistan to negotiate an agreement to take the coal, upon the foundation of which we can, in turn, make arrangements with investors to provide the very substantial amount of capital that is necessary to develop the field. I understand that the Pakistani mission and the High Commissioner for Pakistan in Australia, Mr. Yusuf Haroon, are eager to achieve such a result as it may result in the development and extension of trade relations between Australia and Pakistan. I am sure that the Queensland Government is actuated by the same motive.
page 3603
– On the 15th October, Senator Guy asked me a question relating to the late delivery of Tasmanian newspapers in Canberra. The following information has been furnished to me on the subject: -
Arrangements have been made by the Library which, subject to favorable air conditions, will enable the Hobart Mercury, the Launceston Examiner and the Burnie Advocate to be delivered to the Library at approximately fi p.m. on en ch day of publication.
I have also caused an inquiry to be made into the delivery of other newspapers.
page 3603
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the following questions, upon notice: -
As the Government has always recognized the important part that local government plays in the democratic government of Australia, will the Treasurer give urgent consideration to: (a) An immediate investigation of local government resources to ensure that local government has adequate finance consistent with its tasks: (o) a share for local government authorities of resources from taxation other than the land rating system; (c) reduction in the rating exemptions on government properties; and (d) release for the Use on roads of the whole of the petrol tax to local government bodies?
– The Treasurer has furnished the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -
page 3604
asked the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -
– The records of the Department of Civil Aviation show that- 1. (a) Forty-six privately owned aircraft were brought into service for war-time purposes between 1939 and 1945; (6) four were lost; and (c) 20,644 hours of flying were completed by these aircraft.
asked the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows : -
page 3604
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
Will the Treasurer furnish a statement on the conference of taxation officers convened to consider the restoration of taxing rights to the States?
– The Treasurer has supplied me with the following information : -
At a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held in July, 1952, it was decided that, as a preliminary to the discussion of this subject at the ministerial level. Commonwealth and State Treasury officers should confer on the technical problems involved in the resumption of Income Tax by the States. A conference of Commonwealth and State Treasury officers on the 13th August considered technical problems which would arise and appointed working committees of Treasury officers to prepare further material for consideration. Meetings of these working committees have been held since that date, and a further meeting at an early date of the State Under-Treasurers and the Secretary to the Commonwealth Treasury is now being arranged.
page 3604
– I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject: -
Carpenters’ metal planes.
Ordered to be printed.
page 3605
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion ,by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Honorable senators are aware that the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, which was brought into operation in July, 1948, provides for a scheme of retirement benefits for members of the Permanent Defence Forces, whereby they become entitled to pension or lump sum payment on retirement from the forces, together with cover in respect of invalidity during that service and appropriate pension for the widow and children of the member in the event of death during service after retirement on pension.
This bill, which I now have pleasure in introducing, will provide, in the main, increased pensions for members of the Permanent Forces who are retired on having attained their retiring age for rank or become entitled to a pension, as the result of having been discharged on the grounds of invalidity with an incapacity in relation to civilian employment of less than 60 per cent.
Honorable senators will recall that amendments to the Repatriation ‘ Act, recently agreed to by the Senate, provided for increased pensions for certain classes of persons, who, although incapacitated to an extent, were capable of gainful employment. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill will provide for increased pensions for a similar class of pensioner on his retirement from the Permanent Defence Forces and such increases will, it is proposed, become effective from the date upon which the increased repatriation pensions became payable, namely, the 2nd October, 1952.
The bill provides for increases of pension based on rank, and ranging from £32 10s. to £102 per annum for officers, and from £1.7 5s. to £24 per annum for ranks other than officers. Members in the latter class will also receive a higher rate of increment in pension where they have served at least 26 years after attaining age twenty, instead of a flat rate of increment for each year served beyond twenty years of service as in the existing act. Increases of pension for members of the Nursing Services amount to £24 10s. per annum for a nursing sister, and range up to £69 10s. per annum in the ease of the highest rank of matron-in-chief. The new rates of pension applicable to each rank are set out in the third and fifth schedules to the bill.
Of the remaining provisions of the bill, two are notable in that they refer to provisions for the transfer of a member of the Defence Forces from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund to the Superannuation Fund when such a member, having retired from the Defence Services without an entitlement to pension, is appointed to a permanent position in the Commonwealth Public Service. Such a person thereby becomes entitled to contribute to the Superannuation Fund at the same rate of contributions as he formerly contributed to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, instead of at a higher rate based on age which he otherwise would be required to do.
Another class of person who is particularly catered for in this bill is a pensioner under this act, who, having previously retired from the service, again enlists for further service. The bill provides that these members will receive credit for the aggregate of complete years served prior, and subsequent to, re-entry to the service resulting in a higher entitlement to pension on ultimate retirement. This provision will serve to induce trained personnel to re-enter the services and assist to overcome any shortage of instructors occasioned by the greater numbers serving in the Permanent Defence Forces or for the requirements for national service training.
Certain classes of Air Force officers who formerly contributed to the Superannuation Fund for death and invalidity cover during service will also benefit under the bill as a result of a provision which will increase the rate of pension to which they would become entitled in the event of their discharge on the grounds of invalidity from £32 10s. per unit to £39 for the first eight units with retrospective effect from the 9th November, 1950, and for the remaining units from the 11th October, 1951. This provision will correct an anomaly wherebythis class of pensioner who retired prior to 1.048 under the provisions of the Superannuation Act received such increases from those dates; but those who were retired on similar grounds after having been transferred to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act after the 2nd July, 1948, did not receive the same treatment.
The remaining provisions of the bill relate to matters of administration and include rectification of certain minor anomalies which have become apparent during the four years that the scheme has been in operation. However, the main purpose of the bill is the provision of increased pensions for members of the forces who retire at an earlier age than 60 years or to persons who, being incapacitated, are entitled to pensions based upon rank.
Honorable senators will note that these amendments provide a further indication of the Government’s recognition of the services which have been rendered to this country by those who have adopted a service career as their vocation. The overall scheme ensures for them a measure of security in the knowledge that upon their retirement, either upon completion of their service or through invalidity, they may enjoy a reasonable standard of living from the benefits accruing to them under this scheme; or, in the event of their death before or following retirement as pensioners, those dependent upon them will be reasonably provided for. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Chitchley) adjourned.
page 3606
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.
– I move -
That the hill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the bill is to give effect to the request of Queensland pineapple canners that the Canned Fruits Export Control Act 1926-1950 be so amended as to bring within the jurisdiction of the Australian Canned Fruits Board canned tropical fruit salad and. canned pineapple juice for export from Australia.
The board is a statutory authority responsible for the supervision and regulation of our export trade in specified varieties of canned fruits. At the present time it has a charter to ensure orderly overseas marketing arrangements for canned apricots, peaches, pears, pineapples and fruit salad consisting in the main of any one or more of those varieties of canning fruits. The proposal now before the Parliament seeks to add canned tropical fruit salad and canned pineapple juice to the list of canned fruit products which come within the control of the board.
When submitting the proposal on behalf of and at the request of Queensland pineapple canners, the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, a Queensland State instrumentality, pointed out that the processing of canned pineapple juice and canned tropical fruit salad - the largest ingredient of which is pineapple - forms an integral part of the operations of canners in Queensland, and that quite an extensive overseas market is being built up for both of these products. Statistics reveal that there has been a very substantial expansion of both the production and the export of these lines in the post-war years, and that the trade continues to develop. Canners feel that it would strengthen the position of the industry if those products could be handled by the board on a similar basis to that adopted in respect of canned apricots, peaches, pears and pineapples over a long period of year’s. The board has indicated that it favours their inclusion within its sphere of activity, in the interests of orderly marketing of canned fruit products generally.
The opportunity has been taken in the bill to bring some of the general machinery provisions of the Canned Fruits Export Control Act up to date by making some drafting alterations, and also to adjust an existing anomaly in the act. The present act provides for the appointment of a member of the board to represent State-controlled canneries engaged in the production of canned fruits other than canned pineapples. For many years the position has been that, with the exception of avery small quantity of apricots, peaches and pears mostly brought interstate and canned in Brisbane by the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, there is no Stateowned or controlled cannery in Australia processing these varieties of fruits. The section of the act which provides for a representative on the board of Statecontrolled canneries processing canned fruits other than canned pineapples is therefore superfluous, and the bill provides for the repeal of that section. The board will then consist of four members, comprising a Commonwealth representative, one representative of proprietary and privately owned canneries engaged in the production of canned apricots, peaches and pears, one representative of co-operative canneries engaged in the production of canned apricots, peaches and pears, and one representative of the pineapple canneries. I commend the bill to the consideration of honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Coijrtice) adjourned.
page 3607
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.
Senator McLEAY (South Australia -
Minister for Shipping and Transport) [3.29].- I move-
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill has been made necessary by reason of a bill before the Parliament to amend the Canned Fruits Export Control Act 1926-1950. It proposes to amend the Canned Fruits Export Charges Act 1926-1938 to provide for the payment of export levies on the additional products which it is proposed to bring within the sphere of operations of the Australian Canned Fruits Board, namely, certain canned’ mixed fruits and canned pineapple juice.
The Canned Fruits Export Charges Act imposes a levy not exceeding one farthing on each 30 ounces of canned apricots, peaches, pears, pineapples or fruit salad exported, and the amending bill will subject canned tropical fruit salad and canned pineapple juice to the same levy provisions. Levies collected under the act are applied by the board to defray administrative and other expenses. I commend the bill to the consideration of honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.
page 3607
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to provide for the continuance of the Government’s contribution for wool research, on the basis of 2s. a bale. Honorable senators will recall that the Wool Tax Assessment Act 1952, passed during the last sessional period, provided for the repeal of section 15 (2) of the Wool Use Promotion Act 1945. That section of the Wool Use Promotion Act 1945 had imposed a legislative commitment on the Government to pay into the Wool Research Trust Account the equivalent of the moneys collected in any one year under the wool tax. This amounted to approximately £340,000 per annum.
With the increase in the wool tax from 2s. a baleto 4s. a bale, the Government would have been committed to an annual expenditure of approximately £680,000 from Consolidated Revenue compared with £340,000 previously. Consequently, the section was repealed but, at the same time, an indication was given that due provision would be made for wool research which would not be greatly different from the 2s. a bale basis then in operation. In this connexion, the issue before the Government was whether it should continue to pay 2s. a bale, or should comply with a suggestion that the contribution be at the rate of 2s. a bale or £350,000 per annum, whichever was the greater.
In view of the current financial situation and the fact that there is a considerable unexpended balance in the “Wool Research Trust Account, the Government has decided to adhere to its contribution on the same basis as formerly, namely 2s. a bale. It should be noted that while representatives of wool-growers’ organizations asked that the tax on the industry for wool promotion purposes be increased from 2s. a bale to 4s. a bale, they made it clear that they did not ask, or expect, the Government contribution to research to be increased comparably.
The present bill also contains an amending provision designed to protect growers’ own moneys subscribed for publicity purposes from being transferred from the Wool Use Promotion Fund, administered by the Australian Wool Board, to the government-controlled Wool Research Trust Account.
Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.
page 3608
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.
page 3608
Debate resumed from the 15th October (vide page 3080), on motion by Senator McLeay -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This is a simple measure toprovide for the distribution of profits which have resulted from the resale of accumulated stocks of wool as the result of the war-time wool marketing scheme. Honorable senators will remember the genesis of this scheme in 1939, when the United Kingdom Government agreed to purchase all the surplus wool produced by Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. An arrangement was made for the purchase of wool that was not required by those countries. The scheme was most satisfactorily administered by the United Kingdom Government. In 1945, because of the accumulated stocks of wool, it was necessary that much of it should be resold. The United Kingdom Government agreed to the establishment of a joint organization to handle its disposal. It is generally agreed that the wool-growers of Australia were well satisfied with the price offered and subsequently paid for the wool in the first instance by the United Kingdom Government. I do not think that the wool-growers or the people of Australia generally thought then that the scheme would turn out as successfully as it has done. The British Government undertook to bear all losses in connexion with the resale of wool. The arrangement was also made that it would be entitled to half of the profits. The sale of the wool was handled in a most businesslike and judicious manner, and a most satisfactory price was obtained for it. It was placed on the market in such a way that it did not interfere with the sale of wool from 1945 onwards. A large amount of profit was accumulated by the Joint Organization, and provision was made by the Chifley Government, in 1948, to distribute such profit. If I remember aright, £25,000,000 was distributed in 1948, whilst an additional £20,000,000 or £25,000,000 has been distributed during the term of office of the present Government.
This bill seeks power to distribute the remainder of the profits that have resulted from the sale of wool. I believe that the wool-growers of Australia owe a debt of gratitude to the United Kingdom Government for the manner in which the whole scheme has been handled. The Opposition supports the measure, which I consider will have the general support of the Senate.
– I rise to support the bill. When war broke out in 1939 the Menzies Government, under arrangements with the governments of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and South Africa, sold the whole of our wool clip to the British Government for, I think, 10½d. per lb. sterling. In subsequent years that price was increased to 15d., and then to ISd.
– By a Labour government.
– I congratulate the Labour Government on following the policy of the Menzies Government. In the circumstances that existed at that time, it would have been calamitous for this country to have been unable to obtain a reasonable price for its wool. Our wool continued to be bought by the Government of the United Kingdom for the duration of the war and one year thereafter under the arrangement to which I have referred. An organization known as the Joint Organization was then set up by the various governments for the purpose of selling the surplus wool which had not been used during the war. In the three countries concerned this wool amounted to 10,600,000 bales, of which 5,000,000 bales were in Australia. The sale of that wool required a tremendous effort on the part of the Joint Organization, which is to be congratulated on the way in which it disposed of that amount of wool without interfering with the sale of wool which came on to the market during those years. It was anticipated, when the Joint Organization was established, that it would take from ten to fifteen years to get the 10,600,000 bales into consumption throughout the world without affecting the price of wool that was produced during that period. After two or three years the Government found that the Joint Organization had made a large amount of money. By 1948 there was £60,000,000 in the pool of profits and the Labour Government passed legislation for the distribution of £25,000,000. That distribution took place in 1949. Strange to relate, it was prior to a general election !
– The act was passed in 1948.
– But the money was distributed in November, 1949, and the general election took place on the 10th December, 1949.
– The amount was only paid to the people because it was due to them.
– It was quite a good idea. I would do the same thing in those circumstances. I congratulate the Labour Government of the day. But the present Government does not act in that way. It gives what money is due when it is available. One of the leaders of the Labour party in another place, during the debate following the second-reading speech of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen), stated that no other money had been paid from the profits of the Joint Organization. The fact is that, in March of this year, a further sum of £25,000,000 was ‘paid out. The present Government realized that this money had to be paid, and desired to pay it to the growers as soon as possible. By the 1st September, 1949, a lot of people, who did not realize that wool would bring a good price in subsequent years, had left the industry. They are entitled to a share of the profits of the Joint Organization. Provision for them to be paid that share is contained in this bill. During the war a lot of wool-growers sold their wool to private buyers. One by the name of Poulton purchased wool from the growers in his State and sold it under acquisition. The Government wanted the profits from that wool to be paid to the growers but Poulton decided that he should have a share.
– Private enterprise !
– Yes. After a considerable period of waiting, the case was heard by the High Court a few weeks ago but - the judgment of the court has not yet been announced. That judgment will cover a larger field than the amount that Poulton will get or the amount that other private buyers will receive. It will determine the question of whether or not the Government purchased the wool from the growers on just terms. If Poulton wins his case I think that it will go to the Privy Council, so that a final decision may be delayed for a considerable period. If the Government wins the case, Poulton might decide to take it to the Privy Council. In either case, it will be a long time before a final judgment is given. Realizing that, the Government has decided to make a payment to those people who had left the industry prior to 1949, but it has had to retain a certain amount of the profit of the Joint Organization in case Poulton wins the case. That is one reason why the Government has refrained from distributing the full amount of the profits up to the present time. Another reason is the high rate of tax that the growers are liable to pay. Because of the prosperity that the growers are enjoying under this Government it would not be to their advantage to receive large sums of money which would make them liable to pay taxation at a higher rate than they are already paying, although that rate is much lower than it would have been under the Chifley Government of 1949.
– That is rot.
– In 1949, the maximum rate of taxation was 18s. in the £1.
– It was 15s.
– The maximum rate was 188. in the £1 and the maximum rate now is 15s., but the people are more prosperous and are therefore paying more in taxation. They are pleased to pay it. I pay a little in taxation myself and I wish I paid more because I would then have more money.
