Senate
5 November 1952

20th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4154

QUESTION

TRACTORS

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

– Has the Go vernment’s attention been directed toa report that appeared in the Melbourne Age of the 1st November that tractor production at the Geelong, Victoria, works of the International HarvesterCompany Proprietary Limited, has ceased and that 450 employees are affected ? Will the Government: ascertain whether it is a fact that these works have closed down mainly as the result of the accumulation in Australia of large stocks of tractors imported from other countries? If that is so, as has been claimed by the managing director of the International Harvester Company of Australia Proprietary Limited, will the Government consider the advisability of refusing to issue further import licences for tractors ?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Iassure the honorable senator that the Minister for Trade and Customs and others interested in this problem have already conferred with the management of the International Harvester Company of Australia Proprietary Limited, and that the difficulties that have arisen are now under consideration. If the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper I shall obtain an answer to the various points that he has raised.

page 4154

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator CORMACK:
VICTORIA

– Yesterday the

Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation answered a question that Ihad placed on the notice-paper about air services. I absolve the Minister completely from any suggestion that he attempted to misinform me because it is obvious that, to reply to my question, technical information had to be obtained from the Department of Civil Aviation. Whilst I agree that Ministers have a right to refuse to answer questions which relate to matters of policy, I submit that when an answeris supplied, it should be accurate. I consider that the officer of the Department of Civil Aviation who prepared the answer to my question has been guilty of treating the Parliament with contumely.

I shall now repeat a portion of my question in the hope that it will be answered honestly. I asked -

Is it a fact that the journey from Melbourne ito Sydney by a jet-propelled aircraft of the most modern series would be only nine or ten minutes less than a piston-engined aircraft of the most modern series? t specifically included the words “ of the most modern series “ to indicate the most modern aircraft now operated in the world. I also .asked -

Has consideration been given to the purchase of Bound, second-hand, piston-engined aircraft still with a long life before them, for illustration such as 13 CO and the Constellation series, which are capable of providing a fast service more cheaply owing to their lower capital cost as used .aircraft ?

To make my meaning quite clear to the Department of Civil Aviation, I now add the words -

In view of the fact that such series are being replaced by jet-propelled aircraft such as the Comet in Australian governmentcontrolled airlines?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I appreciate the honorable senator’s point of view. I point out, however, that honorable senators should not expect Ministers in this chamber, who represent Ministers in another place, to be in possession of detailed knowledge of matters that concern departments other than their own. I shall forward a copy of the honorable senator’s question to the Department of Civil Aviation and ask that a reply be furnished. 1 shall post the reply to the honorable senator as soon as it is available.

Senator CHAMBERLAIN:
TASMANIA

– As air travellers to and from the north-west coast of Tasmania are eager to enjoy the same facilities as are provided in other parts of the Commonwealth, is the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation able to state when the additional runway will be constructed at the Pardoe aerodrome, Devonport, and when lighting facilities for night flying will be provided at the Wynyard aerodrome?

Senator McLEAY:

– The honorable senator was good enough to advise me of his intention to ask the question. The officers of the Department of Civil Aviation have furnished the following reply : -

At Devonport, there is at present one runway and one strip. Discussions are being held with the operating companies to decide whether or not another strip is necessary. No decision has yet been reached. The subject of provision of night flying facilities at Wynyard has been continually under review since June, 1950. We have no knowledge of any plans to extend operations which would require the night use of Wynyard. Oil flares which are in use at present appear to meet the circumstances adequately.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

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

  1. Is it a fact that Trans-Australia Airlines intends to withdraw its Convair aircraft from the Tasmanian service during the coming summer tourist season?
  2. If so (a) will the Minister consult the Australian National Airlines Commission with a view to having at least one daily Convair service to Tasmania maintained during December, January and February; (6) is the withdrawal of this Convair part of the rationalization plan of the Government, and why is Tasmania to be singled out to be deprived of the service that can be provided by Convair aircraft which is not available from other aircraft companies?
Senator McLEAY:

– The Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the. following answer : -

Trans-Australia Airlines advises that the time table for the summer season provides foi a Convair service daily non-stop from Melbourne to Hobart on the southbound journey, and a call at Launceston on the northbound return journey. Every endeavour is made to make Convair aircraft available to the greatest possible extent to meet the heavy demand on interstate trunk routes. The arrangements have not been affected by any rationalization proposals. Increased DC3 services will operate to Tasmania to cope with summer tourist traffic and the best possible connexions with Trans-Australia Airlines services in and out of Melbourne from other States.

page 4155

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether it is a fact that the Prince of Wales Hospital at Randwick is being vacated by the Repatriation Department and is to be transferred to the Hospitals Commission of New South Wales? If the hospital is to be so transferred, will the Minister or his officers negotiate with representatives of the commission with a view to ensuring that employees of the hospital, who have given long service to the Repatriation Department, shall be retained by the commission?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I shall be pleased to cause investigations to be made into the matter raised by the honorable senator. If the hospital is to be transferred to the Hospitals Commission of New South Wales, as he has suggested, I shall be glad to see what can be done about the retention of the staff.

page 4156

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the importance of the life-saving work that is conducted by the blood transfusion and blood plasma services of the Australian Red Cross Society, will the Minister representing the Minister for Health ask the Government to undertake full financial responsibility for such services and thus relieve the society of its anxiety in that connexion and enable it to continue its humanitarian work?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I appreciate the value of the work that is being done by the Red Cross Society through its bloodtransfusion services. I shall be glad to bring the matter under the notice of the Minister for Health and obtain a reply for the honorable senator as early as possible.

Senator COOPER:

– On the 29th October, Senator Hannaford asked the following question : -

In connexion with the formation of State committees to be appointed by regulations issued under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act, have assurances been given to the friendly societies’ dispensaries that they will be granted representation on these committees? As the Minister for Health has issued notices inviting the submission of the names of two pharmacists as the nominees of the friendly societies’ dispensaries, and in view of the contention of the Friendly Societies Medical Association Incorporated of South Australia that such representation would not adequately cover the interests of its members, will the Minister consider the appointment of at least one executive officer of the association to the State committees ?

The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: -

The Friendly Societies Dispensaries Association has been asked to submit a panel of names comprising two chemists from each State, in order that a representative of the dispensaries may be appointed to each State committee. Having regard to the purpose for which these particular committees are being set up, I am of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to appoint lay persons to such committees.

page 4156

QUESTION

JUTE

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 10th October last, during the debate on the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill 1952-53, Senator Henty requested some information about the proposed vote of £5,250,000 for imports of jute and jute products, less a similar amount recoverable from sales. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following information which should clear up any misunderstanding of the position : -

Under the jute plan whichhas been in operation since 1940, the jute control, operating within the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, is responsible for ensuring supplies of jute and jute goods for all Australian requirements. Purchases are made from time to time at the best possible prices ruling in the Calcutta market. The cost of all purchases for a season is averaged and the price to users is fixed on this basis. The price provides for the recovery by the Commonwealth of all actual costs incurred, including cost of administration, and no profit is made by the Commonwealth. During recent years, the supply positionhas been most difficult due to factors outside the control of Australia, which limited the goods available to the various purchasing countries. These conditions necessitated frequent direct Government to Government negotiations to ensure supplies for primary producers and other essential users.

In the most difficult supply years of 1949. 1950 and early 1951 these representations resulted in goods being purchased by the Commonwealth at Indian ceiling prices, when the ruling black-market prices in Calcutta were as much as 50 per cent. higher in some cases. These activities assured all essential supplies of containers at prices which compared favorably with any country in the world.

Having the previous difficult conditions in mind, it was considered most desirable to safeguard supplies for all Australian users, and purchases were made accordingly during 1951-52 when goods and quotas were available.

However, the Indian Government subsequently reduced Indian export duties and abolished export quotas. The Calcutta market prices also fell considerably.

These factors could not be foreseen and have been the primary cause of buyer resistance affecting sales of goods held in Australia.

Regarding the amount of £4,200,000 referred to as a loss by the Commonwealth on jute transactions for the year 1951-52, it is explained that this is the amount of expenditure in excess of receipts for this financial year and is covered ,by goods to that value held in stock by the Government. These goods will be sold at cost to users. The total amount in question will be recovered by the Commonwealth in this manner and no loss is anticipated. At the time these purchases were made for the anticipated requirements from January, 1952, on, it could not bc foreseen that seasonal conditions and other factors would cause a slackening in demand for containers. A normal demand at the normal time was anticipated and purchases were made under pressure from various organizations, but sales for the first half of .1952 were considerably below the same period of 1951. This was due to a number oi causes, including seasonal conditions, deferment of purchases byl users until the latest possible date, and the tight credit position operating generally.