Another reason why the Government has refrained from distributing the profits is the inflationary effect of such action. The total profit made by the Joint Organization from the re-sale of wool was £92,000,000. Of that sum, £25,000,000 was paid out to the growers in 1949. Possibly the entire amount would have been paid out by now- had the Poulton litigation not intervened. The injection into our economy of such a huge sum of money at a time when the price of wool averaged 144d. per lb. would have given a most undesirable impetus to the inflationary trend and all sections of the community would have suffered. Honorable senators will recall, too, that, to ease the impact of high wool prices on the economy, this Government introduced the wool sales deduction scheme, under which 20 per cent, of the income of woolgrowers was withheld and set against their income tax commitments for 1951-52. That action also helped to curb inflation. Therefore, there is no just reason why we should pay all this money out immediately. I believe that the woolgrowers are still not eager to have all the money paid to them. They do not want to have to meet substantial income tax assessments on it. There is, of course, some doubt about the legality of imposing income tax on this distribution of woolgrowers’ funds. Honorable senators will have heard of the case of the Perpetual Trustee Company Limited and Maslen. That case went to the Privy Council which, as honorable senators will agree, is not a cheap venue of litigation. It has a great bearing on the income tax liability of wool-growers in respect of payments from the Joint Organization funds. The issue was the ownership of the moneys. Some partners had assigned their interests in a partnership and subsequently died. Then the question arose whether the profits went with the partnership interests, or belonged to the estates of the deceased partners. It was a very complicated case, and the Privy Council decided that the money was a pure gift from the Commonwealth. Gifts, of course, are not subject to income tax.
Payments from the Joint Organization Fund will be completed in the year ending the 30th June, 1955. Participants in the disbursement include wool-growers who left the industry prior to the 1st September, 1949. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill, and I believe that it will also have the support of the Opposition. What is more important, it has the full support of all wool-growers in Australia.
– I approach this measure with mixed feelings. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) explained in his second-reading speech that the proposal is to distribute profits that accrued from the sale of wool. I am completely in accord with that proposal. I am particularly pleased to support the measure, because it provides for payments to be made also to wool-growers who left the industry prior to 1949, before wool prices rose steeply. Many of those people have been eagerly awaiting this disbursement. Senator Scott has pointed out that the Poulton litigation has delayed the payments. In reply to a question that I asked recently, the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) said that the hearing of the Poulton case had been completed, but that the decision had been reserved. I can only hope that the decision will be announced as soon as possible, because many wool-growers who retired from active farming in 1949 did so because of advancing years, and are now living on restricted incomes. They are naturally eager to receive their share of the Join : Organization proceeds as soon as possible. It is pleasing to note that the Government considers that it will be possible to make an interim payment to those people until a decision in the Poulton case has been announced.
There are certain other aspects of this measure that fill me with some concern, and which might even move me to oppose the bill if my doubts are not resolved. The proposal is, of course, to distribute, not only the Joint Organization profits, but also the proceeds of the sale of the assets of the organization. Some of those assets are of considerable value. They include, for instance, the huge stores erected to handle wool acquired by the Government during the war years. Originally there were 400 such stores. Some have been disposed of, but I believe that about 306 remain. They are situated at various wool-selling centres throughout the Commonwealth. Certain interests are most desirous of having those stores, not only sold, but also demolished. That I believe would be a criminal action. As I have said, the stores were built for wool acquired by the Government for war purposes. Whilst we all hope most earnestly that there will not be another war in the near future, we have no guarantee of that.
If war were to break out, whatever Government happened to be in power in the Commonwealth’s sphere would have no option but to acquire wool. If by that time the wool stores had been demolished, it would be necessary to erect new buildings, and one can readily imagine what they would cost even if the necessary materials to build them could be obtained. I venture to say that the
C03t would be three or four times that of the stores now in existence. Therefore, I should like to see the stores retained. They could be placed in the hands of a wool-growers’ trust, and hired out for whatever purposes they may be needed. In Fremantle, for instance, there are about ten stores, and they are being most eagerly sought for use as warehouses. They are close to the wharfs and offer excellent storage space for cargoes. That is one way in which the stores could be utilized. I imagine, too, that the stores would be of great value to wool-brokers. We expect that our wool clip will continue to increase. Instead of having to erect costly new stores to take the additional wool, the present buildings could be used for that purpose. The stores would also be valuable in the event of an accumulation of wool due to a hold-up of shipping. They could be rented out to persons who wanted them for that purpose. Thus, the wool-growers would not only have the stores available to them should the necessity arise, but also they would have a valuable source of income. The income would be used for the promotion of wool interests. A bill which was introduced into the chamber this afternoon will permit the Government to make a contribution equal to the levy imposed on wool-growers for expenditure in connexion with the promotion of the use of wool and in scientific investigations associated with the industry. If the wool stores are retained and earn revenue from hirings, it may be possible to abolish the additional wool levy. These stores were built with woolgrowers’ money and should be used to promote the interests of the wool-growers. They could be vested in and administered by trustees. I strongly urge the retention of the stores for the reasons I have stated.
I was astonished by the argument advanced by members of the deputation that waited on the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) on this subject a few days ago, that unless the stores are disposed of “they might be used by a future socialist government in connexion with a plan to socialize the wool industry. That is a ridiculous argument. If the stores were destroyed, and war subsequently broke out, they would have to he replaced. The mere fact that the stores are in existence will not in any way assist any socialist government of the future to socialize the wool industry, even if it were foolish enough to attempt to do so. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the stores will be retained. I have had lengthy correspondence with the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture on this matter. Unfortunately, the Minister is not in the position to make a decision on the stores because the United Kingdom Government owns a half interest in them. I understand that he is endeavouring to induce the United Kingdom Government to sell its interest in them. If the consent of the United Kingdom Government is obtained, it may be possible for the wool industry to acquire and retain them. The negotiations with the United Kingdom Government have not been finalized and I am reluctant to allow this bill to go through unless I receive an assurance from the Minister that the stores will he preserved. There is another reason why I am desirous that some of the wool funds shall be kept in hand. Most of us remember the difficulties that resulted from the manner in which the assets of Bawra were liquidated after the termination of “World “War I. On the outbreak of “World “War II. we regretted the haste with which the assets of that organization had been disposed of.
During the last war the “Wool Statistical Service was established to enable wool authorities to obtain accurate information about the quality of the yield, the counts and the quantity of wool available at all wool-selling centres. As the result of the information provided by the service, wool-growers were able to gauge the trend in the industry, whether it was towards the production of fine or crossbred wools. The information provided by the service greatly assisted the representatives of Australia in their negotiations for the sale of the clip. In wartime finer wools are not readily saleable. The military authorities demand only the stronger wools for the manufacture of blankets and cloth suitable for army clothing. The service provided accurate information relating to the available quantities of wool of a desired count for military purposes. In order to illustrate the value of the service I remind honorable senators that when the United States of America presented to Australia a demand for the pre-emption of a certain quantity of wool instead of allowing it to be auctioned, we were able to advise the American authorities that the quantity that they wished to pre-empt was not available from the whole of the wool clip in Australia. I most strongly urge the Minister to continue the service. If it is discontinued, and in, say, two or three years’ time, circumstances arise in which the sort of information furnished by it is not available, the value of the good work that it has done in the past would be to some degree nullified. During the war more than 100 valuers and probably as many clerks were employed by the service. I have reason to believe that it will not be necessary to employ more than one-fifth of that number of valuers and clerks to carry on the work of the service, the cost of which has been estimated to be £50,000 a year. If the wool stores are retained and are available for hiring, revenue from hirings would go a long way to provide the money required to maintain this service. If we pass a bill to authorize the distribution of all the proceeds derived from the sale of the assets of the Joint Organization, we might find ourselves in the position in which we are no longer able to continue the service.
I should like the Minister to give the assurances I have sought in respect of these two matters. Unless he can do so I shall be inclined to move that the debate on the bill be adjourned until it is possible for him to give such assurances. This is a most important matter to the woolgrowers. Recent representations made to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture on this subject were made by certain sections of the wool industry, including the wool-selling brokers. This is a matter that concerns the wool-growers only. I have no criticism to offer of the wool brokers. Indeed, I have the greatest admiration for the splendid work that they have done in disposing of the wool clip. The wool-growers of Western Australia will be intensely annoyed if the stores are not retained and if the Wool Statistical Service is discontinued. If the Minister cannot allay my fears in regard to these matters he should agree to the adjournment of the debate until next week, by which time he should be able to announce the Government’s decision. If he can give the assurance that I seek, I shall have much pleasure in supporting the bill.
– in reply - I have no hesitation in giving Senator Seward the assurances that he has sought.’ During the last visit to London of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) I had the honour to act in his stead and to take part in discussions relating to this matter. I assure the honorable senator that the Minister is taking every possible step to ensure that the stores shall be obtained and shall remain the property of the Commonwealth. Negotiations to that end have been proceeding for some time with the representatives of the United Kingdom Government. The Minister is hopeful that they will be brought to a successful conclusion in the near future. I agree with Senator Seward that if the stores are disposed of to outside interests a great blow will be struck at the industry. I appreciate the value of the suggestions made by the honorable senator in relation to the retention of the Wool Statistical Service which operates under the control of the Australian Wool Realization Committee. The Minister is eager to retain the service. I agree that the information furnished by it has been of great assistance to our representatives in the important discussions that have taken place with the representatives of other countries on the subject of wool. I want to make it clear that if this bill is passed all of the money available from the sale of the assets of Joint Organization will be disbursed. Honorable senators will recall” that under the Wool Contributory Charge Act a levy was made on wool-growers to provide funds to finance the administration of this scheme. The money was .paid into a trust fund, the balance of which now stands at approximately £4,000,000. It is the considered opinion of the Minister and of his officers that sufficient money is available in the fund to finance the complete acquisition of the stores.
I assure Senator Scott that the Government is eagerly awaiting the decision in the Poulton case, so that wool-growers, who left the industry prior to the 1st September, 1949, and are now suffering m hardship, may be paid the amounts due to them. As soon as the decision is announced, and the Government’s financial commitments are known, appropriate action will be taken to make the money available.
I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the chairman of the Australian Wool Realization Committee, Mr. N. J. Carson, for the splendid work that he has done for the wool industry. I also acknowledge the. valuable work done by his predecessor, the late Mr. J. P. Murphy. Mr. Carson and his officers have rendered yoeman service to the nation in their handling of this great Australian asset. I also pay a tribute to the officers of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, who have worked in co-operation with the Australian Wool Realization Committee. It has been my privilege to work in close contact with them, and I. have been greatly impressed by the excellence of their work. The wool-growers of Australia are very glad that this venture has been so successfully administered.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– One aspect of this bill in which I am interested was referred to by Senator Scott, who reminded us that in the Privy Council’s decision in the Maslen case, distributions of profits that had been received by a partnership under the act of 1948 were held to be a gift.
I was interested in the, reference which Senator Scott made to the Maslen case.
The report of the judgment in that case, which is contained in the 1952 Argus Law Re-ports, at page 2S0, shows that the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who heard the appeal 3aid, inter alia -
So to construe the wording- would be to do violence to the admitted fact that it was a gift.
The case concerned a partnership transaction relating to the assignment of book debts, and Their Lordships were referring to a contention that a distribution which accrued under the Wool Realization (Distribution of Profits) Act 1948 was a book debt due to the partnership. They held that the payment was to be regarded as a gift. That leads me to inquire whether amounts received by way of distribution are liable to tax, and I should like the Minister to clarify the position. I should like him to say definitely whether there is any provision in this measure that is expressly designed to impose liability for tax on amounts distributed in accordance with the act, or does the ‘Government rely upon the general drag-net provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act?
I should also like to be informed whether payments made under the Wool Realization (Distribution of Profits) Act 1948 or subsequent legislation are regarded as income or capital? I make that inquiry in order to clarify the position of trustees and those who are called upon to administer estates. Is the money received by trustees from the sale of wool regarded as income that is expendable by life tenants, or as capital to be “salted away” for investment?
– There is no provision in the’ bill to deal with the matter mentioned by. Senator Wright. However, I have been informed by officials that litigation is pending in the High Court of Australia with a view to determining whether amounts received by taxpayers from the Joint Organization are subject to tax.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 3614
Debate resumed from the 16th October (vide page 3211), on motion by Senator McLeay-
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The Opposition supports the bill, the purpose of which, according to the second-reading speech made by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), is to bring war pension rates for seamen and certain dependants into line with the increased rates recently provided for ex-servicemen under the Repatriation Act.
There is nothing contentious in the measure, which is merely an act of justice to members of Australia’s mercantile marine and their dependants. However, the Opposition deprecates the fact that pension rates generally have not been increased more substantially by the Government. Since we do not desire to delay the payment of the proposed increased rates to seamen, we offer no objection to the passage of the bill.
– Although the bill is a machinery measure I think that it would be wrong to allow it to be passed without mentioning certain matters. Tuesday, the 21st October, was the anniversary of Trafalgar Day, and it would have been a most appropriate day for the Senate to pass the measure.
Opposition members interjecting,
– The observation may seem funny to honorable senators opposite, but I can assure them that Trafalgar Day has a very real significance for our seamen. I remind honorable senators opposite that in World War I. 4,000 British ships were lost, and 2,600 vessels were sunk during World War II. None of the seamen who were injured during World War I., or their dependants, received any compensation at all. However, during the recent war, Australia led the world in making provision for the payment of compensation to merchant seamen and their dependants.
Although the increases proposed in the bill are not very considerable, they are, in my opinion, reasonable. I feel that we should say to ourselves: “Well, it is nice to live in Australia and to know that we have made some provision for our seamen to whom we owe so much “. All political parties subscribe to the principle of the measure, and I believe that the people of Australia as a whole support it. For those reasons I commend the bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 3615
.- I move-
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill embodies a plan to assure stabilization of the dairying industry over a period of five years, commencing from the 1st July this year. The plan relates only to guaranteed prices for butter and cheese, but the structure of the dairying industry is such that assurance of adequate prices for butter and cheese constitutes also an assurance that, through the forces of competition, dairy-farmers who supply their milk to factories which engage in processing it for any other purpose, will also be covered by the protection, afforded by stabilized prices. Suppliers of whole milk to the capital cities have the prices of their product decided by State governments or State government instrumentalities through milk boards.
As the result of circumstances which existed at that time, the dairying industry requested the Labour Government in office prior to 1947 to stabilize the industry. The outcome was a guaranteed price plan, which operated for five years until the 30th June of this year. While there was a great deal of controversy about the adequacy of the provisions of the Labour Government’s guaranteed price plan, the dairy-farmers nevertheless, at all times, adhered to the view that they desired the protection of a price return for their product guaranteed by the Commonwealth.
The parties which constitute the present Government when in Opposition declared that subject to approval of the dairying industry and to the acquiescence of the State governments, they would, if returned to power, assure stabilization of the dairying industry to the extent necessary. The present Government has honoured that undertaking. In fact, one of the first acts of the Cabinet after being sworn in on the 19th December, 1949, was to announce that night an extension of the operation of . the Labour Government’s guarantee, which on the decision of the Labour Government was to operate at the then existing level only until the 31st of that month. Within a few weeks of the Government being formed representatives of all sections of the dairying industry were invited to meet the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in order to discuss what modifications should be made to the Chifley Government’s plan, in order that the guarantee to the dairying industry for the balance of that five-year plan should be adequate and provide an incentive to maintain and increase production.
At the same meeting dairying industry representatives were told that at the expiry of the Labour Government’s plan this Government would be prepared to extend stabilization for a further fiveyear period, and that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture wished to discuss with the dairying industry, and in due course with the State Governments, the terms for a renewed plan, which would represent a real incentive to expansion of dairy farming in Australia.
As in the case of wheat stabilization, or any other similar plan which might be devised, the co-operation of State Governments is essential. Of the total production of butter and cheese, by far the greater proportion is consumed in Australia, and the price at which these products may be sold is within the constitutional authority of the States to determine. Therefore, approval by the States of the basis upon which local selling prices shall be fixed is essential to any plan. On the other hand, the stability of the dairying industry is very greatly affected by the return received by farmers for that proportion of their butter and cheese production which is exported and sold overseas. If any Government is to accept a responsibility in this field, it must, of course, be the Australian Government, and the plan embodied in this legislation sets out the responsibility which the Commonwealth proposes to accept during five years in respect of butter and cheese exported.
The broad character of this stabilization plan is to assure to the primaryproducers concerned a price for their product designed to cover the costs of production plus an adequate margin of reward or profit for their labour and investment. Simply stated, the plan provides that for a period ending on the 30th June, 1957, dairy farmers will be assured in respect of butter and cheese sold in Australia a return based on the cost of efficient production. For butter and cheese exported they will be guaranteed by the Commonwealth that cost of production figure for an annual tonnage, being an amount equal to 20 per cent, of the tonnage consumed locally.
In addition to this, and for the purpose of increasing the return on any butter and cheese exported, which is not covered by the Commonwealth guarantee, the Australian Dairy Produce Board shall have recourse to the amount standing in the Dairy Industry Stabilization Fund. That amount, when this plan commenced, was approximately £2,500,000. Should returns from export sales during the currency of this guarantee exceed the guaranteed price, such excess return would be paid into a fund to offset any prior or subsequent contribution from Commonwealth revenue in respect of guaranteed exports.
I direct attention to the fact that the Government guarantee does not necessarily assure that all butter and cheese exported will be covered by the guarantee. Had this plan been in operation last year, a year of low production, exports of butter would have been fully covered; in fact a substantial additional tonnage, if it had been produced, would have been fully covered. The present year, so far, is a year of lush pasture with every prospect of a large export surplus, judged by recent experience. In that event, there will be a tonnage not covered by the guarantee, but the very volume of production on the farms in such favorable seasonal circumstances will itself assure a highly profitable year to dairy farmers. This is quite apart from the help available from the industry’s stabilization fund. Because the yield per farm and per cow will be higher than the fixed yield allowed in the cost assessment it follows that the average costs per unit will be lower than in an average season.
There are two very powerful reasons why the Commonwealth should not engage to guarantee cost of production plus profit on an unlimited tonnage. It would be contrary to all principles of public finance to commit the Treasury to guarantee one industry a profitable return on an unlimited volume of production regardless of the circumstances of all other industries. If any one should argue that this should be done, then I point out that in a depression this would be not only highly inequitable, but would also be bound to cause such a diversion to the guaranteed industry that the guarantee would break down of its own weight. There has always been a limit to the guarantee in respect of wheat, and we now state a limit in respect of butter and cheese.
There is, as I have said, a second reason, which is important at the moment. It is, that we are still selling butter and cheese to the British Ministry of Food under the terms of the Labour Government’s 194S contract. “We are committed to continue to sell under that contract until 1955. That contract provided for annual price reviews without any obligation that there should be a price movement at all, but with a stated limitation that prices, if moved, should not be moved upwards or downwards by more than 1 per cent. The outcome of this contract provision is that we are to-day obliged to sell to the United Kingdom at a price about ls. per lb. lower than our current cost of production. The United Kingdom needs our butter, and the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has tried to persuade the Ministry of Food and the Ministers of the United Kingdom Government that if the United Kingdom wants more butter and cheese front us it ought to pay a price equal to our cost of production. In these representations the Minister has completely failed, but at least the argument is valid and might yet be recognized. If, on the other hand, we were now to guarantee to Australian dairy-farmers their cost of production on exports of butter and cheese, without limit as to quantity, that would be a clear invitation to the Ministry of Food to attach no importance as a production incentive, to the price it pays us, and our situation in negotiations would be hopelessly weak. In present circumstances, this long-term contract is a thoroughly unsatisfactory and unprofitable one for us.
To-day it is fashionable in many circles to condemn bulk contract trading. I think it might be appropriate to offer some observations on this subject. The principal observation 1 offer is that as in almost every other business transaction, the test ought to be not whether it is good or bad to have a contract, but whether the contract in the particular circumstances is a good one or a bad one. May I further offer the observation that, while this Government is strongly disposed towards maximum freedom in trading, it still holds the old-fashioned and, we believe, very sound view that the principal person entitled to a say in how his property should be dealt with, is not the government of the day, or even the newspaper leader-writer of the day, but the man who happens to own the property. Subject to the general public interest, that is the test which this Government will apply.
Experience has shown that the dairy contract is a bad one, but I would not be telling the full story if I did not concede that it is possible that we should be no better off and, indeed might be worse off without it. Last year, in London, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture tried desperately to persuade the Ministry of Food to depart from the 7$ per cent, limitation, as indeed he had succeeded in persuading the Ministry of Food a year earlier in regard to the egg contract’. He had, of course, equipped himself well with the facts before raising this issue. The then Minister for
Food, Mr. Webb, gave the retort which the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture expected him to employ: It was, that he felt that he would not be able to explain or defend increasing the price to Australia without giving a comparable increase to the other principal suppliers, New Zealand and Denmark, whose prices were then comparable with ours. He produced figures to show that if the giving of the cost of production figure to Australia involved giving the same price increase to all other suppliers to the United Kingdom, the extra cost to the United Kingdom would be at the rate of £21,000,000 for that one year. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture then asked to be released from a contract which had become onerous, so that we could at least ‘be free to sell our butter at the best price we could obtain anywhere in the world. In view of the stringency of the British butter ration the United Kingdom Government was not prepared to release us from the contract, but the Minister did secure a substantial increase in the quantity of butter that we should be free to sell elsewhere: The total was increased to 15,000 tons for that year.
The Minister then went to Washington. Notwithstanding that the United States of America has an embargo against our butter and cheese, he received the most sympathetic reaction to his proposal that the United States of America should buy a substantial tonnage of our butter for use by its troops overseas. Subsequently, however, it was made clear that the pressure of the domestic policies of the United States of America made it impossible for this to be done. Since then, the Australian Dairy Produce Board, individual traders, the Trade Promotion Section of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, and its trade commissioners throughout the world have been unceasing in their efforts to effect sales of butter within the permitted free quota at prices higher than the United Kingdom contract. Unfortunately, they . were unable to find buyers anywhere in the world last year to take the whole 15,000 tons which we were free to sell. In other words, it’ was made clear that the United Kingdom is, as always has been, the only market in the world willing to absorb all of our surplus butter and cheese. In fact, that is the position also in regard to our meat, eggs, dried fruits, canned fruits, fresh fruits, and various other products. Even if the Ministry of Food were willing to tear up this contract today, we should not be better off unless the Ministry of Food was then prepared to pay to us a higher price than is paid to New Zealand and other principal suppliers. New Zealand shows no signs of demanding measurably higher prices from the United Kingdom. Of course, if the United Kingdom were itself to cease bulk buying by the Ministry of Food, and threw its import trade open to trader-to-trader business, higher prices might well ensue, but that is a matter of domestic policy of the United Kingdom, where the considerations at issue are the maintenance of coupon rationing, and the equalization of prices to their consumers where different prices are paid to different suppliers. The western continental countries avoid all this complication, and their meat and butter in most instances are unrationed by coupons. However, coupon rationing in such cases is replaced by price rationing. The wealthy may have as much meat and butter as they like at a price ; the poor go without. In England, the rich and the poor are on the same ration, and the continuance of the bulk purchase policies of the Government are related to that factor of rationing.
That is all somewhat away from the particular details of this present dairy stabilization plan, but it is not at all away from the factors which bear upon the future of the Australian dairying industry in the light of the fact that the United Kingdom constitutes its only bulk market. The one lesson in all of this is that it is highly unsatisfactory that the costs of production in Australia are such that we are no longer pricecompetitive with our principal competitors. An industry which relies on Treasury subventions to sustain it cannot ever feel thoroughly secure. Rea: security, in the long run, for the Australian dairying industry is not to be found in government guarantees. It is to be found in a new and higher standard of efficiency reducing costs of production thus enabling us once again to be price competitive in the world’s market and still provide that standard of living we desire for the dairy-farmer. There is no doubt that there is quite considerable scope for higher efficiency on the part of Australian dairy-farmers, but there are also tremendously important problems associated with efficiency which cannot be resolved by the individual dairy-farmer. There are problems of disease and animal nutrition, problems of pasture development and management, problems of deficiencies in certain soils, and of fertilization; and problems, particularly in Western Australia, of establishing, through expensive clearing, units of production more economic in size. All of these are much more the responsibility of higher organizations than of the dairy-farmer himself. State governments and the Commonwealth Government must combine in planning and working quickly to resolve these problems. I am bound to say that, in my observation, the universities of this great primary producing country contribute far less to these problems of primary industry than do the universities of other countries.
This year the Commonwealth has voted £200,000 additional to the sums already available for extension services; that is, the conveyance of the latest scientific and technological knowledge to the farmers. I hope that the States also will contribute additional money towards the same objective. Industries generally ought to contribute funds for such services. The dairying industry is one that has recognized this obligation. The Australian Dairy Produce Board, from its own funds, has contributed, and continues to contribute to both research and extension work. I hope that the prospect of stability which this measure holds out to the dairying industry will be held by dairy-farmers to justify continuation of contributions by the industry towards solving its own problems.
Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.
page 3619
Debate resumed from the 15th October (vide page 30S2), on motion by Senator o’sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The Opposition does not oppose this ‘bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Customs Act in order to remove doubts concerning the validity of certain administrative procedure and to bring certain provisions of the act into line with present-day commercial developments. It will provide for the adoption of a simplified procedure for those who transact business with the Department of Trade and Customs. It is purely a machinery measure and relates only to administration. I see no objection to it.
. There is a great deal of merit in the re- marks of Senator Courtice regarding this bill. The measure certainly proposes to provide new machinery for the current procedures. However, those procedures affect such a major aspect of the country’s economic policy that I should expect at least some comment from Ministers concerning that policy. They should also give an indication of the trend of our economic affairs.
In section 50 of the Customs Act, which this hill proposes to replace, and also in section 52, reference is made to the possibility of prohibition of imports. That reference is couched in terms which, one would think, hardly contemplate the wholesale closure of the inward trade of the Commonwealth. I find refreshing some statements of His Honour Mr. Justice Dixon when this matter was before him in the case of Poole v. Wah Min Chan in 1947. In that connexion, I wish to read to honorable senators an excerpt from Commonwealth Law Reports, Volume 75, at page 21 S. I make no apology for re-echoing the year - 1947 - because at that time people on my side of politics were noting with terrific apprehension the political trends then evident. The High Court of Australia was examining a system that had been built up on the fabric of the existing section 52, which embraces under prohibited imports, all imports prohibited by regulation. In the course of the Poole v. Wah Min Chan judgment to which I have referred, Mr. Justice Dixon said that the regulations provided that - . . the importation of any goods should be prohibited unless (a) a licence to import the goods is in force and the terms and conditions (if any) to which the licence is subject are complied with; or (6) the goods are excepted from the application of the regulations.
Honorable senators will, therefore, see that a regulation was issued under the act which provided that an import was prohibited unless a licence had been issued. In other words, it was prohibited unless a Minister of the Crown consented to its importation or unless the deputy or delegate of the Minister so consented.
– The regulation related only to dollar imports.
– I am obliged to Senator Courtice for his interjection. I wish to discuss this matter quietly.
– I should like to debate the matter with the honorable senator during the committee stage of the bill.
– I am happy to accept the suggestion of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) that I should leave the matter until the committee stage has been reached. Leaving that aspect of the bill and turning to the wider field, I ask whether we are to pass this bill to-day, although it concerns the general prohibition of imports which was announced in March last and which has had such a great impact on the economy of the country. I understand that the downward trend in our overseas balances has been corrected. We have been told that during the last three months our external trading has resulted in favorable balances.
– That has been due to the policy of the Government, not to the Customs Act.
– I should not have thought that anybody would understand the contrary. It is approximately seven months since import restrictions were imposed. At the time of their imposition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) stated -
What I have said will indicate that we are not proposing to set up a permanent licensing system. Just as .soon as our balance of payments position permits we will be able, ‘ and indeed anxious, to modify and eventually remove these controls.
The right honorable gentleman pointed o.at that the reason for this step was not so much a reduction of our external exports as a terrific surge of imports into the country during the nine months preceding the imposition of import control. If I remember correctly, the value of imports during the preceding twelve months was approximately double the usual value. That statement of the Prime Minister invites me to inquire whether an announcement can be made concerning the policy that will take shape under governmental control pursuant to these regulations, because it is a matter of great moment that our import control should be completely rigid. A few moments ago the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) delivered a second-reading speech in which he gave a graphic illustration of the way in which our exporting industries are suffering because of high production costs in this country. The Minister stated that not only meat but also dairy products and other exportable commodities are wilting under world competition because of the high prices which we have to maintain to make the production of such commodities profitable to our primary producers. Surely that statement justifies a moment’s reflection on the effect of this import policy on our producers, because they are the persons against whom the import restriction policy is operating. I raise these matters which trouble my simple mind in the hope that the Senate will see fit to give its collective consideration to them. I look forward to debate upon them in order to relieve my anxiety.
. - in reply - I thank the Senate for the reception that it has given to this measure. In matters which affect legislative machinery, departmental officers are always available. If Senator Wright had availed himself of their services, as Senator Courtice did, he would have a better understanding of the purport of this particular alteration. It is true that in Poole’s case-
– I understood that the Minister wished to defer consideration of that matter until the committee stage.
– That is so, but I was under the impression that the honorable senator had finished his remarks. I wish it to be on record that in matters of machinery, although not in matters which affect policy and which are not the subject of antecedent debate, departmental officers who have had many years’ experience of administration of these matters are only too pleased to explain the mechanics of any legislation brought into the chamber.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– I wish to refer to clause 7 of the bill, which provides the ultimate machinery by which the prohibited import policy is to be managed. I welcome the new machinery, because it is an improvement on the old. I intended to refer, in the second-reading stage of the debate, to some very potent comments that were made by Mr. Justice Dixon in the year 1947. He referred to licences which had been issued under a regulation claimed to ‘be supported by the then section 52 of the act, and the High ‘Court, dividing three to three, by the casting vote of the Chief Justice, held that it was supported by -that section. Mr. Justice Dixon was one of the three dissentient justices, and his comments were very pertinent inasmuch as -the system to which this bill will give effect has some of the elements of the old system to which he referred. Mr. Justice Dixon referred to the licence granted by the Minister for Trade and Customs or a licensing officer to whom the Minister delegated his power. Under the new regulations I understand that the licence will have to be issued by the several delegates of the Minister in the various ports. The decision of those delegates with regard to the issue of licences may affect an individual trader and decisions as to whether licences should be issued or not must vary according to the particular trade in respect of which applications are made. There is no gainsaying that that is a very important power to give an official; a trader will be subject to his decision without recourse to correction by a court.
– There is a central authority to control the issue of licences.
– The Minister, of course, takes complete responsibility for the actions of his delegates and is responsible to the Senate. Mr. Justice Dixon said -
Exceptions are made by the Minister. A person desiring to import goods must apply upon such form as the Minister directs for a licence in respect of the goods and must supply any additional information that is sought.
Later in his judgment His Honour said -
The Minister or his delegate may grant the licence in respect of all or part only of the goods, may impose terms and conditions, may vary or modify the terms and conditions and may revoke the licence. There is nothing to indicate the grounds upon which his discretion should be exercised. It will bc seen that the purpose of the regulation is to prohibit all importation, whatever the goods, unless a licence for the .particular consignment or importation is obtained from the Minister or the goods are accepted. It places the entire inward trade of the country under his particular discretion or that of his delegate, exercised in respect of each separate parcel or consignment of goods which it is sought to import. There is, of course, no doubt that the Parliament in the exercise of the power to make laws with respect to trade and commerce with other countries could enact a law in the form of the regulations if it thought fit to do so.
His Honour expressed the opinion that existing legislation did not authorize such a power. The Government now proposes to eliminate the doubt and take advantage of its constitutional power to put into effect legislation to authorize the issue of such licences. His Honour said -
It is indeed surprising to find that by combining this provision with the few simple and innocent looking words of paragraph (g) of section 52 the entire importing trade of the Commonwealth has been placed under direct ministerial control without the intervention of the Parliament.
That will be the position under the regulations that will be issued under this bill, if I do not mistake the position. In sum marizing the situation, His Honour made the following observations : -
These are suppositions which I should not adopt as true. But if they be accepted they do not meet the objection that the regulations are addressed to an entirely different purpose. It is a purpose remote from the prohibition of the importation of goods, because they fall within a category. The purpose is that of establishing an administrative regulation on inward foreign commerce in goods by a system of discretionary licensing. That is a purpose which I should have thought to be plainly outside the scope of section 52 (g).
Those references to the entire inward foreign commerce of the Commonwealth create in my mind the impression that, by administrative action, the national shop could be closed completely to inward trade. One has only to read that thought-provoking judgment to be reminded how far we have travelled in 50 years in protecting the industrial life of this country by the restriction of imports. I had my attention drawn to this part of the bill only this afternoon. I confess that the second-reading speech did not convey to me the full significance of the change that will be made. I welcome that change because it will place import restrictions on a more satisfactory basis. Nevertheless we should not overlook the fact that under this measure the whole inward trade of the country will be regulated by the Minister and his delegates.
– It is quite true that the Minister’s delegation of authority extends to officers of the various ports. That has always been so. There is, in addition, a Central Import Licensing Branch in Sydney which deals with, major matters. A higher authority is the ComptrollerGeneral, and above him is the ministerial head for the time being. In reply to Senator Wright, I .emphasize that the power of the Commonwealth to prohibit the importation of articles has never been challenged. It is specifically stated in the act. But prohibitions have been devised in three ways. There is a specific prohibition under the act itself. There is a prohibition under a regulation under the act and a prohibition under prohibited goods regulations. This bill merely seeks to make the right of prohibition flow from the one authority. It is some time since I read Poole’s case, but I understand that Justice Sir Owen Dixon did not comment on the propriety or otherwise of having regulations such as were before the court, but stated that those regulations went far beyond the power given to the Executive under section 51 of the act. Section 50 of the act states that no prohibited import shall be imported. Sections 51 and 52 set out the classes of prohibited imports. Poole’s case, to which Senator Wright referred, was argued under section 52, which sets out nine classes of goods the importation of which may be prohibited by regulation. My understanding of the gravamen of the judgment delivered by Justice Sir Owen Dixon was that what the then Government was doing went beyond the type of prohibition contemplated in section 52. Instead of having the power of prohibition partly in a section specifying the particular goods, partly in a regulation describing prohibited imports and partly in another regulation, it is intended, in this bill, to make it perfectly clear that the GovernorGeneral may, by regulation, prohibit the importation of goods into Australia. I think that Senator Wright would concede that had that power been in section 52 at the time that Poole’s case was heard, Mr. Justice Dixon and the other dissenting justices would not have dissented.