Provision has been made for purchases of jute and jute goods during 1952-53 to a maximum amount of £5,250,000, but only those goods considered essential for requirements will be bought. In this connexion it is now anticipated that expenditure for 1952-53 will be considerably below the figure stated.

I should like to say that during the period that I acted for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture I was in close contact with Mr. Stevenson, who handled this difficult matter. Had it not been for his skill and application to duty on his several trips to India, there would have been a serious shortage of jute in Australia for wool bales and wheat bags, which would have been very embarrassing to our primary producers. They cannot expect the Commonwealth to be at a loss because of the subsequent reduction of Indian prices for jute and jute containers.

page 4157

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator CAMERON:

– I preface a question to the Minister for Trade and Customs by pointing out that approximately 30,000 unemployed persons are at present in receipt of government relief, and that approximately 6,000 more persons will become eligible for relief during the next two weeks as a result of the recent dismissals of railway and tramway employees in New South “Wales and dismissals from engineering and other works in Victoria. Does the Government intend to implement any scheme during the forthcoming recess of the Parliament to provide employment for these unemployed persons, in order to increase production, and so that they may become selfsupporting ?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Government is doing all in its power to provide work for unemployed persons. It is to be regretted that some prominent members of the Australian Labour party, are running around the country talking depression. This is causing more harm than is any other factor.

page 4157

QUESTION

TEA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– On the 22nd October, Senator Morrow asked the following question: -

Will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the Senate of the present landed cost per lb. of tea? Will he also state the amount of subsidy paid by the Government on each pound of tea and the retail price of that commodity ?

I now have pleasure in supplying the following answers : -

  1. The actual landed cost of individual shipments of tea imported by the Tea Importation Board varies over a wide range. However, the average landed cost of tea imported in the three months ended the 30th September, 1952, was about 4s. per lb.
  2. Tea is invoiced to wholesalers by the Tea Importation Board at a fixed rate of 2s. 8id. per lb. An average subsidy on tea imported in the three months ended the 30th September, 1952, was therefore about ls. 3d. per lb.
  3. The present retail price of tea, as fixed by the State prices authorities, is 4s. per lb. in capital cities.

page 4157

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

– Some weeks ago I asked the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he was in a position to indicate when the periodical Senate election will be held. He then stated that he thought that before the end of the current sessional period he would be in a position to give some information to the Senate. In view of the general expectation that the sittings will end this week, is he able to make any statement upon that matter of great interest to all honorable senators? If he is not able to state the date of the election, will he indicate when he thinks the Government will make an announcement upon the subject?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– As far as I am aware, the Government has not yet considered the date upon which the Senate election will be held, although I have no doubt that it is a matter which will soon be considered. If the date is fixed during the recess, I promise to let the honorable senator know as soon as I am in a position to do so.

page 4158

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF “WOMEN

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– On the 18th September, Senator Robertson asked the following question: -

Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that the United Nations Economic and Social Council has called on all nations to incorporate in their national law the principle of equal pay for women doing the same work as men? Is he aware that the British House of Commons has endorsed this doctrine of equal pay, and has approved a private resolution calling on the government to fix an early date upon which women in the civil service, the teaching profession, local government employment and other public services will receive the same pay as men doing similar work? As Australia was a signatory to the United Nations Charter, will the Minister indicate Australia’s attitude in this matter?

I now supply the following information : -

The United Nations Economic and Social Council, at its fourteenth session, adopted by eleven votes to none, with six abstentions, a resolution recommending that States members of the International Labour Organization introduce as soon as possible equal remuneration for equal work for men and women workers, in accordance with the International Labour Organization Convention and supplementary recommendation which was adopted by the 1951 session of the International Labour Conference. The United Nations Economic and Social Council resolution also urged adoption and implementation in all countries not members of the International Labour Organization of the principle of equal pay for equal work without discrimination on the basis of sex. Lastly, the resolution noted with satisfaction that the Commission on Human Rights has decided to include in the draft international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights an article providing for the principle of equal remuneration for equal work for men and women workers. When the report of the Government delegates to the 1951 session of the International Labour Conference was tabled in the Senate, the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service announced that a further report, setting out the action which the Government had taken or proposed to take with respect to the conventions and recommendations adopted by the conference, including those on equal remuneration, would, bc tabled at a later stage. This document is being prepared at the present time and will bo tabled as soon :as possible.

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister’s attention been directed to a recently reported statement by the Commonwealth Commissioner of Taxation, Mr. McGovern, drawing attention to the substantially lower incomes of women than of men, and stating that, in the year under review, not one woman taxpayer in seven received more than £400 a year, although two men out of every three received more than that sum, and that nearly six men in every ten received between £400 and £1,000 a year compared with only one woman in ten? Will the Minister ensure that those figures shall be taken into consideration when the principle of equal pay for equal work, without discrimination on the basis of sex, is being discussed?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I shall be happy to pass the honorable senator’s suggestion on to the department concerned.

page 4158

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Army a question relating to national service trainees who travel by rail from camp to their homes on. leave. In Western Australia it was announced in the Weekly Notes of the Commissioner for Railways that national service trainees would be permitted to travel from camp to their homes at a concession rate of 7s. 6d. As there are only two national service training centres in Western Australia, the distance which most of the boys have to travel to their homes is far greater than it is in the more closely settled States. However, it was subsequently announced that the concession rate for rail travel would be limited to journeys of up to 100 miles. Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Army aware that concession rail travel for national service trainees who travel from camp to their homes on leave is limited to distances of 100 miles, and that unreasonable expense has been incurred by young men from country areas as a result of this limitation? In view of the long distances that have to be travelled by trainees in Western Australia in order to reach their homes, and the fact that the initial announcement concerning concessional travel was not explicit, will the Minister arrange for concessional travel to be made from national service- training camps to the home towns of all trainees? Will be give instructions for the refund of the excess expense incurred by trainees who paid more than the concession fare rate applying to members whose homes were within 100 miles of their training centre?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have no knowledge of the details, of the matter which the honorable senator has raised. I suggest that he should make representations to the Minister for the Army whom I shall request to reply direct to the honorable senator after the Senate rises.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Army say whether it is a fact that national service trainees are medically examined upon entering camps but not upon discharge from camps. If that is so, I can foresee great difficulties should a national service trainee develop an illness which necessitates medical treatment after he has returned from camp.

Senator SPOONER:

– I regret that I cannot answer the question. I shall refer the matter to the Minister for the Army.

page 4159

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– On the 21st October, Senator Wedgwood asked the following question : -

Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister state whether the Government will investigate the desirability of providing special education and rehabilitatory facilities for mentally retarded children through the Commonwealth Department of Education?

I have been supplied with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

Education is primarily a State responsibility and some measure of educational provision for mentally retarded children has been made by each of the States. It must be remembered, of course, that there are many degrees of mental retardation, ranging from mild backwardness to mental deficiency. The causes of these conditions, too, are many and varied. Consequently, the kind of educational provision suitable for one child might be quite inappropriate for another; nor would exclusion from the normal schools necessarily he the best treatment for all. It is quite possible, therefore, that provisions already operative are quite adequate for some types of mentally retarded children while other types might be inadequately provided for. Even, though these children, like- any other children, are in relation to education the responsibility of the

State in which they reside, the Commonwealth Government is aware that every handicapped child who, by education and rehabilitation, is enabled to earn his own living, thereby becomes a productive citizen. The Commonwealth Office of Education has, for some years, been interested in matters relating to the educational well-being of handicapped children, including the deaf, the blind, and the spastic as well as the mentally retarded. So far, however, its effective work has been mainly concerned with the deaf and partially deaf, and the spastic child. This work has not taken the form of actually providing assistance for these children - this has been regarded as a State responsibility - but instead has concerned itself with the scientific study of the educational problems involved, the dissemination of information, the preparation of reports and the maintenance of fruitful liaison with the State authorities - activities all designed to stimulate improved provision for these children. The Commonwealth Government is not contemplating providing special education and rehabilitatory facilities for mentally retarded children. No inquiry is contemplated by the Commonwealth that would reveal the adequacy, or otherwise, of the present position. Should, however, the appropriate authorities in the various States together initiate such inquiry, the Commonwealth Government would be pleased to give consideration to contributing some assistance, as was done in the case of deaf and partially deaf children. The Commonwealth Government contributed towards the expenses of, and the Commonwealth Office of Education assisted with the arrangements for, the visit to Australia in 1950 of Professor and Dr. Ewing for the purpose of advising State and Commonwealth authorities on the adequacy of current provision for these children, and the directions that improvements should take.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Does the qualification for a Commonwealth scholarship, so far as the parent’s income is concerned, depend upon the amount of the parent’s actual salary or his taxable income?
  2. If the criterion is now actual salary, will the Minister say whether the substitution of taxable income would have the Government’s approval ?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The Prime Minister has furnished the following answer : -