– Quite so.
– The position would then have been perfectly clear. The Government does not propose to take to itself a power that it has not previously enjoyed. It proposes only to define beyond all doubt the source of that power.
– Clause 17 of the bill refers to unauthorized entry to ships, aircraft, and wharfs. The clause deals with the removal or prohibition of entry of persons to or near ships or wharfs or aircraft at a time when the personal baggage of embarking or disembarking passengers is being examined by the customs authorities. I recognize the need to guard against smuggling by people on a wharf, ship or aircraft or in its immediate vicinity, but I should like the Minister to recall that there is a good deal of emotional disturbance in the vicinity of a departing or arriving ship or aircraft. There is a rush of people in a highly emotional state who are not likely, under those circumstances, to observe the complete niceties of clause 17. Perhaps this clause goes a little too far. The proposed new section prohibits anybody from entering on or being in a place of examination without authority. I see no objection to that. The next prohibition, however, is on a person entering on or being in or on a ship, an aircraft, or the wharf at which, or the part of a wharf adjacent to which, a ship is being berthed -
I believe that the prohibited area should be clearly identifiable by the public. The prohibition against being on a wharf at which a ship is berthed, or on the part of a wharf adjacent to which a ship is berthed at a time when baggage is being examined, might cause considerable confusion in the public mind, but paragraph (b) provides that the prohibition shall extend even to times when an examination is taking place not actually on the wharf or the part of a wharf adjacent to which a ship is being berthed, but only “ in the vicinity “ of that wharf or part of a wharf. I do not wish to press the point, but I should like the Minister to say whether consideration has been given to identifying prohibited areas in a way that will be clearly visible to an emotional crowd. I should like to know also whether consideration has been given to the express provision that a wharf at which, or part of a wharf adjacent to which, a ship is berthed may be pro.hibited to the public at large even when the customs examination is not taking place on that wharf or part of a wharf.
– I assume that Senator Wright’s objection is not to the restriction of imports as a matter of policy but to the manner in which the restrictions were imposed. The power to restrict imports by regulation exists in many countries, and I think that it is necessary to the preservation of a country’s economy. Restrictions cannot be imposed by an act of Parliament because, in most instances, any forewarning of the intention to curtail imports would defeat the purpose of the restrictions. The Minister for Trade and Customs must have full authority to restrict imports by introducing a licensing system, otherwise chaos would result. If there is to be any curtailment of imports, then all importers must be treated on a just basis. That can be done only under a licensing system. Apparently Senator Wright believes that the Government was straining its powers when it imposed blanket import restrictions in the early part of this year.
– In view of what Senator Courtice has said, I think I owe it to myself to say that my only reference to the import restriction policy applied by the Government in March of this year was an expression of regret at the necessity for such restrictions. There was no alternative. However, I did comment on the machinery on our statute-book ,by which that policy was applied. I did say, too, that the machinery provided for in this bill was an improvement. Nevertheless, it leaves the discretionary decisions of individual officers by the Parliament. In reply to what the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) said about the significance of certain judgments, I would say that in my opinion, anything that judges may say about our legislation is deserving of our earnest consideration. Mr. Justice Dixon merely expressed himself with an exclamation mark. He said -
Imagine such a meaning being attributed to section 52 in the year 190.1 !
Mr. Justice Starke, who agreed with Mr. Justice Dixon, said -
The Minister and his delegate are at large. “ A loose and unfettered discretion of this sort upon matters of such grave import, is a dangerous weapon to entrust to any court,” or to any Minister. “ Its exercise is likely to bc the refuge of vagueness in decision, and the harbour of half-formed thought”.
That possibility still remains. It would be more satisfactory if, instead of being disallowable, the regulation took its authority only when it was specifically confirmed in the House, and if in relation to the decisions of the officers who administer this particular machinery, there was a guaranteed appellate tribunal so that people who considered themselves to have been treated unjustly would have an opportunity to have the injustice removed by the tribunal.
– I invite the Minister’s attention to clause 7. I should like to see the various departments concerned in import controls giving more assistance to importers. At present, if a person desires to import certain commodities - I refer particularly to such items as seeds - it is necessary for him to secure a licence from the Department of Trade and Customs. He also has to make the necessary currency arrangements with the Treasury and then has to comply with certain quarantine requirements. I believe that the Department of Trade and Customs should warn applicants for licences to import seeds of the requirements of other Commonwealth departments in relation to such goods. I have in mind a rather serious case that occurred in South Australia recently. A primary producer wanted to import seed oats and barley from New Zealand as he had done in previous years. He first obtained an import licence. Next he made the necessary currency arrangements with the Treasury, and ultimately, the goods arrived. Not until then was he informed that the seeds, valued at some hundreds of pounds, could not enter Australia. I suggest to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) that when an application is made to his department for an import licence, the importer should be provided with all the relevant information, including the requirements of the quarantine authorities. It does not seem right that the Government should, on the one hand, permit the importation of certain commodities, and on the other, through another department, prohibit such imports. Much confusion could be avoided if the Department of Trade and Customs were to do as I have suggested.
– I support what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator
McKenna) about clause 17. Proposed new section 234a provides that a person shall not, except by authority, enter on or be in a place of examination in or at which the personal baggage of passengers is being examined. That is quite all right although it does not seem to me to be necessary because customs sheds at airports and wharfs are always clearly marked and barriers are so placed that only disembarking passengers can pass into the examining area after the luggage has been taken in. Paragraph (6), however, appears to be redundant, and if it were observed to the letter considerable confusion would result. It is true that certain restrictions must be made on the movements of the general public when a ship is berthing and lines are being made fast, but after the vessel has berthed, the baggage is discharged under the control of customs officers and placed in a clearly marked baggage shed. I cannot understand, therefore, why this restriction is being imposed.
– I shall deal with the last point first. I invite Senator Kendall to visit Melbourne or Sydney at some time when an immigrant ship arrives. I think he will find a few more people on the wharfs on such an occasion than he would find at Queensland or New Guinea ports, where things can be done in a more leisurely manner and where everybody knows everybody else. I have witnessed the complete confusion and pandemonium that exists on the wharfs after the arrival of such a ship. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has said, there is a good deal of emotional disturbance on such occasions. Foreign immigrant’s are excitable. Because of the language difficulties they are unable to read the signs that have been erected for the guidance of travellers. They run up and down the ship and on to the wharfs, and cause great difficulty to customs officers, who are charged with the responsibility for protecting the revenue. Both the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Kendall have referred to the lack of a provision for the accurate definition of prohibited areas for the purpose of the legislation. It is impossible accurately to define them having regard to the way in which the wharfs are constructed. At Melbourne, for instance, about half a dozen berths form part and parcel of the one wharf structure. The purpose of proposed new section 234a is to prevent unauthorized persons from entering on that part of a wharf where it merges into another wharf at which a vessel is berthed at a time when goods, the personal baggage of passengers disembarking from, or embarking on the ship, are being examined by customs officers.
In regard to the remarks of Senator Laught, I was under the impression that it was the common practice of the department to issue licences or permits subject to the requirements of other departments. Since I have been Minister for Trade and Customs I have signed hundreds of licences or permits in which approval has been given for the importation of the goods specified therein subject to compliance with certain requirements. I have followed the practice that was in vogue when Senator Courtice administered the department. However, I shall see that a general direction is given to authorized collectors and sub-collectors that licences and permits shall be issued subject to satisfaction of the requirements of other departments, such as the quarantine regulations administered by the Department of Health.
Senator Wright has referred to the lack of provision for appeal against decisions of the Minister for Trade and Customs. It is true that tremendous powers are vested in the Minister and that no provision has been made for judicial appeal from his decisions. I remind the honorable senator, however, that the 123 members of the House of Representatives and the 60 members of the Senate, who are very vocal in presenting a good case, constitute what is virtually a court of appeal from the decisions of Ministers. If a person believes that he has been treated unjustly, he usually states his case to a member of the Parliament, or to the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Manufactures, or another organization, who endeavours to have the matter rectified. In the very nature of things anomalies and mistakes inevitably occur, but if a good case is submitted to a public department it invariably does the right thing. The opportunity for the ventilation of injustices are manifold. It would be quite impracticable to make the granting of each import licence the subject matter of a parliamentary debate. Suppose a person applied for and was refused a licence to import, say, bootlaces or toothbrushes. Is it suggested that the time of the Parliament should be occupied by a debate concerning the rights or wrongs of the Minister’s decision? If that were done, the business of the Parliament would never be disposed of. No Minister would dare to violate the canons of justice and decency. His colleagues in the political party and in the Cabinet, and his friends in the Opposition, would condemn him if he did so. A Minister’s Opposition friends would only be too pleased to ventilate cases involving the arbitrary mis-use of power.
– Proposed new section 271 empowers the Minister to make by-laws specifying the goods or class of goods which may be brought into the country free of duty. A very grave anomaly arises under the existing laws. An Australian who returned from overseas is allowed to bring in free of duty goods to the value of £35; but if he is accompanied by his wife or daughter, or both, the limit of £35 a.pplies to the goods of the family and not to each member of it.
– Surely the permission extends to goods of a value of £35 for each person?
– No. I speak from personal knowledge because I have been the victim of the existing by-law. I ask the Minister to amend the by-law to permit each person to bring in goods to the value of £35 free of duty.
– If the law is in accordance with the honorable senator’s statement, it is quite wrong.
– I thank. the Minister for his comments on and explanation of the provisions of proposed new section 234a. I can understand his difficulty in defining a prohibited area, particularly in the port of Melbourne where a single structure is subdivided into a number of wharfs.
Although I acknowledge the Minister’s difficulty, I am sure that he will also appreciate the difficulty of a person who is expected to obey the law couched in these terms. A person may unwittingly go from one section of a wharf to another where the baggage of passengers is being examined and thus become an innocent offender. I ask the Minister to explore the possibility of clearly marking prohibited areas. I cannot suggest an appropriate amendment of the section to achieve my purpose. I point out, however, that having regard to the fact that a person who unwittingly offends against its provisions may be involved in a penalty of £20, the onus rests on the department to see that nothing in the nature of a trap is set for those who go to and from these places. Plain signs, marks or barriers should be erected to identify as precisely as possible all prohibited areas.
, - I shall do as the Leader of the Opposition asks. Instructions will be issued that the utmost care shall be taken to define prohibited areas as clearly as possible.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
Sitting suspended- from 5.1$ to 8 p.m.
page 3625
Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 3361), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the hill be now read a second time.
– The Opposition has considered the proposals contained in the bill, and will not object to the passage of the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 - (1.) The time of the imposition of the duties of Customs (not being duties of Customs the time of the imposition of which is fixed by the next succeeding sub-section) imposed by this Act is the twenty-sixth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, and this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation at that time.
(2.)…..
– I move -
That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-clause (1.) by leaving out the words “ the next succeeding subsection “ and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ either of the next two succeeding sub-sections “.
The reason for moving the amendment is that I anticipate receiving the concurrence of the committee to a request that I propose to make at a later stage for the amendment of an item in the schedule to the bill. The amendment of the item in the schedule will be based on a Tariff Board report, in which the board has recommended the imposition of protective duties. I will, of course, deal more fully with that matter when the particular item concerned is under discussion.
As it will be necessary to operate the higher duties from a date later than that now provided for in sub-clause (1.) of the clause consequential amendments to the clause are required in order that the new duties will be imposed only as and from the later date specified. The proposal now before the committee is, therefore of a machinery nature which will enable the insertion of a new sub-clause to provide for the operation of duties at a later date.
Bequest agreed to.
– I move -
That the House of Representatives be requested to insert after sub-clause (1.) the following new sub-clause: - “ (1a.) The time of the imposition of the duties of customs imposed by this Act in respect of which a date later than the twenty-sixth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, is specified in the Schedule to this Act is the later date so specified, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory.”.
The reason for requesting the insertion of this new sub-clause in the bill was explained to honorable senators when 1 was dealing with the request for the amendment of sub-clause (1.) of the clause. Under this new sub-clause provision will be made for the imposition of duties at a date later than the twentysixth September, 1952, when a later date is specified in the schedule to the bill.
Bequest agreed to.
Clause agreed to, subject to requests.
The Schedule.
– I move -
That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the schedule by inserting in item 219, after sub-paragraph “(c) of paragraph (2.) of sub-section (c) the following words: - “and on and after the 24th October. 1952 - (c) Carpenters’ planes, wholly or principally of metal, ad val., British 17* per cent., intermediate 25 per cent., general 30 per cent.”
The amendment requested is that to which I made reference when clause 3 of this bill was under consideration. The purpose of the amendment proposed is to accord tariff protection, as recommended by the Tariff Board, to the local manufacturers of carpenters’ planes made wholly or principally of metal.
Honorable senators will note that the bill at present provides for duties of free British preferential tariff, 7-J per cent, intermediate tariff, and 12-J per cent, general tariff on carpenters’ metal planes. A report by the Tariff Board recommends that a duty of 17£ per cent, under the British preferential tariff be imposed on these goods. The Government has decided to adopt the recommendation made by the board, and as the particular item concerned is, at present, under review by the Parliament the opportunity has been taken to request that the duties be varied forthwith in order that there will be no delay in according the protection to the local industry. The duties of 25 per cent, intermediate tariff and 30 per cent, general tariff have been determined in accordance with the Commonwealth’s international obligations.
Request agreed to.
Schedule agreed to, subject to a request. Title agreed to.
Bill reported with requests; report adopted.
page 3627
Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 3361), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The Opposition has certain objections to this bill, which we contend is intended solely to increase excise revenue for the benefit of the Government’s finances. The Government has no mandate from the people to increase the excise duties referred to in the bill. On the contrary, it promised the people during the last general election campaign that it would reduce imposts. It has repeatedly broken that promise. The effect of the bill will be to increase the prices of liquor and tobacco at the expense of the taxpayers. For that reason, and because the Government has no mandate from the people to increase excise tariffs, the Opposition is unable to support this measure.
. - in reply - The proposals contained in the bill form part of the Government’s financial policy. No Administration ever willingly imposes additional taxes, which taxpayers invariably resent, but it is the duty of a government to provide sufficient revenue to meet its commitments. In accordance with that duty the proposals contained in this bill are designed to increase the Government’s revenue.
I remind our critics opposite that when Labour was in office in 1942 it imposed substantial increases of taxes. I think honorable senators opposite will agree that the Labour Government did not like having to do so, but it was faced with the necessity of increasing its revenue in order to meet its financial commitments. However, I point out that government finances then were in a much more buoyant condition than they are in now. The present Administration is confronted by the need to raise huge sums to meet our expenditure on social services, defence and other inescapable commitments. Surely honorable senators opposite do not suggest that we should reduce our expenditure on defence and social services.
Australian taxpayers may derive some comfort from a comparison of the excise duties levied in this country with those of other countries. For example, the the excise duty on Australian brandy is only £4 4s. 6d. a proof gallon. In the United Kingdom it is £10 12s. a gallon. In Australia the excise duty per proof gallon of whisky is £5 5s. 6d., compared with £10 12s. in the United Kingdom. The Australian excise duty per gallon of gin is £4 10s: 6d., compared with £10 12s. in the United Kingdom. On rum, the excise duty in this country is £4 7s. 6d. a gallon, compared with £10 12s. in Great Britain. I am quite sure that the United Kingdom Government does not levy such heavy duties for fun. It does so because revenue must be obtained. It is the desire of this Government, as soon as the finances of the country and our obligations will permit, to give every consideration to ameliorating excise duties.
Question put -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 30
NOES: 20
Majority . . … 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– I hope that it will not be long before the economic condition of this countrywill enable the Government to grant some relief from the very high excise duties that are imposed on Australian spirits and tobacco. It has been my experience in the past that when excise duties have been increased they have remained at the higher levels for lengthy periods. I hope that we are not in for an era of high excise duties on the little comforts to which the hard-working people of this country are entitled. Although the price of tobacco may be of little or no consequence to some people, it is of importance to the average man who derives pleasure and comfort from smoking. I do not think that tobacco should be subjected to a high rate of excise. During the war I had great difficulty in obtaining tobacco and cigarettes for my employees at Broadmere station, on the Dawson River in Queensland. Most of the stockmen were elderly, as the young fellows had enlisted in the fighting services. Those elderly men had been used to smoking all their lives. It had been their custom to pull on the rein from time to time when they were out mustering and have a smoke in order to ease the burden of the day. When they could not obtain regular supplies of tobacco and cigarettes they became very cranky and were hard to manage. I had to make special arrangements to obtain supplies of tobacco and cigarettes for them, because smoking had become a part of their daily life. Many men who work hard get very few pleasures and joys out of life beyond smoking and having an occasional glass of beer.
I contend that every consideration should be extended to smokers. Although there has been a steady demand for Australiangrown tobacco in recent times, the development of the Australian tobaccogrowing industry has been frustrated by the unwillingness of the big tobacco manufacturers to pay the growers a fair price for their leaf. The tobacco sales in Queensland this week were a flop. Only about two-thirds of the leaf that was offered for sale was purchased. We should ponder whether the high excise duty on tobacco may be a factor contributing to the reluctance of the manufacturers to purchase all of the Australian-grown leaf. I consider that the Government should do all it possibly can do to ensure that there shall be a healthy manufacturers’ demand for Australian-grown leaf. As the tobacco-growers of Queensland were encouraged to extend their acreage, and production targets were set, it is most disappointing to them that there is now only a limited demand for their leaf by the tobacco manufacturers. There has never before in our history been such a demand for tobacco. Large quantities of highly-priced cigarettes and tobacco have been imported and sold readily, but despite the fact that Australian tobacco can be produced at a relatively cheap price, the manufacturers have refused to offer a fair price to the growers. It is not for me to determine whether the imposition of excessive excise has any bearing on the matter, but I believe that it is our duty to consider whether there is any way in which we can prevent our tobacco-growing industry from being destroyed because the manufacturers are too selective in their demands on the growers. In many instances they have purchased only high quality leaf and rejected the medium quality leaf. The sooner we can ease the excise duty on tobacco, in the interests of the hard working men of this country, the better. My remarks apply equally to rum and spirits. I am particularly interested in rum, because the elderly employees on my station property during the war, who were far removed from doctors and hospitals, laid down the dictum that for all internal troubles rum was the specific- treatment, and for the treatment of external troubles, such as wounds, kerosene was used’. The distillation of rum is a very big Queensland industry. The excise on rum has been very high in recent times. I recognize the difficulties that confront the Government in fighting inflation^ but I hope that, when we- have turned the corner prompt consideration will be given to reducing the excise on rum, in order to bring it within the range of purchase by the average working man. At one time the workers could1 obtain a drink of rum for 6d. Now they have to pay ls. a nip, and in. parts of western Queensland,, as much as ls. 6d. a nip. I realize that the high excise impost cannot be ameliorated at present, but I hope that the Government will relieve it as soon as possible.
My remarks about rum apply equally to beer. It used to be an accepted axiom in the House of Commons that no matter how hard-pressed was the Chancellor of the Exchequer to balance the budget, the workers’ beer should not be taxed heavily, however else revenue had to be obtained. That was a good old principle in the House of Commons many years ago. In my opinion the worker is entitled to his glass of beer at a reasonable price.
– The excise duty which applies to beer, whisky and other spirits is now so high that the collections of revenue from that source have commenced to decline. In other words, the stage has been reached at which taxation is taking those beverages out of the range of too many ordinary consumers. I suggest that the Government should look very closely at the excise duty in this respect, because it is obvious that the rate of duty is now defeating, its purpose. In- England, the duty on spirits has been deliberately made so high that the people are no longer able to purchase spirits; The object of that increased duty is to make more spirits available for export.
– The positions in Britain and Australia are not comparable.
– I agree that, the position in- England in this respect, is- completely different from that of Aus tralia. I direct the attention of the Government to this matter and suggest that it is foolish- to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
, - The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) has childishly stated that it is necessary for the Government to obtain revenue and that excise on beer and spirits provides such revenue’. The Minister asked whether, if the Labour party were- in- office, it would reduce- the social services contribution. The answer to that question is an emphatic “ No “. If the Australian Labour party were in office, however, it would not think of abolishing the land tax for th& sole- benefit of the wealthy landholders of the country, nor would it think of placing a heavy excise duty on the beer, spirits and cigarettes of the working man. The Minister knows perfectly well- that beer and rum, particularly, are the natural drinks of Australian working men and have been so ever since the- country was first settled. Many a coach driver in the early days would never have reached his destination had it not been for a drop of whisky or rum. Similarly, many a bushman would not have come out of the bush alive had he not had some rum. I do not suggest that the spirits were taken by those persons as “booze”; they drank them, as medicine.
– Nonsense !
– I can understand such- an interjection from the other side of the chamber. I am speaking for tens of thousands of working people and I know something about this matter. Perhaps Senator Vincent was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and knows’ nothing at all of the needs of the working masses. There is no doubt that the Government has removed a tax burden from those on the higher rung of the ladder and has placed a greater burden on the shoulders of those on the lower rung.
Bill agreed to.
Bill’ reported without requests; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 3630
(NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE)
page 3630
Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 3361), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be mow read a second time.
– This is purely a machinery measure. The alterations of the customs tariff to which the Senate has already agreed involves an adjustment of the New Zealand preference provisions, to which this bill will give effect. There is really nothing new about it, and the Opposition does not oppose it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 3630
Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 3361), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This bill is similar in its terms to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Bill with which the Senate has just dealt. It is complementary to the main Customs Tariff Bill which also has been passed by honorahle senators. The only amendment relates to fork lift and elevating platform trucks, consequent upon a Tariff Board recommendation covering such articles. The alteration is necessary in order to maintain the margin of preference whichis accorded to Canadian vehicles.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 3630
Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 3362), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The purpose of this bill is to validate certain customs proposals which vere introduced in May last. It is necessary for the Parliament to pass validating legislation in order to give them the required legal standing.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 3630
Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 3362), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This bill provides for the validation of collections of excise duties which were introduced in the House of Representatives on the 29th May last. The Opposition does not object to the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 3630
Debate resumed from the 22nd October (vide page 3483), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– In dealing with this bill to enable the Government to transfer ex-enemy assets at present held by the High Court to the Controller of Enemy Property, the Senate is dealing with an amount of money that has been raised by the sale of Japanese assets in Australia and which is intended mainly for distribution amongst Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese. My object will not be to make this a political issue, because honorable senators on this side of the chamber are very pleased that a recognition, however niggardly, has been made by the Government of its legal and moral duty to prisoners of war who suffered hardship at the hands of the Japanese. The Government has found it possible in the past to make other contributions towards ameliorating in some small way the just claims of prisoners of war. Some time ago, £250,000 was made available from a special trust fund. Recently, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) said that Australia was the only country which had made a contribution to such a fund. But the conditions which were imposed on ex-prisoners of war who wished to participate in the proceeds of this fund were such that many refused to fill in the forms tha’ were given to them for the purpose of applying for a grant from that fund. The form required the applicant to state whether he was suffering from a major disability, physical or mental, directly referable to conditions of captivity. In repatriation hospitals and throughout Australia amongst the survivors of the 20,000 prisoners of war who were held captive by the Japanese there are those whoso condition ranges from that of complete physical and mental wrecks to that of those who through their own fortitude and courage have borne the strain of captivity and are competing in society. The form also required the ex-prisoner of war to state whether he was experiencing material prejudice from other than health causes as a direct result of his captivity. If he were, he was required to give full details. He was asked whether he was experiencing hardship as a result of either or both the abovementioned circumstances and whether he was suffering from any disability other than those already referred to. He was also asked to state what assistance he required and for what purpose. If the claim were made in order to meet debts the applicant had to state whether he had ascertained that his debtors-
– Order! The honorable senator is dealing with a measure that has already been passed by the Senate.
– The object of this bill is to pay prisoners of war a certain amount of money which has been raised from the sale of Japanese assets. In the second-reading speech of the Minister reference was made to the fact that further payments may be made at a future date. I believe that I am in order if I treat the whole of this matter as one above party politics, I should like to impress every honorable senator with the obligation that is on every member of the Parliament to ensure that justice is done to ex-prisoners of war.
– The ho senator is referring to something that has been done under the existing act.
– I am. I have a copy of a recent report of the War Claims Commission of the United States of America for the period ended the 30th September, 1951. The Americans have made provision for the payment of a dollar a day to ex-prisoners of war. In some cases, American civilians who were held captive by the Japanese will receive 37% dollars a week for each week of their captivity. In the last fortnight the Canadian Government has announced that it will pay every prisoner of war who was held captive by the Japanese 9s. Id. a day for each day spent in captivity. This debate provides one of the few opportunities that we have to express the point of view of exservicemen throughout Australia on the injustices that our ex-prisoners of war are suffering from. These men not only had to undergo the tortures and hardships of prison life and conditions which were a complete contravention of the Geneva Convention but they also had to suffer the humiliation and indignity of the Owen report. In the event of any compensation being paid to ex-prisoners of war Mr. Justice Owen and Sir Stanley Savige believed that -
It would be unsound and contrary to the national interest if any proposal were adopted which might, now or in the future or to a later generation, carry with it an implication that a “ monetary premium “ was being placed upon becoming or remaining a prisoner of war.
I find it difficult to express my contempt for that imputation against prisoners of war.
– The Labour party said that previously.
– I am not concerned with what has been said in the past. I do not wish to put forward a political case. The Labour party is committed to’ pay this compensation.
– It refused to pay it.
– It is committed to pay it as soon as it returns to office, and the sooner it returns to office the better it will be for many reasons. This bill- appears to have been based on the Owen report. I regret that the many exservice supporters of the Government have allowed the Cabinet to be influenced by a report such as this one, which imputes improper motives to valiant men of the Sth Division. I speak from personal experience of European prisoners of war, many of whom are only shadows of the men that they were when they enlisted in the services. Every decent man should object to the implication that prisoners of war would lay down their arms for an incentive payment.
– The report does not suggest that.
– It is in the report.
– The honorable senator expressed the intention of treating this matter non-politically.
– Order ! I think that many honorable senators have strong feelings concerning this bill. I ask the honorable senator to discuss the matter calmly and to treat the measure before the Senate with that dignity which I believe him to possess. I ask him to confine his remarks to the bill before lis.
– The bill provides for the distribution of a certain amount of money to ex-prisoners of war. The amount, in my opinion, and in the opinion of other Opposition senators, is completely inadequate as compensation for the hardships of those who suffered distress by virtue of their captivity. If I were to confine my_ remarks to the fact that the amount of £700,000 is to he distributed by allocating £32 to each prisoner of war I could have nothing to say. But the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) said that the ‘Government had appointed a committee, consisting of Mr. Justice Owen Sir Stanley Savige and Dr. W. P.. Fisher, to consider certain proposals which were advanced for the payment of a subsistence allowance to ex-prisoners of wa’r. This committee found that there had been a general failure by Japan to treat prisoners of warin’ accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1929. In hissecondreading speech the Minister said that the committee observed that capture was one of the hazards that servicemen must face. The’ proposals contained in this bill are very closely connected with the recommendations of that committee. It has been argued that the assets referred to in the bill are the only ones available for distribution. That is quite true. The receipt of £32 each by ex-priso’ners of war will provide them with some very small amount of compensation. The need for compensation originated in the failure of .the Japanese Government to care for allied prisoners of war._ Both Germany and Italy were signatories to the Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of Avar. Japan was not a signatory. Nevertheless, in the .early stages of the war, when the Japanese found that they held large numbers of prisoners^ they agreed to abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention. Unfortunately, as many of our young men found to their cost, the Geneva Convention was not observed, and shocking hardships were imposed upon prisoners. Under this bill, a payment of £32 will be made to all former prisoners of war in the hands of the Japanese. That is about enough to buy a new suit, and I have no doubt that many men who suffered for years in Japanese prison camps are in such a financial position to-day that they will be only too glad to be able, .to buy a new suit. I hope that the Government will treat this matter on a nonparty basis. Sooner or later, it will have to undertake to pay a subsistence allowance of 3s. a day to every Australian Serviceman who was a prisoner of the Japanese. I am not satisfied with the attitude of either this Government or of its predecessor towards this matter. The m’e’asure that we ‘are now ‘discussing is based on the majority report o’f a special commit’tee ‘that was appointed to consider what should be done to compensate former prisoners of war in ‘the hands of the
Japanese. The majority report was presented by two members of the committee. A minority report recommending the payment of the subsistence allowance of 3s. a day, was presented by the third member, Dr. Fisher, himself an ex-prisoner of war who obviously knew far more about the sufferings of men in prison camps that did his colleagues on the committee. He understood the feeling of men who were overwhelmed suddenly in battle and taken to a land in which the customs, food, and climate were completely different from those to which they had been accustomed. Dr. Fisher’s minority report disagreed in many respects with the majority report of the committee. As I have said, he recommended the payment of the subsistence allowance of 3s. a day. That payment was made to all servicemen who were able to continue to fight and did not have the misfortune to become prisoners of war. I believe therefore, that the men who became prisoners through no fault of their own are equally entitled to the payment.
Earlier to-day, I asked a question about the proposal to pay £50,000,000 compensation to a certain German armaments manufacturer; but no effort is being made to compensate Australian prisoners of war who were held by the Germans. While I was a prisoner of war in Germany I had first-hand experience of the sufferings of our prisoners, even at the hands of their European captors-. I saw many men lose their minds. Fifty men with whom I worked on an escape tunnel were shot under direct orders from Hitler. No mention has been made of paying compensation to the relatives of the four Australian officers who were included in that number. It is argued that a prisoner of war is of no further use to his country; but many prisoners were of considerable value to their country in indirect ways. It is the duty of every prisoner of war to try to escape, and I know of many prisoners who spent weeks, months and even years trying to carry out that duty; Some of them succeeded in escaping, but others were discovered and had to. pay the penalty. I believe that the whole matter of the compensation o’f prisoners of- war has been handled in a very ‘slipshod way. The Government, in my opinion, was too ready to accept the majority report of the Owen committee in spite of the dissension of a practical man who, himself, had been a prisoner of war. Compare the treatment of former Australian prisoners of war under this measure with that accorded to Canadian and American nationals in those countries. We should not lose sight of the splendid example that has been set by Canada and the United States of America. Seven years have now elapsed since the end of the war, and, perhaps, time has healed some of the bitter feelings and erased some of the bitter memories of days spent in prison camps; but I believe that there is a moral responsibility on the Government to meet the claims of former prisoners for the payment of a subsistence allowance of 3s. a day. That claim has been ardently supported by the various associations of ex-servicemen. These men are not seeking charity^ The conditions under which payments were made from the Prisonersofwar Trust Fund were an insult to our ex-servicemen. Claimants had to endure a “ quiz “ session. They had to supply such information as the name of their employer, their weekly earnings, their assets and their debts.
bill does not provide for that. The honorable senator is speaking of the 1949 legislation.
– I am dealing with the explanation of this measure given by the Minister in his secondreading speech. The funds that will be distributed under this bill are to be obtained solely from the sale of Japanese assets in Australia. I should like to know whether any further payments are likely. I believe that we can never have a clear conscience until we pay to former prisoners of war in Japan the subsistence allowance that is their right. Comparisons that are sometimes made between the treatment of allied prisoners of war in Japan and in Germany are rather misleading. It is true that at times during our captivity in Germany, we were able to enjoy a reasonable standard of living through ‘the good offices qf the International Red Cross, and I shall be eternally grateful to that organization for its magnificent work, but there were times when the Germans purposely withheld Red Cross food parcels from prisoners. Hundreds of times my colleagues and I were subjected to humiliations and hardships in defiance of the Geneva Convention. Therefore, the strong line of distinction that has been drawn between the sufferings of prisoners of war in Japan and those of prisoners of war in Germany is not always justified. However, there has been no question at all of the payment of compensation to Australian prisoners of our former European enemies. That is one reason why I am so bitter about the proposal to pay many millions of pounds in compensation to a German citizen who helped so much to build up Hitler’s military strength.
The payment of the subsistence allowance of 3s. a day to former prisoners of the Japanese has been talked about for too long. We have heard many pretty speeches about the proposal, but there has been no attempt to translate those speeches into action. It has been well 3aid that if words were repayment, our prisoners of war have been handsomely rewarded, but words are not enough. Canada and the United States of America have set the example. The fact that those countries have only recently compensated their former prisoners shows that it is noi too late for us to act. There is a responsibility on every member of the Senate. The elapse of seven years since the end of the war is no excuse for forgetting the matter. The payment to be made under this measure will be merely a token recognition of our obligation. We should not relax our efforts until the Government has agreed to pay the subsistence allowance of 3s. a day. I hope also that the position of former prisoners of European countries will be reconsidered, particularly as many of the effects of their incarceration and treatment are only now becoming apparent. I am certain that many new cases of war neurosis and other complaints which are being submitted to the Minister for Repatriation arise from the effects of captivity in German and Italian prisons. The fact that payments must be made as a debt of honour to the men concerned should be fully realized by every honorable senator. The Opposition does not oppose the bill, because it believes this legislation to be the first sign of recognition by the Government of its liability to former prisoners of war held by the Japanese. We trust that in the very near future attention will be given to the claim for the payment of a subsistence allowance of 3s. a day to them.
– I am sure that all honorable senators approach the consideration of this bill with a clear understanding of its justice. We share the feeling3 of Senator O’Byrne to whose speech we have just listened ; but it is due to the situation to say that Mr. Justice Owen and Brigadier-General Sir Stanley Savige considered the payments made to American ex-prisoners of war and directed attention to the fact that the War Claims Commission of the United States of America had made it clear that the enemy nations and their citizens are paying from their own funds for their war-time violations of international law. The commission estimated the amounts that would accrue from the realization of enemy funds which the United States of America would make available to its ex-prisoners of war. Mr. Justice Owen and his fellow committeeman had this to say -
It will bo seen then that the action taken by the United States Government affords no support for a claim that a moral obligation rests upon the Commonwealth Government to pay a special monetary allowance to those of its ex-servicemen who became prisoners of war.
What the United States has done is to make available for distribution, amongst those of its forces who were prisoners of war, moneys in its hands which may properly be described as reparations.