Commonwealth scholarships are awarded competitively, on the basis of a candidate’s marks for his six best subjects in the matriculation examination. They are awarded solely on merit. The scholarships thus awarded provide for payment of all tuition, examination and other compulsory fees in connexion) with the student’s course, including fees payable in respect of the conferring of a degree or diploma, and irrespective of the financial position of the student or his family. Subject to a means test, a living allowance is also payable to scholars. This living allowance depends upon an “ adjusted family income “ which is arrived at by computing the taxable income of the scholar and his parents during the year ended the 30th June preceding the application for Ji scholarship and deducting; an amount of £100 for the first child and £50 for every other child, other than the student who is under the age of sixteen years and is wholly or partly dependent on the student’s parents. For every £10 by which this adjusted family income exceeds £450 (£550 us from the 1st January, 11)53) the living allowance payable to a scholar is reduced by £3. The rate of living allowance has been adjusted to this scale, which was adopted for reasons of administrative simplicity. The scale secures to the parent substantial concessions in respect of any other children in his family. The Government can sec no good reason for changing the basis for the living allowance at this stage. I would remind the honorable senator that increases in’ the living allowance of Common-wealth scholarship holders payable from January, 1!)53, were foreshadowed in the budget.

page 4160

QUESTION

CHILDREN’S PUBLICATIONS

Senator TANGNEY:

– Has the Minister for Trade and Customs seen the new horror comic called War Front, which is distributed by Consolidated Press Limited, and is completely unsuitable to be read by children? As the illustrations of the allegedly “ grim, true tales of our fighting men “ are likely to cause distress to the relatives of servicemen engaged in the Korean conflict, will the Minister take some action to have such publications stopped, and the newsprint put to a better use?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– My literary tastes have not yet led me to the publication to which the honorable senator has referred. I point out, however, that if the booklet is published in Australia by Consolidated Press Limited, the Commonwealth Government, unfortunately - or fortunately, as the case may be - has no power to control it. Control of publications is entirely within the province of the States unless treasonable or subversive matter is involved.

page 4160

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– A perusal of the Auditor-General’s supplementary report recently tabled in this chamber reveals that there is still a sum of approximately £13,000 standing to the credit of the 1948-49 wheat pool, and a somewhat larger sum standing to the credit of the 3949-50 wheat pool. As all the wheat from those two pools has been sold by the Australian Wheat Board, can the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture indicate when the finances of those pools are likely to be finalized? I should also like the Minister to forward to me during the recess a statement showing any further payments that growers are likely to receive on wheat delivered to the two most recent pools, namely, the 1950-51 pool and the 1951-52 pool.

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I shall be pleased to bring the honorable senator’s request to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture.

page 4160

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs to the fact that many questions remain on the notice-paper unanswered and that some of them have been on the notice-paper for a number of weeks. As the Senate will rise late to-night or early to-morrow morning, can the Minister indicate when replies are likely to be given to such questions? I am particularly interested in a question relating to the aluminium industry standing in my own name.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Considering the number of questions that are put on the notice-paper, the number now remaining is not disproportionate. I assure the honorable senator that it gives no pleasure to Ministers to have questions on the notice-paper awaiting answers. The information that honorable senators seek is obtained as expeditiously as possible, but the Senate will appreciate that some questions involve considerable research and that most departments are already overtaxed with work. Questions that remain unanswered when the Senate rises will, I am sure, be answered as soon as possible during the recess, and honorable senators will receive written replies.

page 4160

QUESTION

MATCHES

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs advise the Senate whether any progress has been made with the proposed inquiry into the match- industry?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Progress has been made, but no decision has been reached.

page 4161

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator AYLETT:

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether the Government has yet sold any of its ships ? If the answer is in the affirmative, I should like to know how many ships have been sold and whether the purchasers have agreed to the Government’s conditions ?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– No ships have been sold.

page 4161

QUESTION

POLIOMYELITIS

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. What advances have been made in the production of poliomyelitis vaccine?
  2. Has such vaccine been brought into Australia?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following answers : -

  1. Poliomyelitis virus is toeing successfully cultured in Melbourne and Adelaide research laboratories, but no vaccine has yet been made from these cultures for trial on humans. The main objective is to produce an attenuated virus which is relatively harmless to man but is capable of producing the disease in a very mild form and thus giving protection against any subsequent infection from virulent strains. There is no direct evidence that this objective has yet been achieved. Sir Macfarlane Burnet, Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, is at present in the United States of America where he will study any advances being made in the production of a vaccine.
  2. No poliomyelitis vaccine for human use has been brought into Australia.

page 4161

QUESTION

BUTTER,

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the importation of butter into the United States of America has been banned; if so, how long is this ban likely to continue?
  2. What was the average yearly export of Australian butter to the United States of America during the last ten- years?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Commerce, and Agriculture has furnished the following answers: - 1.. Yes. The ban is imposed under United States legislation and its duration cannot be predicted.

  1. Nil. The import ban has operated since 1944.

page 4161

QUESTION

NARCOTIC DRUGS

Senator WEDGWOOD:

asked the Minister, for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Has the attention of- the Minister been directed to the fact that an alarming increase in, the smuggling into Australia of narcotic drugs was reported by the Victorian Police Commissioner, Mr. Duncan, to a conference of Australian police chiefs held in Canberra in October, 1952?
  2. As Australia imports all her requirements of basic narcotic drugs, will the Minister take immediate action to ensure that adequate precautions are taken at all airports to prevent the smuggling into Australia of narcotic drugs, thereby assisting the police to combat the drug traffic?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows : -

  1. My department has no information of an. alarming increase in the smuggling of narcotic drugs. It is proposed to ascertain the full text of the statement reported to have been made by the Victorian Police Commissioner.
  2. At all times every possible precaution is taken toy officers of the Department of Trade and Customs to prevent the illicit entry into Australia of narcotic drugs. However, the department will have discussions with the Victorian Police Commissioner regarding ways and means of preventing smuggling.

page 4161

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Senator McKENNA:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. Has there been consultation between the Department of Commerce and Agriculture and the Department of Immigration in order to preserve a balance between various classes of agricultural production and migration?
  2. What classes and varieties of farm products are in short supply, and what is the extent of these shortages?
  3. What steps, if any, are being taken to guard against over-production of perishable crops ?
  4. What action does the Government propose to take to protect producers in the event of the migration policy contributing to oversupply and consequent losses to producers?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following answers : -

  1. Yes, and consultations are continuing.
  2. At present most commodities are being produced in sufficient quantities to meet all home consumption needs. In recent years there have been seasonal shortages of potatoes, onions, butter and some meats. There have also been occasional shortages of canned fruits and certain processed milks due to the attractiveness of the export market as compared to the home market.Rice is at present in short supply, due to the light crop this year, and Australia’s obligation to export this commodity to neighbouring rice-consuming island communities.
  3. The Commonwealth has no direct influence over the production of specific agricultural commodities, including perishable commodities. It can only indicate the market outlook and need for various commodities, particularly those entering the export trade. This it does through its reports to the Australian Agricultural Council and to State war service land settlement authorities.
  4. In regard to the employment of migrants in rural occupations, the recruitment of migrants for ruralwork is related to the demand for rural labour. No proposals for the land settlement of migrants have been considered by the Government. If, and when any such proposals are being considered, due regard will be had to the economic prospects for the commodities likely to be produced.

page 4162

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS APPEAL FOR CHILDREN

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is the Government making a further contribution this year to the United Nations International Emergency Fund for the alleviation of undernourished and uncared for children? If so, what is the amount to be donated?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Speaking in the United Nations General Assembly on the 25th October, the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) announced that the Australian Government was making a further contribution of 450,000 dollars (£A.201,946) to the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. This brings the total contribution of the Australian Government since the inception of the fund in 1946 to 11,459,000 dollars. As previously, the present contribution will be made available in Australian pounds for the purchase of Australian goods and services.

page 4162

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator REID:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. What amount, if any, has been spent from moneys held by the Wool Industry Fund?
  2. For what purpose has this money been spent?
  3. What is the amount standing to the credit of this fund?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has furnished the following answers: -

  1. From the 1st July, 1946, to the 30th June, 1952, the amount spent was £880,928. 2. (a) Expenditure from the fund, during this period has been chiefly on account of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, principally on items of a capital nature (buildings, equipment, &c.) required for the conduct of biological and textile wool research by that organization. Typical examples of drawings on the Wool Industry Fund for these purposes are £122,000 for the Sheep Biology Station at Prospect, New South Wales; £188,000 for the regional pastoral laboratories at Deniliquin and Armidale, New South Wales, and the field station at Kojonup, in Western Australia, and £133,000 for the wool textile laboratories in Geelong, Melbourne and Sydney.

    1. ) Other expenditure from the Wool Industry) Fund has included - (i) Payment of £150,000 to the Australian Wool Board to tide it over a period of financial difficulty, (ii) Assistance to the textile college of the Gordon Institute, Geelong. Provision of scholarships and £68,500 as part payment of textile machinery) costing £90,000. (iii) Assistance to veterinary school, Sydney University. Grants to the school have been made from time to time for the provision of improved facilities for training veterinary students, and for the establishment of a chair of veterinary physiology. In addition, the Wool Industry Fund contributed to the purchase of two university farms at Camden for the use of the veterinary school. (iv) Materials handling in the wool industry. Funds have been provided for the establishment and maintenance of the new wool testing station atRyde, New South Wales.
    2. Improvement of State sheep and wool extension services. Scholarships are provided for the encouragement of graduates to take up sheep and wool extension work. Funds are also provided to enable officers to attend sheep and wool research conferences, and extension officers’ schools.
    3. Establishment of regional centres.

Assistance has been provided from the fund to the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock in connexion with the acquisition of a property to be conducted as a field station.

  1. The balance in the fund as at the 30th June, 1952, was £7,487,640.

page 4163

QUESTION

COPRA

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice -

  1. When will a decision be made regarding the future of funds held in the Copra Stabilization Fund for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea?
  2. Is it a fact that dependants of plantation owners who have been dead for more than a year are still endeavouring to obtain a refund of moneys paid into this fund under compulsion ?
Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– The following replies have been furnished by the Minister for Territories : -

  1. The future of funds held in the Copra Stabilization Fund for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea is at present under active consideration by the Minister for Territories in the light of discussions on this subject held recently between departmental officers and representatives of the planters.
  2. No individual producer, past or present, has a vested interest in any part of the funds. The moneys were accumulated by setting aside part of the sales receipts of copra purchased by the Production Control Board and its successor, the Copra Marketing Board, first under National Security Regulations and, moTe recently, under the Customs (Export) Tariff Ordinance of the Territory. They are held in trust to be expended generally for the purposes of assisting the copra or other cocoanut industries in a manner to be provided by ordinance.

page 4163

QUESTION

IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS

Senator GORTON:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What is the dollar content of imports into Australia of ball and roller bearings?
  2. Has the Minister any information as to the scope for expansion of the manufacture in Australia of these ball and roller bearings in existing factories?
  3. What are the relative selling prices in Australia of ball or roller bearings of American, British and local manufacture?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I now furnish the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. Boiler bearing-s and ball bearings. - Total imports, year ending the 30th June, 1952 (total, all countries) -
  1. Ball and roller bearings of the precision type in limited sizes are being manufactured by the Department of Supply at its Echuca factory. No other manufacturer of precision type or proposal to manufacture is known.
  2. There are hundreds of sizes and types ot roller and ball bearings and it would be difficult to show relative selling prices. In New South Wales ball and roller bearings, regardless of their origin, are sold retail by all major distributors in accordance with a standard list price. However, there is in operation a complex system of discount in the wholesale field.

page 4163

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior -

  1. Is it a fact that hospital beds in the Canberra Community Hospital are being occupied by aged pensioners because of the lack of housing and care in the territory for them?
  2. If so, will the Minister consider the establishment of a garden city in the Australian Capital Territory which would contain cottages, plus a communal dining-room and entertainment hall, for the aged person’s of this territory?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. There are seven males and nine females of pensionable age at present in the Canberra Community Hospital suffering from senility or chronic disability associated with senility. 2. Yes, but this will not be possible until the general housing shortage has been considerably reduced.

page 4163

QUESTION

KOREA

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the .Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the truce talks under the name of United Nations have been going on in Korea for the last fourteen months?
  2. Is it a fact that the North Korean representatives have compromised on at least 80 disputed issues in the course of cease-fire negotiations ?
  3. Is it a fact that the declaration of a truce in Korea is held up, it is alleged, owing to a dispute over what has been termed “ voluntary repatriation of prisoners of war “t
  4. Is it a fact that many German and Italian prisoners of war, held in Australia during the last war, who, after cessation of hostilities, desired to remain in Australia, were refused that request because international agreements compelled countries holding .prisoners to repatriate them without delay?
  5. Is it a fact that Article 75, section 11, as agreed to by the League of Nations in 1931-32, states, “ In any case the repatriation of prisoners shall be- effected as soon as possible after the conclusion of peace”; also that Article 118, section 11, as agreed to at the

Geneva Convention in 1949, states, “ Prisoners of war shall bc released and repatriated without delay after cessation of hostilities “T

  1. Is it a fact that the North Korean representatives have suggested that the Korean and the Chinese prisoners be brought to “ No Man’s Land “ in between the lines, and then given the option to go to whichever side they desire?
  2. In order that the war may be brought to an end, will the Prime Minister have instructions issued to Australian representatives on the United Nations Organization to draw the attention of the members of that body to the international agreements ‘ concerning the repatriation of prisoners of war, and in particular the two articles quoted above?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Cease-fire talks between representatives of the United Nations Command on the one side and of the North Koreans and Chinese Communists on the other, commenced on the 10th July, 1951.
  2. There are 03 articles in the Draft Armistice Agreement; 61 of these have been agreed upon. During the course of the negotiations, both the United Nations Command and the Communists have agreed to compromise solutions on various points at issue, and there have been numerous reformulations of wording. Regarding what may be described as main concessions, the United Nations negotiators have made nine, a”s against six on the part of the Communists. These are conveniently summarized in the United Kingdom White Paper Cmd. 8596 of June, 1952, as follows : -