Ear from the members of the committee having reproached our former prisoners of war, they made this statement in regard to them -
The Eighth Division, and the units associated with it, laid down arms in obedience to orders and when no other alternative was open to them. By their conduct in captivity, the officers and men of that Division worthily upheld the high traditions of the Australian Imperial Forces, and we think it proper that we should thus record our view.
That statement followed an earlier observation that the inhumanities suffered by the prisoners of war were such as to be incapable of imagination by any civilized people. With the scales of justice so precisely balanced as the committee held them, the committee went on to say that repatriation benefits should apply with equal measure to disabled prisoners of war or to the dependants of those who lost their lives, while in the hands of the enemy as well as to all other ex-servicemen who had been maimed, injured or killed on service. That principle governed the majority report of the committee. I commend to Senator O’Byrne the resolution passed by the Government Members Exservicemen’s Committee in November, 1951, which reads as follows: - “ That the ‘ Owen Committee ‘ having found that there was a general failure by both Germany and Japan to treat Australian Servicemen, who became their prisoners, in accordance with the provisions of the International Convention to which these Powers had pledged themselves, and that, as a result, the great majority of the prisoners suffered undue hardships and privations and having decided that the proper principle is that, if compensation is to be made, it should be made by the defaulting Power the Government Members Ex-servicemen’s Committee recommend to the Cabinet that Australia’s delegates at the Peace Conference be instructed to demand compensation from the defaulting Powers and that such compensation recovered, either by this means or from expropriation of property of the defaulting Powers be paid to all prisoners and/or dependants of deceased prisoners-of-war who suffered as a result of the lawlessness of the defaulting Powers.”
That resolution was conveyed to the Government by servicemen no less distinguished than Colonel Charles Anderson, who won the Victoria Cross in the Far Eastern campaign; MajorGeneral George Rankin, D.S.O., a distinguished member of this Senate; Dr. Donald Cameron, the honorable member for Oxley; the secretary of the committee, Mr. Bruce Graham, the honorable member for St. George; and the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Falkinder, D.S.O., D.F.C. and bar). It was pressed upon the Cabinet, not once but on many occasions, with the result that in the Japanese Peace Treaty, with the support of the delegates from Great Britain, a provision was inserted under which Japanese assets in Australia were to be forfeited and applied as compensation to Australian ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese. This bill is the result and is recognition of the sacrifices endured by the prisoners of war.
.- My remarks on this matter will be of short duration. I shall treat it as far as possible on an entirely non-political basis. The fund established to deal with cases of special hardship among exservicemen, to which Senator O’Byrne referred on more than one occasion during the course of his speech, is entirely different from this proposal to make a certain payment to ex-prisoners of war. The fund was established as the result of the report that has just been read by Senator Wright. The purpose of its establishment was confined to an endeavour to mitigate cases of special hardship, and it was therefore natural and inevitable that provision should be made to ensure that applicants for assistance shall in fact be cases of special hardship. It would be impossible to administer a fund to mitigate cases of special hardship, unless provision were made for establishing that special hardship actually existed. I should say that this payment to ex-prisoners of war is not, in any circumstances, a legal debt, as has been stated during this debate. Indeed, I have grave doubts whether it is a moral debt. I emphasize that I am speaking for myself alone on this matter. I do not see how it is possible to place any valuation in terms of pounds, shillings and pence on the sufferings undergone by servicemen, whether in the front line, in a prisoner-of-war camp, under aerial bombardment, in the sea, on the sea, or in the air. When a man enlists in the armed forces of his country, he runs the risk of injury and hardships, and whilst the hardships and sufferings which were endured by the Australians who were prisoners of war in the hands of the Japanese cannot be tabulated, it is nevertheless true that many of those who survived the ordeal are better off than are those who came back from the war maimed for life, and those who did not come back at all. So, for the purpose of making my own position clear on this matter, I express my opinion that the payment, instead of being a legal or moral debt, is an act of grace.
– The payment of a subsistence allowance of 3s. a day is a moral or legal debt.
– Having gone into this matter, I do not think that it is a legal debt. I am certain that if Senator O’Byrne will obtain a legal opinion on the matter, he will find that it is not a legal debt. I regard it as an act-of-grace payment, and not as fulfilment of a moral or legal debt.
There is one other matter to which I wish to make reference. It has been mentioned on several occasions, largely by way of questions. I refer to the contrast between what we have been able to do for our prisoners of war, what the United States of America has done for its prisoners of war, and what has been done for the armaments magnate, Krupp, in Europe. All I want to say on that aspect is that we should get the story about Krupp accurately in our minds. I do not in any way excuse Krupp. The story of this man is, briefly, as follows : - He was convicted as a war criminal, and sentenced to a term in gaol. His property was not confiscated. He was in a position similar to that of a man who is convicted of a crime in this country, is sentenced to a gaol term, and, on his release, returns to the property that he held before he went to prison. I emphasize that I do not in any way excuse the actions of Krupp. I state his case merely as a statement of fact. When Krupp was released from prison, he returned to the possession of the property which he owned before he was gaoled. The powers in Europe are now endeavouring to break up the cartel of which Krupp was the leading member. Consequently, they placed their own administrator in control of his property. Having taken from him what was legally his, they returned to him shares which were of great value, but which did not carry any voting strength. In that way, control of his property was taken from him. Whilst we deplore that fact, let us at least be clear about the facts.
– The Government’s proposals for the payment of a very limited sum by way of compensation to former prisoners of war and their dependants takes us back to the old reactionary view that human beings should not be compensated for loss of life or injury, but that compensation should be made for loss of property.
The proposals contained in this bill are inevitably related to the terms of the Japanese Peace Treaty. The present Government accepted almost as a fait accompli the draft treaty prepared by the United States Government, and it did not make any substantial effort to obtain reasonable compensation for our exservicemen who suffered so severely at the hands of the Japanese. In fact, the legislation to ratify the peace treaty was rushed through the Parliament without affording members of this chamber a reasonable opportunity to debate it. In consequence, the failure of the treaty to provide for the payment of reasonable reparations to our ex-servicemen was not realized generally. Surely our exservicemen who suffered such inhuman treatment and shocking injuries at the hands of the Japanese, and the dependants of those who did not survive their incarceration, are entitled to more just treatment than they have received ?
I visited Japan a few years ago as a member of a parliamentary delegation, and as a result of knowledge obtained during my visit it becomes clear to me that the present Australian Government, which agreed to the terms of the peace treaty with Japan, was more concerned with restoring trade with Japan than it was with obtaining reasonable reparations for our ex-servicemen.
– That is completely untrue.
– Even before the actual terms of the peace treaty were agreed to, negotiations had taken place in relation to the supply of goods to Japan, and almost before the ink was dry on the Japanese peace treaty large contracts for military equipment were given to Japan by the Government. We knew that the proceeds of enemy property seized during the war would be paid into a trust fund for the purpose of paying, compensation for damages caused by war,, the first call on which would be compensation for damage to property and that only the residue would be available for distribution to our ex-prisoners of war. In fact, the payments now proposed to be made to them will not be given to them as something to which they are entitled as of right, but as a gift which they should humbly receive without any criticism. I say that the Government has failed in its duty in not extracting from the Japanese and other former enemy countries reasonable compensation for our exservicemen, who suffered so much while in captivity, and their dependants. It is significant that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has not yet concluded any formal peace treaty with Japan, and I still cannot understand the extraordinary haste that the present Government, showed to associate itself with the Government of the United States of America in making, a peace treaty. I can only conclude that it was not concerned so much with the welfare of our ex-servicemen as with the resumption of a lucrative trade with Japan, intended to benefit so many investors and international cartels in Australia and other countries.
. - in reply - The Government has endeavoured to deal with this matter in accordance with the delicacy that it rightly demands.
– It is a delicate ministry.
– The honorable senator did not hurt me by the remarks that he made in the course of his speech, but I believe that he hurt himself a great deal, and that his remarks did not do credit to the Senate. There is no excuse to be made for the ignorance on the subject displayed by Senator Cooke, because he could quite easily have consulted the documentary information concerning. Australia’s part in the negotiations which led to the signing of the peace treaty with Japan. Had he done so he would be aware that our representatives pressed again and again for the payment of adequate compensation to our ex-servicemen who were imprisoned by the Japanese.
– They failed in their representations, yet the treaty was signed.
– That is so, but it was not for want of trying. However, I do not want to be diverted from explaining the provisions made by the present Government for our ex-service men. Two funds have been established from which payments will be made. The sum of £250,000 will be paid from Consolidated Revenue into one fund for the relief of former prisoners of war and the dependants of deceased prisoners of war who are suffering hardship, and that payment will be made regardless of whether the ex-servicemen concerned were prisoners of the Japanese or of another ex-enemy country. Trustees have been appointed to decide the claims that will be submitted, because it is- necessary and inevitable that some authority should adjudicate upon them. The bill proposes to establish, in addition, a second fund from which compensation will be paid to former prisoners of war of the Japanese and to the dependants of those who died during imprisonment.
Reference has been made to certain payments made to former prisoners of war by the governments of Canada and the United States of America. I understand that those payments were made not out of the revenues of the governments concerned, but from the proceeds of the sale of Japanese properties expropriated during the war.
– But those payments established the principle that exprisoners of war were entitled to compensation.
– That is not so. The payments referred to did not constitute a recognition by the two governments concerned that their former prisoners of war were entitled to compensation. In Australia, the Ex-prisoners of War Subsistence Claims Committee, which is an official body investigating thu rights of former prisoners of war, has stated that, leaving aside altogether legal rights, its members are not morally entitled to receive subsistence payments because no provision for such payments exists in the regulations for the armed services.
– But ex-servicemen themselves insist that the Government is morally responsible for the payment of proper compensation to them.
– That may be. However, in reply to the contentions raised as the result of certain payments made by the governments of the United States of America and of Canada, I point out that those governments were able to indemnify themselves for the payments by the sale of Japanese assets that had been confiscated.
Senator O’Byrne inquired whether £770,000 is the limit of the amount proposed to be paid to ex-servicemen. I point out that that sum represents merely an estimate of the amount available for distribution. Calculations made by government officials indicate that the amount that will be paid to ex-prisoners of war and their dependants under the Government’s proposal will aggregate approximately £708,000. If more money is forthcoming from the sale of Japanese assets expropriated during the war it will be distributed because the Government has decided that all moneys received from the disposal of Japanese property in this country confiscated during the war will be made available for the purpose set out in the bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– Proposed new section 13f provides that persons who were members of the armed forces and were disabled during captivity by the Japanese, and the dependants of those who died while they were imprisoned, shall be entitled to receive payments from certain trust funds that will be established. Can the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) inform me which department will administer those funds, and to whom claimants should make application for payment ?
– The position is explained in the second-reading speech which I delivered. Applications for payment may be made to the treasury.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 3638
Debate resumed from the 7th October (vide page 2510), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The Opposition’s main criticism of the bill is that it does not go far enough towards meeting the problems that confront so many people in Australia who urgently need homes. All possible assistance should be given to them. The authority of the Parliament is sought to raise a loan of £30,000,000 for advances to the States for home building under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act 1945 which, as honorable senators will remember, has a life of ten years. That agreement, which was entered into by the previous Labour Government and the States, is being honoured by the present Government. Although the States sought more than £41,000,000 for this purpose, the Commonwealth has agreed to make available to them only £30,000,000, because the Australian Loan Council was not confident that in the ordinary course of loan borrowings £30,000,000 could be obtained from the loan market. The Commonwealth agreed that if only £21,820,000 was forthcoming, it would make up the difference of £8,180,000. Obviously, if the approach to the loan market was a failure the amount that the States could find would be less, and their housing programmes would be correspondingly broken down. The Government appears to be deliberately encouraging a rise of interest rates, thus accentuating the problems confronting prospective home builders. If the interest rate were increased by½ per cent., the additional interest payable by a home builder on a loan of £2,000 would be more than £350. If the home builder had borrowed the former maximum amount of £3,500 the additional interest payable would be £600. In the last ten years building costs have increased by probably more than 100 per cent. Consequently, it is impossible now to build the same number of houses as formerly with a given amount, and each year the people are slipping further behind in the race for homes. This subject is most important in the social development of Australia. It is well recognized that one of the fundamentals of government is to provide homes for the people. The Australian Government should do all possible to assist the people to own their own homes. There is no firmer stake in the country than a person who owns his home. Under existing conditions many young married couples are unable to move straight into their own homes, whereas in days gone by it was the custom to save for several years in order to build homes for themselves.
– Or go home to mother.
– As Senator Cole has suggested, many of them live with their parents until they are able to save sufficient money to enable them to establish a home of their own. I have always been most sympathetic towards would-be home builders. Whether or not the Chifley Government went far enough in its efforts to assist people to obtain homes of their own is arguable, but at least during that Government’s regime finance was available at an interest rate of 3 per cent, to people who wished to build their own homes. Interest rates are now rising, and it is difficult to see how young people will in future be able to afford to build their own homes.
Under the Victorian Co-operative Housing Scheme a person who borrows £2,000 at 3f per cent, interest will repay £3,630 over a period of 25 years. If the rate of interest was 4-J per cent., he would repay £3,971 over that period. Almost half of the money that he paid would be for interest. Therein lies a fundamental weakness in the Government’s approach to this very serious problem. A number of suggestions have been made by honorable senators, including supporters of the Government, from time to time, on how the problem should be tackled. The honorable member for Petrie in the House of Representatives, Mr. Hulme, has suggested that, failing a reduction of interest rates, a married couple should not be required to pay interest on housing loans after they have been in residence for twelve years.
I believe that national credit should be used to assist the people to acquire homes. At the same time the extension of national credit should be closely guarded, because in the long run results that are evil rather than good could flow from such a course. I cannot see that it would be unwise for the Government to use national credit to assist prospective homebuilders at a time when there is a surplus of man-power and material available. It would be unwise to adopt that course if there were not available surpluses of building materials because, human nature being what it is, in those circumstances the builders would probably do less work for a certain amount of money than they would be prepared to do to-day. There is at present very serious unemployment among both skilled and semi-skilled artisans. Brick kilns and saw-mills are closing down, and timber men have been dismissed in thousands. Timber is being stacked in the timber-getting districts of Australia. Less than twelve months ago builders had to wait for months to obtain cement; now it is in over-supply. One of the big cement works in this country could almost double its production if there were a demand for the additional cement. In these circumstances I consider that national credit should be used in order to bring together man-power and materials to provide homes for the people. I point out that homes are a valuable national asset, because trade and commerce follows in the wake of newlyestablished districts. Shopping centres must be established, and in many instances industries spring up.
Apparently the private trading banks are not interested in lending money to people to build homes. When the Government recently lifted credit restrictions there was a flood of applications to the banks for financial assistance for home-building, despite the present high prices. Statements were made - whether truthful or otherwise, I do not know - that the banks were not interested in making money available to home-builders. Doubtless the banks had their own reasons for adopting that policy. The co-operative building societies are in a serious position through lack of funds. This situation presents to the Government an opportunity to do something of great value for the people of Australia.
The bill proposes to make available for home-building £3,000,000 more than was made available for that purpose during the last financial year, but I doubt whether the £30,000,000 that will be made available by this measure could provide as many homes as were provided last year with £24,000,000. Furthermore, the need for houses is growing. According to a recent press report, only half as many houses have been commenced this year as were constructed last year. Therefore, we are facing a very serious state of affairs. As I have already pointed out, the Government is losing in the very important race to provide homes for the people. I am not concerned whether private enterprise or governments provide homes, as long as the Government makes it possible financially for home3 to be built.
As the original legislation was brought in by the former Labour Government, naturally the Opposition supports the bill. However, because of the circumstances that I have outlined, and the fact that the Government is slipping further behind in the race to build homes, I intend to move an amendment, the effect of the adoption of which would be to enable the Government to give further consideration to this subject to see whether it is possible again to stimulate home-building in the community. It is generally admitted that there is substantial unemployment to-day. Although it is most important that we should continue the immigration programme, unless we take steps to provide work for the unemployed it may become necessary to further restrict immigration, or even stop it altogether. If the machinery that has been established to provide for a substantial intake of immigrants is allowed to break down it may take years to re-establish it. The secret of government is to sustain these things and keep them alive. One of the best ways in which to do that is to encourage home building in every possible way. Accordingly, I move -
That all words after “ bill “ be left out, with ii view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ be Withdrawn and redrafted”.
I hope, even at this late stage, that the Government will strengthen and expand the present provisions of the bill in order to encourage the building of homes that are so sadly needed to-day.
.- The purpose of the bill is to authorize the. raising of money for advances to the States for housing purposes. As Senator Armstrong has stated, the measure is not contentious as such. I have no quarrel with the proposed raising and paying out of this money, but I have a very definite quarrel with the way that housing money is being expended by the Queensland Government. I should like the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to inform me whether there is any way in which the wastage of housing funds in Queensland can be prevented. The principal act provides that the State receiving a grant shall be responsible for the administration of a housing trust that it establishes. It is responsible to ensure that the houses shall conform with the plans that have been laid down by the Commonwealth architect. The Commonwealth has guaranteed to subsidize the cost of each imported prefabricated house by £300, and to waive duty. The Commonwealth has stipulated, however, that as far as possible housing settlements shall be established in localities where they will be of value to the basic industries, and that the coal and steel industries shall be given first preference. The method of arriving at the rentals of these buildings is set out in the schedule to the principal act. I refer particularly to the housing settlement in Queensland known as the Zillmere settlement, which has received much publicity in the newspapers recently. The fact that there is a great deal of trouble at that settlement and that structural matters have not been attended to thoroughly by the State Government is not really at issue, because that Government has not so far contradicted any of the allegations that have been made. Consequently, although I do not propose to speak at great length on this subject, I wish to refer to certain matters of which I have had personal experience.