    1. Communist Concessions.
    1. Dropping of demand that withdrawal of foreign troops should be discussed and agreed at the armistice talks (July, 1951).
    2. Agreement that the demilitarised zone should follow the existing battleline and not the 38th Parallel (October, 1951).
    3. Agreement to inspection on all main lines of communications in Korea as well as at agreed ports of entry (December, 1951).
    4. Agreement to permit limited rotation of troops up to 35,000 a month (February, 1952).
    5. Agreement on five ports of entry instead of three as they had originally suggested (March, 1952).
    6. Agreement to drop nomination of the Soviet Union as one of the neutral nations to be asked to provide armistice inspection teams (May, 1952).
    7. United Nations Concessions.
    8. Agreement to a final item on the armistice agenda providing for recommendations to the governments concerned (July, 1951).
    9. Agreement that the activities of the inspection teams should be confined to ground and sea and air ports of entry and to the main communications centres in Korea (December, 1951).
    10. Agreement that the inspection teams should be provided by nations neutral in the Korean conflict and not by representatives of the opposing military commands (December, 1951).
    11. Agreement to give up all islands north of the demarcation line within the 3-mile territorial limit (December, 1951).
    12. Agreement that after an armistice a certain number of agreed airfields in North Korea might be repaired to meet genuine civilian needs (December, 1951).
    13. Surrender of previous demand for aerial inspection of North Korea during an armistice (December,. 1951) .
    14. Agreement that rotation of troops should be at the rate of 35,000 a month instead of 70,000 as they originally suggested (February, 1052).
    15. Agreement that neutral inspection teams should be based at only five ports of entry on both sides instead of ten as they originally suggested (March, 1952).
    16. Conditional agreement that no restriction should be placed on the repair and construction of military airfields after an armistice (April, 1952).
  3. Agreement on the remaining two articles has been prevented solely by the intransigeance of the Communists. By the beginning of May, 1952, the position was that the Communists had accepted the first point of the United Nations Command’s “ package proposal “ of the 28th April (viz., a concession that no restriction need be placed on the repair and construction on military airfields after an armistice), but had made their acceptance of the second point (viz., the withdrawal of their nomination of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a member of a neutral supervisory commission), contingent upon the repatriation of all prisoners of war in United Nations Command’s hands, including approximately 20,000 Chinese “volunteers”.
  4. At the conclusion of the war, over 1,000 German and 18,000 Italian prisoners of war were held in Australia, most of them on behalf of the United Kingdom. After the war they were repatriated as and when transport was made available. With the approval of the United Kingdom, the applications of 50 Italian merchant seamen to be released in Australia were granted. In October, 1950, it was decided that prisoners pf war still in Australia who were of good character should be permitted to remain here pending the conclusion of migration negotiations with the German and Italian governments.
  5. The League of Nations Convention and the 1949 Convention on Prisoners of WaT contain the provisions quoted. The convention of 1949 has not been ratified by the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, or Australia, and, therefore, is not binding upon them; the United Nations Command has, nevertheless, decided to apply the terms of the convention on a voluntary basis. The Communists, for their part, have refused to accept the fact that members of their forces have indicated that they will forcibly resist repatriation and state that the 1949 convention makes it mandatory for all prisoners to be repatriated. The United Nations takes the position that the provisions of the 1949 convention exist essentially for the protection of prisoners themselves. They are designed to protect prisoners against forcible retention by a power and to ensure that they are set at liberty after hostilities cease. This the United Nations has offered to do. The United Nations maintain that if prisoners do not wish to be repatriated and would forcibly resist such repatriation, they should not be physically compelled to do so. The United Nations has endeavoured in every conceivable way to satisfy the Communists that there was in fact a large body of prisoners who would, without doubt, forcibly resist returning to Communistheld areas.
  6. It was reported at one stage that the Chinese Communist Foreign Minister in Peking had expressed some interest in a proposal for “ screening “ of prisoners of war in a neutral zone, but no such proposal has been brought forward by North Korean or Chinese representatives at Panmunjom. A proposal along the lines suggested in the question was in fact one of the three proposals made by the United Nations Command on the 28th September and summarily rejected by the Communists on the 8th October.
  7. Responsibility for continuing bloodshed in Korea will rest squarely upon the Communists so long as they insist upon total capitulation by the United Nations Command from its humanitarian stand, and fail themselves to make any constructive proposals. A cease- fire in the war against Communist aggression in Korea, and commencement of negotiations for a settlement will be possible when the Communist delegates at Panmunjom offer some genuine proposals for the settlement of the prisoner ofwar issue on a humanitarian basis.

page 4165

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the fifth report of the Printing Committee.

Report read and -by leave - adopted.

page 4165

DEFENCE BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spicer) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purposes of thisbill are, first, to make provision for the issue, after the 31st December, 1952, of war death certificates and, secondly, to give continued efficacy to war death certificates that have already been issued under the existing law. Honorable senators will recall that, during the recent world war, it was found necessary to make some administrative provision for the issue of certificates of death of persons who died in circumstances arising out of war which made direct proof of death difficult. Regulations accordingly were made, first, in the National Security (Supplementary) Regulations and, subsequently, by the National Security (“War Deaths) Regulations, which had the effect of obviating the necessity of lengthy and expensive proof of presumption of death before a court.

The regulations provide that, where a competent authority is satisfied that the death of a person occurred whilst on war service, or in the hands of the enemy, or in other circumstances attributable to war which rendered proof of death difficult, he may issue a certificate to the effect that the person specified in the certificate died or became missing on the date mentioned in the certificate. The regulations make the certificate prima facie evidence in all courts that the person named in the certificate died or became missing on the date mentioned.

The Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act continues in force until the 31st December, 1952, the provisions of the National Security (War Deaths) Regulations. These regulations, as they stand to-day, provide for the certification of the death of persons engaged on Avar service, of civilians in New Guinea and Papua, and of other civilians who died whilst in the hands of the enemy, or in other circumstances arising out of war which render proof of death difficult.

Although power exists under the Defence Act, through amendments made in 1949, to permit the issue of certificates of death in respect of members of the defence forces who died while on service, no legislative provision will exist after the 31st December, 1952, to permit the certification of death of civilians who die, or who have died, as a result of enemy action. Certificates of death in respect of civilians as well as members of the defence forces who died or who became missing during the 1939-45 war are still required from time to time, and if is desirable, therefore, that there should he legislation after the 31st December, 1952, which will permit the issue of certificates of death in respect of civilians who may have died or became missing, not only during the 1939-45 war, but also during any period in the future when this country might be engaged iii war-like operations, as it is at present in Korea. This bill gives effect to this need. Provision is also required to give continued force and effect after the 31st December, 1952, to certificates issued under the regulations to which I have referred. Clause 3 of the bill enables this object to be achieved. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The. Opposition has given consideration to this measure and has no objection to its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4166

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives .

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spicer) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move - . .

That the hill be now read a second time.

This is a short bill, its main purpose being to amend the Superannuation Act 1922-1951 in order to implement . the Government’s decision to provide for the transfer of certain contributors from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund to the Superannuation Fund. It is complementary to certain provisions in the bill recently passed by the Senate to amend the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. Representations have been made by service departments that provision should be made whereby a contributor to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund may, on appointment to the Commonwealth Public Service or to an approved Commonwealth authority, transfer his rights in that fund, to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund.

At present there is no such provision and .specially trained men in the Navy and Army, who retire at comparatively early ages and whom by reason of their special knowledge it is desired to appoint on retirement to permanent administrative positions in the Civil Service, hesitate to accept such appointments. The reason is that they have to surrender their rights under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act and become contributors under the Superannuation Act at a rate for age next birthday which normally applies to new appointees from outside the Service. The service departments are concerned at their inability to obtain in a civil capacity the much needed services of these specially trained men because of this barrier.

The contributions under both schemes for pension on retirement at the age of 60 years are identical and the proposal, which is supported by. both the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board and the Superannuation Board, simply means that the contributor would give up all rights to benefits under the defence scheme and would continue his contributions at the same rate for full pension benefits under the Public Service scheme. Under this arrangement the contributions made by the contributor to the defence scheme would be transferred to the Superannuation Fund.

Opportunity is also being taken to amend the Superannuation Act to exclude from the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, United Kingdom scientists who are engaged by the Commonwealth and who contribute to the United Kingdom Federated Superannuation System for Universities or to similar superannuation schemes. Under the present act, these scientists are compelled to contribute to the Superannuation Fund or to the Provident Account. The amendment is designed to exclude them from the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account if they are already contributors to the United Kingdom Federated Superannuation System for Universities or to similar superannuation schemes.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition offers no opposition to the measure. I wish to make brief reference to one matter in committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I refer the Attorney-General to clause 5 of the bill and to proposed new section 60ax of the principal act, which reads as follows : -

This part applies to a person -

who, immediately after ceasing to be a member of the defence force of the Commonwealth, becomes employed, otherwise than as a casual, exempt or temporary employee, by the Commonwealth or by an approved authority.

I am concerned about the words “ immediately after ceasing to be a member of the defence force of the Commonwealth “. Will a retired defence officer; who Is re-employed by the Commonwealth, participate in the superannuation scheme only if there is no great break between the cessation of his service with the defence force and his acceptance of service with the Commonwealth? In other words, would a short interval of time, such as one day, between the two events debar a former member of the defence forces from reaping the benefits of the bill?

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I understand that it has been contemplated that there would be continuity of service. This bill has been designed to apply to the person who, in effect, transfers from service in the defence force to service in a civil department.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time

page 4167

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

During the second-reading speech on the Civil Aviation Agreement Bill, reference was made to the Government’s decision to reduce by 50 per cent., as from the 1st July, 1952, charges payable by operators of regular public air transport services. Reference was also made to the uncertain legal position of the present method of imposing charges and the Government’s intention, therefore, to introduce a substantive bill dealing with air-route charges. This bill takes the form of a short measure with two schedules. The act will simply provide that charges are payable in accordance with the schedules, and that the schedules may be amended by regulation but not inconsistently with the act. The power to amend by regulation is necessary to give flexibility to the scheme. The necessity for flexibility will become obvious as the schedules, are studied; for example, it will be necessary, from time to time, to prescribe charges for new routes.

The first schedule deals with the charges payable by the holders of airline licences, including international airline licences, for all operations conducted by them. The Air Navigation Regulations provide for the operation of regular public transport operations by the holders of charter licences in certain circumstances. These are also charged in accordance with this schedule. The method of charging for these operations is generally similar to that which has operated in the past. Each aircraft is given a unit charge depending on the weight of the aircraft. Each route is rated having regard to the nature and extent of the facilities and services on that route. The charge is ascertained by multiplying the aircraft charge by the route rating., For example, the aircraft charge for a DC3 is l1s. 10d.; the rating for a flight between Melbourne and Sydney is 4. This gives a charge of £2 7s. 4d. for the flight in either direction.

Although unit charges for aircraft and route ratings, as set out in the schedule, differ from those which are currently in force, the 50 per centum reduction is obtained by dividing the old unit charge per aircraft by four and doubling route ratings. Doubling the route ratings was desirable in order to avoid fractions.

The First Schedule also makes provision for charges in respect of the landing of aircraft arriving from outside Australia and in respect of the take-off of aircraft departing from Australia. In the conduct of air transport services it is necessary to conduct a variety of flights for the sole purpose of testing the aircraft and crew for the purpose of ensuring the airworthiness of the aircraft and the competence of the crew. As these flights are necessary in the interests of safety, it is not desired to charge for them, and the schedule provides for their exemption.

The Second Schedule deals with charges payable by the owners of aircraft’ registered under the Air Navigation Regulations, who are not covered by the First Schedule. Here again the scheme is broadly the same at that which has been operating in the past. The charge is payable on registration and is determined by the class of operations in which the aircraft is used or intended to be used. For example, if the aircraft is used in charter operations, the charge is, for each week of registration, six times the unit charge for the aircraft specified in the First Schedule. Thus, if a DC3 is registered as a charter aircraft for a period of twelve months, the charge is - Unit charge for the aircraft - l1s.10d. Multiplied by the number of weeks in the period of registration - 52 - multiplied by 6. This gives a charge of £184 6s. The schedule provides for adjustments to the charge paid, if, during the period of registration, the aircraft engages in a class of operations which attracts a higher charge. An appropriate adjustment is also made if the aircraft is used by a regular public transport operator and incurs charges under the First Schedule. These charges are made in respect of the use of air navigation facilities and services provided by the

Commonwealth. There may be operations conducted in remote parts of the Commonwealth where facilities and services are very limited. The schedule makes provision for the refund in those cases of so much of the charge as the Minister or the Director-General of Civil Aviation considers just in the circumstances.

The Third Schedule imposes charges in respect of non-scheduled flights made in Australia by foreign aircraft which are not covered by the First Schedule. The charges are basically the same as those under the Second Schedule in respect of similar flights made by domestic operators. The Commonwealth is required by the International Convention on Civil Aviation to grant this equality of treatment. Non-scheduled flights in Australia by foreign aircraft are not made under the authority of a licence under the Air Navigation Regulations and the aircraft are not, of course, on the Australian register. It was not possible, therefore, to charge holders of licences or registered owners, as in the First and Second Schedules respectively, and the charges under this schedule have, therefore, been made payable by the owners of foreign aircraft, this being the most practical and convenient method.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 4168

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time. .

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill to amend the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-1947. Broadly speaking the bill has two objectives -

First, to vary certain of the existing sections of the present act which it is considered require amendment in the light of the experience gained by the Airlines Commission in its operations under the act.

Secondly, to import into the act provisions designed to give effect to the Government’s desire that the operations of the Australian National Airlines Commission shall be conducted under conditions similar to those applying to other airline companies.

The amendments in the first category are those embodied in clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the bill. Clause 2 contains an amend- ment to section 14 of the principal act. That section has the effect that a commissioner, who is a director of a company consisting of more than 25 members which may be interested in or benefit from a contract made between that company and the commission is deemed to have vacated his office as a commissioner. This is unduly onerous in that a commissioner may be disqualified unreasonably and for a very slight cause. Further, it restricts the field of prominent members of the commercial world’ who may be appointed as commissioners. The usual provision in companies acts is more satisfactory, namely, provision for disclosure and recording of any interest a director has, directly or indirectly, in any contract or proposed contract with the company. For this purpose, a general notice to the effect that a director is a member of a specified company will suffice as regards any contract made with that company. The proposed amendment has this effect.

Clause 3 amends section 17 of the principal act by omitting sub-section (9.) which preserves the existing and accruing rights of an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service who is appointed to the service of the commission. During its formative years the commission did not appoint officers to the service of the. commission, with the result that, in spite of continuous employment with the commission, officers who transferred from the Commonwealth Public Service lacked the continuity of service necessary to preserve their rights on transfer. Clause 4 of the bill relates this preservation of rights to employment with the commission whether the em ployment is by way of permanent appointment or temporary employment.

Section 20 of the principal act provides that the commission may demand such fares and charges as are determined in accordance with the provisions of relevant airline licences issued to the commission. This provision was introduced before the present machinery for the control of fares and freights under the Air Navigation Regulations, and is no longer appropriate. By omitting the reference to provisions in airline licences in section 20, clause 5 makes the power of the commission to determine fares and freights subject to the Air Navigation Regulations, because section 28 of the principal act provides that nothing in the act shall be construed to confer on the commission powers which, under the Air Navigation Regulations, are exercisable by the Minister, and section 29 renders the commission subject to the provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations.

The original act provides for the Treasurer making “advances”to the commission and determining the terms and conditions, including repayment, of such advances. There is also a provision that interest charged on advances shall be a first charge against the commission’s profits. The Government desires to place the commission in a position comparable to that of a commercial enterprise and to this end its present advances of £4,370,000, and further moneys obtained from the Treasurer will be classified as capital. In effect, this capital will correspond closely to “ share capital “ and, like any shareholder, the Commonwealth will expect a return on the funds provided whenever the operations of the commission result in a profit. In determining the amount of each year’s profit to be distributed, the Commonwealth, again like any shareholder, will have regard to any advice of the commission given in relation to its financial affairs.

A provision is also being included to declare the commission’s capital to bo repayable. This is intended as an ultimate power, to be used only in the event of the commission becoming seriously over-capitalized, and here again the views of the commission are required to be taken into consideration. As mentioned previously, the present act does not allow the commission to borrow other than from the Treasurer. This position is being changed, and henceforth the commission will be able to obtain bank overdraft accommodation up to £1,000,000 at any one time for temporary purposes, and may charge its assets as security for the repayment of any loan so raised.

To complete the changes necessary to implement the concept of non-interest bearing capital, the existing sections of the act dealing with reserves and application of profits are being amalgamated into a new section, which prescribes the meaning of profits and provides for the application of profits. The first application will be the payment as a return on capital, which was mentioned above. Any balance will be dealt with as determined by the Treasurer and the Minister, after consideration of the advice of the commission on such application.

These amendments will have the effect of providing statutory backing for the commission to operate as nearly as possible as a public company, the commission taking the place of the board of directors and the Commonwealth filling the role of the shareholders. Bearing in mind that the role of the commission is to compete with private enterprise undertakings under conditions of fair competition, it is only equitable that the commission should alao accept the same obligations as its competitors. For this reason its statutory exemption from the payment of income tax and sales tax is - being removed, and henceforth the commission will be liable for sales tax on its purchases and for income tax on its profits.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 4170

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT (AIR NAVIGATION CHARGES) BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the allowance of deductions in the income tax assessments of companies or individuals operating commercial airlines who have paid, or have agreed to pay, air navigation charges relating to operations before the 1st July, 1952. It is the Government’s intention to adjust these charges and the provisions of the bill will apply where an airline operator pays, or agrees to pay, the reduced amount of the charge which the Commonwealth accepts in full settlement of the amount formerly claimed. The bill will also apply where an operator receives a refund or rebate of an amount previously paid as air navigation charge. Some airline operators to whom the measure will apply have not made any payment of the charge and have not been allowed any reduction in their income tax assessments for the amount of the charge claimed by the Commonwealth. In other instances, the operators have paid the amount of the charge claimed by the Commonwealth, a.nd deductions have been allowed in arriving at their income tax liability. The bill will ensure that the deductions to be allowed in the income tax assessments of the airline operators shall not exceed the reduced amount of the charges accepted by the Commonwealth in full satisfaction of the original claim. The amount actually incurred will be deductible over the years in which the charges became payable. The allocation of the deductions between the years concerned will be made by the Commissioner of Taxation.