It is difficult for me to ask honorable senators opposite to appreciate the fact that I am trying to keep politics out of this discussion. This is not a political matter, in spite ‘of the statements that have been made concerning it. It is a matter of good money being thrown away. As Senator Armstrong has said, we need more houses and cheaper houses. Waste such as that which exists at Zillmere, together with bad workmanship, prejudices the attainment of that objective. I have examined a great many of the houses at that settlement. Much of the timber is very badly riddled with dry rot because it was allowed to lie about after its arrival in this country. I have seen beams which have not been erected in their proper place according to the plans. In other instances, where twelve beams should have been placed under a room, only seven widely spaced beams have been used. Where such beams have happened to come underneath a drain from a bath, a wash basin or a sink, in not one but in many houses I saw that the beams had been cut through in order to allow the waste pipe to pass through. I suppose that I counted twenty ceilings in which the fibro-cement had cracked owing to faulty alinement of the overhead beams. In 90 per cent, of the houses the downleads from the guttering came down right alongside the corner posts and the stumps of the houses. That was not provided for in the specifications approved by the Commonwealth architects.
The bathrooms are nicely fitted with built-in baths. However, there is no overflow pipe to take away the water. Even though the bath might not be filled to the top, water which is splashed and runs on to the floor remains there. In the hot weather which is usual in Queensland, rot will soon set in.
The original site was not a good one, but it is of little use to speak about that matter now that there are approximately 800 houses on it. The drainage of the site and the lie of the land are so bad that in several instances there is a sea of mud around the houses when it rains ; rivers of rainwater run right underneath the houses. The sumps that have been put in are not of the correct type for the clayey soil that exists in the Zillmere settlement. I have some knowledge of paints, and I should say that the paint used on the houses was mixed with a considerable quantity of turpentine rather than with linseed oil, or else it was mixed with lime to give it a tem porary body which falls away in four or five months.
In a number of instances, instead of the proper fibro material being used, a composite material has been used which, on inquiry, I found had been bought by the contractors in Germany. It had been rejected from a shipment which had been sent to France. I do not blame the Queensland Government for that kind of thing, but I do blame it for its lack of supervision and for allowing material of that kind to be used and such bad workmanship to be performed. In very many instances it is not possible to open the windows of those houses, although, they are only three or four months old. So much for the actual construction of the houses.
Concerning the health angle, the general sanitary arrangements in the area, as far as the workmen are concerned, are the most amazing that I have ever seen near a big city. Close to where the workmen are quartered there are latrines running into cesspits which empty into a big galvanized iron tank - an ordinary 1,000 gallon tank on a lorry. This lorry is used to make two trips a day with the sewage, not to a distant place to dispose of it, but just round the corner, about 400 yards away, where it is dumped straight into a street drain which empties into another big open drain about 4 feet wide, right along side the main road. I do not wish to pursue this subject, but I think that I have given honorable senators an idea of the conditions that have existed in this settlement ever since its establishment. When I inquired the reason for that state of affairs, I was informed that the sanitation people in Queensland had been charging £54 a month to provide the necessary service and that the contractors had objected to that charge. The Brisbane City Council, with the connivance of the Queensland Government, had permitted the present procedure to be followed.
Another matter which particularly prompts me to ask the Minister to go more closely into the proposed expenditure under this bill, is that when timber was coming into this country for use in these prefabricated houses, it was examined and condemned by experts of the Queensland Forestry Commission who requested the Queensland Government not to use it. Despite that request, the contractors were allowed to go ahead and build these houses.
There are many wretched aspects of this matter which I have no intention to raise, because I believe that it is not the function of a private individual to do so. However, there have been dismissals of people who objected to these conditions, and houses have been taken away and erected somewhere else. Those are matters which I do not intend to touch upon, because I think that it is beneath the dignity of the Senate and the House of Representatives to deal with such matters. However, I hope that an investigation will be made by the Australian Government into the position to which I have referred. Whether a royal commission is warranted I do not know. That matter, of course, is outside my province, but I suggest that something of the kind should be considered by the Minister.
The day before yesterday, the annual report of the Queensland Auditor-General was tabled in the Queensland Parliament. It bears out very much of what I have said, although it does not deal with the structural aspect. The report states that the Queensland Housing Commission lost £40,814 during 1951-52, compared with a loss of £27,073 in 1950-51. It explains that that sum includes items such as £5,742 worth of timber short on housing commission jobs, and the loss of five electric stoves from Archerfield. The report also states that 1,485 bags of cement were missing from the Co-ordinator-General’s Department. Incidentally, I should like to ask Senator Armstrong whether he can tell me where I may obtain a few bags of cement in Brisbane. It cannot be obtained because no one has any to spare.
– Has the honorable senator any money in the bank ?
– I have an overdraft, which I understand is better than money in the bank. In view of the neverending torrent of abuse of members of this Parliament by the present Queensland Government because, it is said, the Australian Government will not give the State governments sufficient money, it seems to me that we should put that Government on its mettle by showing just how much money it is losing. It would be interesting to know how much of the money that the Commonwealth has provided has been thrown away on housing in Queensland during the last two years.
At the present time, approximately 40 men are dashing madly round the Zillmere housing settlement, putting in new ceilings and joists and endeavouring to correct the defects to which I have just referred.
– How did the honorable senator find that out?
– I crawled round these houses and had a look at them. I examined them and found out for myself what is going on.
As far as rentals are concerned, I agree entirely with Senator Armstrong. At the present time, these- houses, which the Queensland Government has told us cost an average of £2,715, are let at no less a rent than £3 5s. a week, which is supposed to be the economic rental. It is made up of various charges, including interest at the rate of £3 15s. lOd. per cent, per annum, maintenance £41 per annum, and so on. Yet in the schedule to the original act, the economic rental is supposed to be not more than 20 per cent, of the basic wage, of that State.
– Did not the honorable senator himself find it too expensive to build a house?
– Yes, but I do not 3ee what that has to do with this matter. Private homes of the same size or even larger, and of a very much better type, are fei by private individuals in Brisbane at from 30s. and 35s. a week. Those rentals have been pegged by the Queensland Government. It seems to me that a private landlord would be very lucky to get 30s. a week for houses of the same kind as those at the Zillmere housing settlement. Yet unfortunate people who have nowhere else to live are obliged to pay £3 5s. a week for those houses. That rent has no connexion with the basic wage, which is approximately £10 16s. a week in Queensland, after allowing for the latest increase. An economic rental of not more than 20 per cent., based on a basic wage of £10 16s. a week, would be £2 12s. a week. I do not know whether the Queensland Government is able to depart from, the terms of the original agreement in respect of rentals. I shall put a question on the matter to the Minister during the committee stage of the bill.
Before I resume my seat, I wish to anticipate something that will probably be said by honorable senators opposite. The Canberra Times recently reported that the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) stated that the houses to which I have referred were certified by Commonwealth experts and architects as being structurally sufficient. That is not true. Apparently the honorable member has the wrong story. The truth is that the plans for the structural sufficiency of these buildings, not the actual building, were approved by the Commonwealth experts. I see no reason for engaging in a political discussion on this matter. I want the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to ascertain whether some of this money which is being wasted on the present work by the Queensland Housing Commission can be used to build better and cheaper houses which, can be let for lower rentals. I would not pay £2,710 for the wretched hovels which are being erected. Perhaps the Government of Queensland subscribes to the opinion of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), in another place, who considers that the more hovels there are in an electorate the more likely it is to be a blue-ribbon Labour seat. I do not think that any honorable senator on either side of the chamber would subscribe to that view. I support the bill without reservation, but ask the Minister to examine the matter that I have mentioned.
– I support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Armstrong. I was rather amazed to hear Senator Kendall’s speech. I am not in a position to refute his statements. If the facts are as stated by him somebody has fallen down on the job in Queensland, particularly building inspectors and health inspectors.
However, as I am not in a position to confirm or deny what he has said I shall leave it to honorable senators from Queensland to deal with the subject. If we want a contented community we must provide people with homes and jobs. Although the Government has spent millions of pounds in bringing immigrants to this country the Minister will no doubt agree that an Australian-born citizen is better than any immigrant. However, in spite of the fact that the Government has spent millions of pounds in bringing immigrants here it lacks the money to provide homes for the natural increase of the population. Australia is probably 100,000 homes short of its requirements and every year more homes are required. Sufficient homes are not being built to house the natural increase of Australia’s population.
Tens of thousands of people are without homes despite the fact that there is now plenty of opportunity to build. Once the outcry was for materials. Now we have the materials and also the labour necessary for the construction of houses. That labour is going to waste, particularly in the building industry, and I do not refer to the type of labour that was described by Senator Kendall. We do not have that type of labour in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Government ensures that its workmen do not build hovels. It has building inspectors who ensure that buildings are constructed according to specifications laid down by councils and town planning boards. Tasmania also has health inspectors who ensure that housing conditions do not cause diseases such as could be brought about in Queensland by the conditions described by Senator Kendall. There is an abundant supply of material and men and the nation is- now only short of money for house building. The Government of Tasmania planned to build 1,000 homes during the current financial year, but after the Premier of Tasmania had attended the meeting of the Loan Council that objective had to be reduced to 200 because insufficient money was available to construct 1,000 houses.
The pleasing feature of Senator Kendall’s speech was his suggestion that we should use credit for the building of homes. I am glad that at least one Government supporter agrees that credit should be used if it is necessary. If its use was ever necessary it is necessary now, because many people are homeless while material is lying idle and men are looking for work. Only money is required to build homes. What is the difference between borrowing money from a private money lender at a high rate of interest and issuing it from the Commonwealth Bank on the security of treasury-bills? This measure makes provision for that to be done. The price of homes has risen to an extortionate level. It now costs twice as much to build a home as it cost when the Government took office. A house which would have cost £2,000 to build in 1949 would cost about £4,000 to build at present. The Government gave a pledge to the people that it would not only stabilize the value of the £1, but would add value to it. That is another pledge on which the Government has fallen down. If the Government had even kept the value of the £1 at the level existing when it came to office a home which costs £4,000 now would only cost £2,000.
Rather than issue treasury-bills, the Government prefers to borrow money and pay a high rate of interest. The home builder, in turn, must pay this high rate, together with additional charges. If the Government were to use its powers over the Commonwealth Bank to finance the building of houses it would have to pay only 3 or 4 per cent, for money for that purpose. If the Government wishes to avoid the payment of high rates of interest it has only to utilize the credit of the nation. By utilizing that credit it could provide employment for many people. The cost of setting up a home complete with furniture in a plain and modest fashion is now between £3,500 and £4,000. The same home would have cost half that amount in 1’949. Few of the young people on whom this nation depends for its future development and security can obtain the sum of £3,500 or £4,000. Because of the credit policy of the Government, they would have to provide at least half of that amount in order to finance the purchase of a home. How many young people could obtain even £2,000? They have never had an opportunity to get it. What is the Government doing to enable these young people to obtain sufficient money to buy their own homes? The policy which the Government has pursued during the last two years has increased costs and restricted credit and thus has prevented people from buying their own homes. If the Government wants to have a contented community it must restore the financial conditions of 1949. Then, if homeseekers had a few hundred pounds, it was possible for them to secure a home because the balance of finance was available. That opportunity has now been taken away from them. While the Government has restricted immigration, it has also restricted our own natural increase in population. Young people have delayed their marriage because they have no hope of getting a home. Many couples who have married have found that they have had to live apart. As a result, they have no children. They know that it is ludicrous to bring children into the world where they have no hope of receiving the just treatment and care that young Australians deserve. The members of the Government should place themselves in the position of the average citizen who starts out in life in his early twenties. Not only is it impossible for him to get a home, but it might become impossible for him to get a job. The Government has provided a miserable £30,000,000 to be allocated to the States for the purpose of relieving this most distressing situation. Debate interrupted.
page 3644
– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the .Senate I now formally put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question resolved in the negative.
page 3644
Debate resumed.
– Between 1932 and 1940, a period of 8 years, very few houses were built. In 1939, war came and all available man-power had to be diverted to war pursuits. Once again housing suffered. The war lasted for six years. Thus, for a total period of fourteen years, the building of houses in this country was almost at a standstill. It is not hard to imagine the problem that had to be faced at the end of the war. In addition to meeting the huge demand caused by the lag of fourteen years in the building programme, our housing authorities had to meet the needs of a huge influx of immigrants. To-day, under this Government’s administration, manpower and materials are available, but money is lacking and once again the home building programme is suffering. Instead of fostering the construction of houses, this Government is retarding that work. If the Government would try to honour the pledges it made to the people at the last election to reduce interest rates and to put value back into the £1 our housing problem would very soon be solved.
– It is pleasing to find that the National Parliament is allocating £30,000,000 of loan funds to the States for housing. The importance of adequate housing to any community will not be denied by any one. Unfortunately, many people are inadequately housed in this country and it is essential that the money that the Commonwealth is allocating to the States should be expended to the very best advantage not only from the point of view of the States themselves, but ako from the national point of view. Any waste of money or materials at this stage could be a most serious matter. Senator Kendall’s references to-night to the housing scandal at Zillmere in Queensland gives us food for thought. I think that most honorable senators are now acquainted with what has been happening at Zillmere. Startling revelations were made by Mr. Decker, the member for Sandgate in the Queensland Parliament, and by the honorable member for Lilley in the House of Representatives (Mr. Wight). When the honorable member for Lilley made certain serious charges against the Queensland Housing Commission, he was laughed at by Opposition members and by many other people, but he had the courage to stand to his guns. He fought for an investigation of the
Zillmere scheme by Commonwealth officials and finally inspectors were sent by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to examine the project. Their report substantiated the honorable member’s claims and I believe that this Parliament owes a great debt to him for having had the courage to
Garry his fight to what I believe will be a successful conclusion. Nevertheless, it is most disturbing to know that the serious allegations that he made were correct. He found not merely one or two mistakes, but a whole series of very grave mistakes. He found that the timber in many of the houses was rotten, and that the concrete piers on which some of the houses had been built were so badly placed that the main bearers for the houses had to be packed up with pieces of fibro sheeting. Every one of the 750 houses that had been completed leaked in heavy rain. Instead of the corrugated fibro cement sheets having an overlap of one and one-half corrugations, they had an overlap of only l£ inches. He found also that wrong kind of timber had been used in the construction of the houses. It is a soft timber completely unsuitable for Queensland conditions. Even the front steps of the houses had been built of this soft timber.
– Who was the contractor ?
– The contractor was a French firm. The houses were prefabricated and were brought to this country by the contractor. I understand that the Queensland Minister for Housing, Mr. Hilton, made the purchase himself, when he was on a tour overseas. The houses are being erected under the supervision of the Queensland Housing Commission. The honorable member for Lilley was able to show not only that faulty materials had been used, but also that construction was bad. Apparently the supervision exercised by the Queensland Housing Commission was as rotten as the houses. I know that honorable senators opposite do not like to hear these things, but it is tragic to think that such waste can take place at a time when houses are so scarce. The Zillmere project provides for the erection of 886 houses. Of those, 750 have been completed and it is alarming, indeed, to learn that serious faults have been found in such a large undertaking. One of the members of Parliament who took this matter up originally claimed that a gang of fifteen men was employed continuously on the project repairing houses. When the honorable member for Lilley made hi3 charges in the House of Representatives, the Queensland Minister for Housing denied them, but what happened when an inspection was to be made by Commonwealth officers ? A gang of about 40 of the Queensland Housing Commission’s best men was set to work to repair the houses. When those men were detailed for the job, they were told that the work was “ hush, hush “ and that nothing was to be said about it. Surely that indicated that both the honorable member for Lilley and Mr. Decker had indeed found something very rotten at Zillmere. If the honorable member for Lilley had not persisted in his charges the whole matter would have been glossed over.
The Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement provides for the repayment of the loans over a period of 53 years, but it is estimated that because of the poor materials and workmanship in the Zillmere houses, many of them will not last even ten years. Any one who has seen the houses will agree that that is not an exaggeration. I am. informed that the paint is peeling off in sheets from houses that were painted only three months ago. I have in my possession some pictures showing both poor workmanship and faulty materials. The first shows a badly cracked main bearer. One does not have to be a builder to know that that is a shocking piece of work. Another picture shows that, apart from 4-in. packing case nails, a piece of secondhand hoop iron is the only tie from the bearers to the superstructure. A third picture illustrates clearly the faulty setting of the piers. Several pieces of fibro-cement sheeting have been used to fill the space between the top of a pier and the main bearer of the house.