An airline operator entitled to a refund or rebate of portion of the charges which he has already paid will be allowed a deduction of only the amount he ultimately bears. Correspondingly, the amount of the refund or rebate will not be subjected to tax. Similarly, the amount of the charge from which the operator is released will not be assessable income. In effect, airline operators will be placed in the same position for income tax purposes as if the reduced amount of air navigation charge finally paid by them had been levied as from the 1st August, 1947, when the charges were first imposed. The bill will give to the Commissioner of Taxation power to amend income tax and social services contribution assessments at any time for the purpose of applying the provisions of the measure. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 4171

CUSTOMS BILL 1952

Bill returned from House of Representatives without amendment.

page 4171

EXPLOSIVES BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Repre- sentatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

(“4.20]. - I move-

That the bill bc now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is’ to enable the promulgation of regulations specifying the safety measures that must be observed when Commonwealth-owned explosives are being handled or transported by road, rail or sea, and measures that may be taken to ensure the expeditious handling and movement of explosives required for defence purposes. The bill also provides for the establishment of interdepartmental committees to advise the Minister on all aspects of the movements of explosives, and it empowers the Commonwealth to indemnify .persons against actions relating to loss or damage resulting from the handling of Commonwealth explosives. During the 1939-45 war, it was found that the facilities provided in the States for handling commercial explosives in small consignments were inadequate to deal with the explosives which were impoited for manufacture into munitions, the quantities of made-up munitions which were moved by road or rail between munition factories and service depots, or munitions which were to be shipped over seas to the fighting forces. It became obvious early in the war period that the measures governing the movement of explosives by road, rail and sea could not be observed if the war effort was to be maintained, because of the requirements of existing prohibitions on the quantities which could be carried by railway trains, moved by road or handled in ports. Accordingly, the Commonwealth introduced National Security (General) Regulation 66 to enable such movements to take place.

Although the cessation of hostilities greatly reduced the need for movements of large quantities of explosives it has been found to be impracticable in the post-war years to utilize the normal facilities and conform to normal procedures without, at the same time, causing- serious delays and expense in meeting the needs of service departments, the munitions manufacturing programme and other vital defence projects which have developed since the end of the war. It has been found necessary, therefore, to continue regulation 66 in operation up to the present time. A review recently made at the direction of the Government has established the need for the Commonwealth to have permanent powers governing the safe and expeditious movement of explosives to meet the defence requirements of the Commonwealth in both peace and war. This bill is designed to give the Commonwealth such powers.

The bill will empower the GovernorGeneral to make regulations dealing with matters connected with the handling and transporting of Commonwealth explosives. It is proposed to issue a comprehensive set of regulations prescribing in detail measures to be observed for the safe handling of such explosives. It is also proposed to establish committees to advise the Minister on matters covered by the bill, to maintain constant liaison with overseas explosives authorities and to ensure uniformity of practice by the various departments handling explosives. The committees will be representative of the Department of Shipping and Transport, the service, departments and the Operational Safety Committee. Committees on these lines have already been functioning on an inter-departmental basis and have advised the Government on various aspects of the handling and movement of explosives. A set of instructions governing the safe movement of explosives by road has been circulated to the departments concerned. “With the passage of this bill they will be promulgated by regulation. In due course, similar regulations will be made to provide for safety precautions to be observed in the movement of explosives by rail and by sea and for such other measures as may be necessary to reduce as far as possible the risks associated with such movements. A further task of the committees will be to advise the Government on the need for the provision of special facilities at Australian ports for the handling of explosives which may rightly be regarded as a Commonwealth responsibility. In most ports certain areas have been set aside for the mooring or anchoring of vessels carrying explosives, and special reserves have been established for “the storage of explosives. These facilities have been provided for the handling of commercial explosives in small quantities and have limitations which generally render them inadequate for the handling of larger shipments or heavier types of made-up munitions used by the Commonwealth. A committee will be established by regulation to make a survey of the facilities available at all Australian ports and to advise the Government on any special facilities which may be necessary to meet particular Commonwealth requirements.

The bill also provides that the regulations may empower persons to issue orders in relation to any matters provided under the regulations. It is proposed that the Minister shall be empowered to issue such orders, and that he will delegate this power to senior officers in the services responsible for the actual movement of explosives. This procedure has operated successfully under the powers conferred by National Security (General) Regulation 66. It is necessary for the Commonwealth to have the power to make orders to meet urgent requirements of the services, such as the despatch at short notice of munitions to Korea. The present practice will, however, be followed., and orders will be issued only when it is apparent that the existing facilities are inadequate, or where conformity with existing procedures wouk cause unwarrantable delays.

Subsequent to the introduction of the bill in another place, representations were made by the various Australian harbour authorities for the amendment of its regulatory provision to make it clear that the actual allocation of berths and movement of vessels in ports would remain as the function of the appropriateharbour authorities. It was never intended to interfere with these powers of the harbour authorities. In order to make the position clear, a series of conferences has taken place between representatives of the harbour authorities and the Commonwealth departments concerned with movements of explosives. As a result of these discussions, agreement has been reached on a form of amendment to clauses 5 and 6 of the bill which, while preserving to the harbour authorities the internal control of their ports, will enable the Commonwealth to provide for the safe and expeditious handling of Commonwealth explosives. Provision will also be made for consideration to be given to recommendations made by harbour authorities before regulations are drafted. The existing practice under which, by ministerial direction there must be prior consultation with the appropriate harbour authority before orders are made under the National Security Regulations, will be continued in relation to orders made under the Explosives Act.

This bill and the regulations to be promulgated under it will ensure that the maximum possible safety precautions shall be observed in the transport and handling of Commonwealth explosives. It is recognized, nevertheless, that in the event of an accident occurring the Commonwealth might be expected to accept liability for damage or injury to persons or property resulting from the handling or movement of explosives outside the established facilities, or not in accordance with State regulations. Provision has therefore been made in the bill to enable the Commonwealth to give an indemnity to cover such a contingency.

The efficacy of the methods and procedures adopted in the handling of Commonwealth explosives is amply demonstrated by the fact that during and since the war many thousands of tons of munitions and raw materials for explosives manufacture have been transported by sea, road and rail without serious incident. The passage of this bill will provide for the expeditious handling of Commonwealth explosives and, at the same time, will ensure that maximum safety provisions shall be observed and adapted as necessary to meet improved methods of handling and to cope with the problems of the Commonwealth’s expanding munitions manufacturing programme.

Certain amendments have been circulated. I have been advised by the Parliamentary Draftsman that it would be more satisfactory to have them incorporated in the bill in this chamber than in another place. I should like the bill to be passed through all stages without delay so that it may be returned to the House of Representatives before that chamber adjourns for the recess. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) was good enough to inform me that this amendment was pending and of the need for it to pass through this chamber so that it could have consideration in another place. The Opposition accordingly proposes to allow the measure to pass with a minimum of debate, but while it will not oppose the bill by vote, it is somewhat uneasy about the fact that there is to be dual control with regard to this important matter of explosives. The States have built up their own legislation, administration and techniques relating to the handling of explosives. The Australian Government entered that field only because of the war emergency. One can understand the need for such, action at a time when Australia and its allies were waging total war. Emergency measures had to be taken, and the government of the day was very concerned with the possibility that some major disaster would occur close to a great city or where large numbers of people were congregated. That was a constant worry, and most elaborate safety precautions were taken by the Australian Government. “Warnings were given against lightly overriding any of the requirements of port or railway authorities or the arrangements that were made under State legislation. The one good feature about this measure, if it is to form a permanent part of our legislation, is that authority is to be. taken out of the ambit of national security regulations and incorporated in an act. I should like to know from the Minister whether an approach has been made to all State governments with regard to this matter? In his second-reading speech, he. referred to the fact that the port authorities had been consulted through their association. Very wisely he has made sure that no longer will the Commonwealth be authorized to interfere with the allocation of berths and the mooring of vessels. The Minister was very wise to listen to those experienced bodies, and I believe that he might also have consulted the State governments. Not having full knowledge of the contents of the bill, at least one of them was gravely disturbed that there would be an infringement, not upon State sovereignty, but upon the methods that had been tried for years and proved efficient. When the Minister replies, I should like him to give an indication to the Senate whether the State governments have been approached and, if so, the views that they have expressed upon this matter. There is power in the bill to make regulations. That is a very vast power.

Senator Wright:

– Is there anything else in the bill?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, I must say that the real essence of the bill is to confer upon the Governor-General and, in practice, upon the Minister and the department, the power to cover this allimportant and dangerous field by regulation. It is some consolation to learn from the Minister that, under the National Security Regulations, Commonwealth activity in this dangerous field has led to no serious incident. But that position could be reversed at any time and the Minister’s only justification for taking power to override .State powers is in the interests of speed. He said -

It has been found impracticable in the postwar years to utilize the normal facilities and conform to normal procedures without, at the same time, causing serious delays and expense in meeting the needs of service departments.