One would expect a governmentsponsored housing scheme to have sanitary provisions that were beyond criticism, but the honorable member for Lilley found the sanitation and drainage in the Zillmere scheme to be of a very low standard indeed. In fact, the standard was so low that it contravened the Queensland Government’s own health laws. It also broke the Brisbane City Council’s regulations relating to drainage, I have another picture which shows a mobile tank pumping urine and waste water from showers into a tank from which it is pumped into a gutter in a back street. The effluent then drains into a canal which runs along the main road from Zillmere to Sandgate. There are many stagnant pools. Surely those photographs clearly demonstrate the need for close Commonwealth supervision of projects such as this. As I have said, as the result of the charges made by the honorable member for Lilley, the Minister for National Development sent two inspectors to Zillmere. They found that the charges were well founded. The Government took so serious a view of this matter that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made a statement about it in the House of Representatives and a second report is to be made by Commonwealth inspectors. Those inspectors will, of course, be public servants and, as I have frequently heard honorable senators opposite praise the integrity of the Public Service, I am sure that they will agree that the report will be free of political colour.
Whilst it is true that the money that the Commonwealth is advancing to the States for housing purposes will be repaid, I remind the Senate that the Commonwealth is paying a subsidy of up to £300 each on imported prefabricated homes. In addition, it shares maintenance costs with the States. Clearly, therefore, there is a possibility that the Commonwealth will lose a lot of money as the result of faulty supervision by the Queensland Government at Zillmere. This, of course, will mean a heavier burden on the Australian taxpayers. I make these statements because honorable senators should be cognizant of the situation that faces us in relation to housing. With the shortage of loan funds, it is essential that the moneys made available for this purpose each year should be wisely expended and that the houses built should be of a standard worthy of Australians. A lot of forethought should be given to the planning of houses suitable to the areas in which they are to be built. The people of Queensland need houses of a special type suitable for the climatic conditions that exist there. They should be of a type suitable for tropical and sub-tropical regions and not necessarily of the same type as those erected in the southern States. Design should be simplified with the emphasis on the comfort of tenants or owners. Designing architects should concentrate on inside comfort and less outside show. Senator Tate can speak much more adequately on that subject than I can. We all know that the cost of houses is greatly increased by the inclusion of unnecessary features. Housing authorities should keep prominently in mind the need for simplification of design and maximum comfort.
The housing scheme has been based on false premises. Responsibility for construction should have been handed over to local governing authorities and not to the State governments. Just as the Australian Government, operating from the seat of Government at Canberra, suffers from the disabilities of its remoteness from many parts of the Commonwealth, so in many instances the governments of the States are located in centres separated by vast distances from large areas of the States which they control. In Queensland the government is located in Brisbane, which is situated in the southern end of the State. It is very difficult for that government to control housing schemes implemented in the far distant parts of the State. Authorities on the spot are best capable of supervising construction and maintaining the houses after they have been completed. Many officers associated with the housing authorities of the States share my view on this matter. Individuals who build their own houses keep a careful check on the builders, and after the houses have been completed they give them very much more care than a State government could possibly do. The home owner has an asset in which he takes a great deal of pride. What applies to the home owner applies also in some degree to local governing authorities which could give closer attention to housing schemes than could the governments of the Common wealth or the States. The people should be encouraged to own their own homes by the provision of liberal terms upon which they can acquire them. Nothing tends to make the nation stronger than the widespread private ownership of houses and land. Home-owners and land-owners feel that they have a stake in the country.
Housing authorities should be careful to avoid monotony of design and shoddy workmanship which may make housing settlements the slum areas of the future. Houses should be so designed and constructed as to enable their owners or tenants to live in them with the maximum degree of comfort. Low cost, suitability of design and comfort should be the key note of all housing schemes.
– As all honorable senators are aware, there are two kinds of evidence. We have just listened to the hear-say variety from Senator Wood. The honorable senator has no first-hand knowledge of the Zillmere housing project. He has never visited it, nor has he examined the hygienic conditions that exist in the Zillmere district. He has repeated almost verbatim a speech that was made in another place by a gentleman who set out to attack the Queensland ‘ Government. I shall state the facts regarding the housing project at Zillmere. These are houses of the prefabricated type which are being erected by a Trench firm of contractors. The houses have been approved by the Australian Government. The most interesting feature of this attack is that the inspections made by some of the snoopers - one of them a member of the House of Representatives
– Order! I ask the honorable senator to refrain from using such unparliamentary language.
– If he is not a snooper, he is a. kind of political pimp.
– Order ! The honorable senator is not in order in using such language.
– The inspections were not made by public servants. I contend, Mr. President, that I am in order in using the word “ snooper “.
– Order! The honorable senator must withdraw the word “ snooper “.
– I withdraw it, and I substitute the word “ pimp “.
– Order! The honorable senator must also withdraw the word “ pimp “.
– The word “pimp” is in the dictionary.
– Order! The honorable senator must withdraw the word without reservation.
– I withdraw the word. Inexperienced members of the Parliament, or political chickens, went to Zillmere, and examined the houses that were being erected there, and found that they contained certain defects. All of that is admitted. But the houses had already been condemned by the Queensland Housing Commission, and no payment had been made to the contractors in respect of them. All the faults in construction that were narrated in detail by Senator Kendall may have been found. I make no statement about that aspect of the matter. The point is that the Queensland Government had not paid for the faulty houses. These facts have been given prominence in the Queensland Parliament.
– How did the honorable senator ascertain that the Queensland Government had not paid for the houses ?
– I take it from the Minister’s interjection that the Australian Government proposes to meet a substantial proportion of the cost of the houses. If that is so, it has displayed very poor business acumen if it has not taken steps to safeguard its interests.
– The honorable senator has said that the Queensland Government has not paid for the houses. That is quite incorrect.
– Order !
– If the Queensland Government can be blamed for the faulty construction at Zillmere, the Australian Government is equally culpable because it is financially interested in the scheme and will be obliged to meet a portion of its cost. If the Government had any governing ability it would have examined the plans and the materials used by the contractors and by periodic inspections would have ensured that the work was properly carried out. It is important to remember that these homes were prefabricated in France and transported to Queensland for erection. This Government had the fullest opportunity to examine the materials used when they were being cleared through the customs. The criticism made by Senator Kendall and Senator Wood is not levelled at what has been done at Zillmere but is a cunningly concealed attack on the Queensland Government. They should have directed their attack against the contracting firm. But honorable senators opposite support the contract system. They support what was done at Zillmere just as they support that principle as it is applied in the field of commerce and industry. They support private enterprise in season and out of season, but because faults have been found in houses erected under contract to the Queensland Government, they contend that that Government is at fault, and has done something seriously wrong. We have plenty of evidence of the faults of the contract system, particularly as it is applied to the building industry. We know of many instances in which contractors have failed to use the proper proportions of sand and cement in the construction of concrete buildings. We have had evidence that buildings erected under the contract system have fallen to pieces within a year or two of their completion. The attack made by Senator Wood and Senator Kendall should have been directed at the contract system, and not at the Queensland Government. The Zillmere scheme covers the construction of more than 800 houses. When large numbers of houses have to be constructed hurriedly, the quality of workmanship put into them is often not equal to that put into the construction of houses in smaller groups, and erected with less haste. We also know that the lands are not fully prepared and that the hygienic conditions associated with the building scheme are not perfect. It is not possible to have them in proper condition. If I were to make comparisons, I would point out that if a visit is made to areas other than Zillmere, it will be seen that hygiene has full attention not only from the State Government but also from the Brisbane City Council.
Why are the houses necessary? Tinder its immigration policy, the Australian Government is bringing hundreds of thousands of immigrants into Australia. Naturally they cause a shortage of houses. The Australian Government has indicated that it will continue its immigration policy and that it will leave to the States the problem of providing housing accommodation for Australians. If the Government accepted full responsibility in respect of housing, it would engage actively in the provision of houses instead of allocating a paltry sum in respect of each house that is constructed.
The activities of the Queensland Government in the field of housing have been mentioned. For many years it has provided houses under its own schemes. Many of them were built 30 or 40 years ago and they are constructed as well as any in Australia. There are more homeowners in Queensland on a population basis than in any other State. The proportion of home-owners is 78 per cent. That speaks for itself. People do not buy houses that are badly constructed. They do not want them if the roof is leaking or if the paint is peeling off as Senator Wood has alleged. Those complaints do not exist in Queensland. Some mention has been made of the treatment of the sewage in the area that is under discussion. The sewerage might not be completed yet because the whole scheme was not started until two years ago. If the Government will not provide finance for sewerage, the Queensland Government cannot sewer the areas. When I visited the area the picture that I saw was very different from that which has been presented by several senators. I saw gerberas and roses growing in the gardens. There were beautiful lawns in front of the houses indicating that the people were interested in their dwellings. Vegetables were growing in the kitchen gardens. The people seemed happy and satisfied with the homes. They know that when they go into houses that have been recently constructed they may have to suffer some temporary inconvenience, particularly with regard to footpaths and roads. They may have to wait some time for electric light and gas. Those shortages are all associated with the actions of the Australian Government, and the State Government is not entirely at fault. The finance that has been provided by the Australian Government for the States is quite inadequate. The Government should give serious consideration not only to the provision of finance for housing but also to active participation in the construction of roads and footpaths and the reticulation of power, gas and water.
Question put -
That the words proposed’ to be left out (Senator Armstrong’s amendment) be left out.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)
AYES: 17
NOES: 29
Majority 12
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
– in reply - I shall be very brief in my reply, and I shall refer first to the Zillmere housing project that has been the subject of comment. By and large, the criticism that has been made by honorable members on this side of the chamber has been reasonably accurate,
– Politically accurate.
- Senator Benn’s statement that the Queensland. Government had not paid for the work is completely inaccurate. The Queensland Government has paid the whole of the money that is payable under the terms of the contract to the contractor, with the exception of the retention money, which at present amounts to £112,000. Three points should be mentioned. The first is that the French firm of contractors has made every possible endeavour to rectify the work that was unsatisfactory. It has made a genuine attempt to put things right. From the point of view of the Australian Government, the second question is whether the houses that are entitled to a subsidy have been built in accordance with the structural efficiency that was set out in the plans upon which the Government was to provide the subsidy. If the houses have not been completed according to that specification, a serious situation arises. That matter is now under investigation by the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station. The third point is that there is little doubt that the houses will be expensive to maintain over a long period of years The incompetence of the Queensland Government will result in expense to the Australian Government. I shall make a political point’ to which I do not think anybody could object. The Queensland Government has criticized the Commonwealth for not making sufficient loan moneys available to it. In that State, approximately 800 houses have been constructed at a cost of from £2,500 to £3,000 each. That is a substantial amount. In truth, the Queensland Government has not competently supervised the expenditure of the money that has been made available to it for housing. Therefore, it is unreasonable for that Government to complain because further moneys are not being made available to it.
– That is only the Minister’s personal opinion. It is a completely ex parte statement.
– I have applied the facts of the matter logically. Senator Armstrong has stated that during this year only half as many houses have been commenced in New South Wales as were completed last year. According to figures that have been supplied to me, 26,482 houses and flats were commenced in the year 1950-51 compared with 25,419 in the year 1951-52. There has been a decline of only about 1,000 units commenced.
It has been claimed that there is substantial unemployment in the building industry. That contention is not substantiated by departmental figures. Although I am unable to cite statistics, I do not believe that there is any appreciable unemployment in the building industry, although there Ls not so much overtime being worked now as there was a couple of years ago. There is still a dearth of some classes of tradesmen.
Some honorable senators opposite have asserted that additional finance should be made available to the States for the purpose of housing. I point out that the amount of £30,000,000 that will be provided to the States under the provisions of the bill is £8,180,000 more than was originally contemplated. That, in itself, is an appreciable Commonwealth contribution when it is realized that in other forms of governmental activity, the Commonwealth will expend £40,000,000 on home-building programmes during the present financial year.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– Although Tasmania will not. benefit from the provisions of the bill, housing is of such national importance that I enthusiastically support the measure. Within a very short period therewere two world wars and a depression. I contend that those crimes against society have left a scar on the face of th& nation. During the economic depression of the ‘thirties very few youths were apprenticed to the building trades. Consequently, when the housing position became acute after World War II. wewere desperately short of skilled tradesmen. In its wisdom, the former LabourGovernment embarked upon a joint Commonwealth and State housing scheme, which has been continued by the present Government. I believe that we should do all in our power to assist the people who are in need of homes to obtain them, because nothing tends to raise the status of citizenship more than does the ownership of a home. I believe that a man becomes a better citizen when he acquires a stake in the country. Security is very important, whether it he in relation to a home or a job-
– Or a seat in the Senate !
– Tes. I appreciate Senator Sandford’s interjection. Security makes for contented citizenship. I support Senator Armstrong’s contention that an objective of this National Government should be to make every man his own landlord. If we are to become a great nation we must get rid of the means test in relation to social services, and overcome the lack of homes for our people. Those two matters are inter-related. Generally, there is not’ so much sickness among people who own their own home as among other sections of the community, because worry causes nervous disorders. The provision of homes is a national responsibility. The sooner we all get together in this matter the better it will be. It is a national tragedy that there are so many homeless young couples in the community. This fact will leave a mark on the nation greater than the scars of war which, although they last for a while, disappear with the generation. The conditions under which many people have lived during the last few years will leave a mark on the nation that it will take a long time to eradicate. I whole-heartedly support the bill.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 3651
Debate resumed from the 21st October (vide page 3364), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The provisions of the bill are based upon the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, a body with whose work we are all familiar. It has been the practice of all oppositions and all political parties in the Parliament from time to time to support the. recommendations of the commission, and accordingly the Opposition supports the. measure: Occasionally there have been criticisms of the methods that are employed’ by the commission and one might, at some other hour - I say that advisedly - embark upon a very interesting discussion upon that subject. I shall resist the temptation to do so to-night, and shall content myself by paying tribute to representatives of other States who have quite generously each year supported a bill that has been introduced for this purpose. In other words, they come to the financial’ aid of what might be called the junior States which suffer special disabilities. So, on behalf of the Opposition, I say to the. good representatives of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, thanks for their continued co-operation in this matter.
.- Although Tasmania has been termed a claimant State, I’ am beginning to wonder whether, in fact, it is a claimant State. Two of the so-called non-claimant States, Victoria and New South “Wales, have claimed money from the Commonwealth for their hydro-electric schemes. The Commonwealth is providing money from revenue for the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric undertaking, which will directly benefit those two States. It appears that they are now becoming claimant States by seeking grants from the revenue of the Commonwealth.
I want to enter a protest about expenditure on social services. The report of the commission reveals that Tasmania has an unfavorable adjustment of £347,000 in respect of social services, and I believe that to be quite unfair. The sum granted to the claimant States in respect of social services is based upon the average .expenditure of the claimant States, upon such services. I want to deal with education. The standard of education in the primary schools of Tasmania is match higherthan in the other States.
– That is questionable.
– It is not, according, to the figures that I have. Senator Robertson is not far out, because the average expenditure upon education in “Western Australia is only a few shillings less than in Tasmania. The high expenditure upon education in Tasmania is due, not to the wages paid to the teachers, hut to the many amenities that are provided for pupils. Because Tasmania has done a great deal in that field, it has been fined a considerable sum by the commission. It is at a disadvantage because the non-claimant States have not raised their standard of education to the same degree as it has done, and have not expended money to the same degree upon, the provision of educational amenities. The average expenditure upon education in the three non-claimant States is 90s, 9d. per head of population. In Tasmania, the figure is 110s 9d., or £1 more. Consequently, Tasmania has a debit balance, if I may describe it that way, of £287,590 in respect of education. The 6 per cent, adjustment reduces that figure by £17,255, so Tasmania is being fined £270,235 by the commission. I do not think it is fair that it should be fined to that degree, because it has expended quite a large sum of moneyto raise the standard of the amenities provided for school children. As I have said, the high rate of expenditure upon education in Tasmania is not due to the salaries paid to teachers, because in New South Wales, where 95s. 7d. per head of population is expended upon education, the salary scale for teachers is much higher than in Tasmania. I do not blame the Commonwealth Grants Commission for the disadvantageous position in which Tasmania is placed in this connexion, because it must act in accordance with a certain formula, but I do blame the non-claimant States. They have not raised their standard of education sufficiently to make it comparable with that in Tasmania. If they did so, Tasmania would be treated more generously by the commission.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a. second, time, and passed (through its remaining- stages, without’ amendment or debate;.
page 3652
Debate resumed from the 22nd October (vide page3481), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The Opposition supports this measure. The Auditor-General, standing on principle, objected to- an increase proposed to-be granted tohim being included- in the annual Estimates, andj therefore, being under the control of the Executive. The Government, very properly, has recognized the principle for which theAuditorGeneral has con-tended, and has introduced a separate measure to achieve its original purpose.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 3652
The following papers were presented : -
Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for - Postal purposes - Maxwell, New South Wales.
Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority purposes - Cocnna, New South. Wales. Public Service: Act - Appointments - Department
Attorney-General’s - E. Smith.
Defence Production - A. B. Farrar,66. Groves.
Senate adjourned at 11.38 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 October 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1952/19521023_senate_20_220/>.