In the days of relative peace that we enjoy to-day, I believe that the Australian Government might have strained every effort to ensure that the States alone handle explosives. If their regulations needed strengthening, they might have been asked to confer with the Australian Government and make any alterations :hat were deemed to be necessary. I am quite certain that the State governments would not have been unco-operative in this matter, and I repeat that I should like the Minister to indicate what approach has been made to those governments, and what objections he has received from them. If there has not been consultation or if there are objections that have not been met, I suggest that this is the opportune time to have a consultation with the bodies concerned. The Minister has had recent experience of the value of conferring with practical people in another field and this might be one more case where it would be desirable to have conferences and discussions before a measure embodying any permanent provisions of this kind is introduced into the Parliament. I do not propose to delay the passage of the bill, although I know that some honorable senators on the Opposition side, like myself, feel strongly and are uneasy about it.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– Regardless of the need for speed, I intend to oppose this bill strongly. I cannot understand the need for rushing a bill like this into the Senate and asking honorable senators to agree to it without proper consideration. I have not even had time to read the amendments.

Senator Wright:

– I have not even seen them.

Senator SEWARD:

– It is unfair. I do not know the. effect of this bill, and I hope that the Senate will not agree to it. It is a far-reaching measure. During the war a ship called at Fremantle while submarines were there refuelling with oil. They discharged a lot of oil upon the surface of the water and if took fire. The harbour trust was faced with a bill totalling about £80,000. The case went to the High Court of Australia, and, fortunately for the harbour trust, it was relieved of the responsibility. If the Australian Government is given power to override harbour trusts and take ships carrying explosives into harbours, what is the use of the harbour trusts? A committee is to be set up, but no reference is made to representation upon it of the harbour trusts. I invite honorable senators to consider what could happen. Fremantle is situated at the mouth of the Swan River. It is a confined port with eight or nine berths on each side. If a ship containing explosives were blown up while it was in the port and two passenger liners were berthed at the same time, a serious disaster could occur. What is the use of the Government saying that it will indemnify those concerned? The damage in such a case might total £20,000,000. The port of Fremantle might be closed for years, yet we propose to give the Australian Government the right to override the harbour trusts.

The Fremantle Harbour Trust has protested strongly to me and I have not been informed yet that it is satisfied with the bill. I am entitled to an opportunity to communicate with that authority before the bill is passed by the Senate. An explosives wharf is situated several miles away from the main port of Fremantle. Ships containing explosives can berth there or they can unload away from the commercial harbour. There is too much transfer of power from harbour trusts and other proper authorities to departmental committees. Honorable senators dp not know who will be appointed to the proposed committee in this case. We know the usual attitude of the Royal Australian Navy. It always wants to ride rough-shod over regulations. The harbour trust is the proper authority to control this matter. The Senate has debated the need to make proper preparations for the handling of apples. Honorable senators have said that the timing of ships engaged in the apple trade should be regulated. The Fremantle Harbour Trust has shown me a plan for berthing ships. “ Such lists are prepared two or three weeks ahead so that berths can be allotted. If a ship containing explosives entered the harbour, all ships would probably withdraw and the entire trade of the port might be hopelessly tied up. It is not fair to ask the ‘Senate to agree to a bill like this one at this hour of the sessional period. I want to communicate with the Fremantle Harbour Trust to ascertain if it is satisfied with the bill. I believe that it will not be satisfied with the measure because I received a strong protest quite recently. I hope that the Senate will not agree to the bill. I do not care if the Senate has to sit again next week. It is all very .well to state that there has not been an accident. A terrible tragedy might occur if a ship laden with explosives exploded in the river Yarra. Precautions must be taken to ensure that an accident does not occur. Honorable senators surely have knowledge of the tragedies that have occurred in the United States of America when oil tankers exploded after catching fire. I do not want to see similar accidents occur in Australia. Some of the definitions that are contained in the bill go beyond explosives that are handled by the Australian Government. There is a reference to ships having on board containers that have held explosives and which are not certified as free from explosives. They might contain the germ of an explosion. Authority is also to be given for the handling of explosives that are not the property of the Commonwealth and for handling, storing, stacking and moving explosives about the harbour. That is the duty of the harbour authorities and I shall oppose the bill.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– I agree with Senator Seward that honorable senators should have more time to consider the bill. I ask the Senate for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 4175

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time. °

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to make such provision as will enable Australian electors abroad at the time of a federal election or referendum to record their votes with the least avoidable inconvenience. Hitherto, electors overseas have been able to vote at a federal election or referendum only by making their applications to, and obtaining their postal voting papers from, a returning officer in Australia. They have had to obtain an application form, send it to Australia, await the receipt therefrom of the necessary postal vote certificate and ballotpaper, and then record and return their vote to the returning officer for their respective division in time to reach him not later than seven days after polling day. This procedure, which in most instances has required a period of several weeks, has meant that very early application was imperative. However, all too frequently, action was not commenced sufficiently early to be effective, or because of circumstances, such as when an elector was about to embark on a sea voyage or continental tour, the facilities available have proved to be of no practical use whatsoever.

Accordingly, in the belief that as far as is reasonably practicable, every elector should be afforded an opportunity to vote at an election or referendum, the Government proposes by this bill to amend the law to permit an assistant returning officer at, say, Australia House, London, to issue postal vote certificates and postal ballot-papers direct to Australian electors on application. Such assistant returning officer will act under the direction of the Chief Electoral Officer in precisely the same way as any other postal vote issuing officer. He will, after issuing a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper- to an applicant elector, duly endorse the application, and forthwith send it by airmail to the returning officer for the division concerned. The applicant elector, upon receiving the postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper, will complete the certificate and record his vote before an authorized witness in the normal manner. He will then enclose the ballot-paper in the certificate envelope , and post the envelope, or cause it to be posted, to the returning officer for the division in respect of which hehas voted.

It will be clearly understood that no envelope containing a postal vote issued by an assistantreturning officer outside Australia will be admitted for scrutiny until it has reached the returning officer for the division for which the voter has voted, and until that officer, by checking the voter’s enrolment on his official roll, has verified the right of the voter to the vote recorded. If the voter is not duly enrolled for the division for which he has voted, the vote recorded by himwill be rejected unopened.

The final clause of the bill provides that where, a postal vote application is being made, or a postal vote recorded outside Australia, the persons authorized to act as witness shall be extended to include persons employed in the Public Service of any of the Queen’s Dominions, and also any Justice of the Peace, minister of religion or medical practitioner in any such dominion or territory of the Commonwealth. The object of this extension is to assist electors who, while travelling abroad, are at the particular time in some out-of-the-way place and for that reason would experience difficulty in locating an authorized witness within the existing category.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 4176

SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL (No, 2) 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion bySenator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

Thatthe bill be now read a second time.

The bill is intended , to insert a newsection 133b into the Social Services Consolidation Act , andtogive statutory authority to a procedure thathas been followed since. 1947. As honorable senators know, immigrants who cannot speak English, and who are unfamiliar with our customs, spend some time in centres or hostels controlled either by the Department of Immigration or by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. During this period they are provided with board and lodging. Similar provision is made for assisted British immigrants until they commence work. During the last five years it has been the practice to pay a special benefit to the former class, and an unemployment benefit to the latter group. In both instances a portion to the benefit is paid directly to the immigrant, and the remainder is paid to the appropriate authority towards the cost of board and lodging. An immigrant of either class who becomes unemployed is paid the unemployment benefit, and in some instances receives board and lodging in centres or hostels.

The bill empowers the Director-General of Social Services to retain some of the benefit payable when board and lodging is provided, and to pay such sum to Commonwealth Hostels Limited or to any government department or authority providing the board and lodging. I trust that the Senate will give the measure a speedy passage.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 4176

CIVIL AVIATION AGREEMENT BILL 19.52

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 4th November (vide page 4051), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill he now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The purpose of thebill is to forcean unwilling Trans-Australia Airlines to make an agreement with its main business rival, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Itis difficult to discuss theprinciples involved, because the agreement has already been made.

Senator Guy:

– It is subject to ratification by the Parliament.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– On the24th October, 1952, thePrime Minister (Mr.

Menzies), on behalf of the Common-, wealth, and Mr. Ivan N. Holyman and Mr, J. 0. Declerck, on behalf of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, appended their signatures to the agreement which is now before the Senate f or discussion. That may seem to some honorable senators to be the right way to approach the matter-

Senator Wright:

– Of course it is !

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I think that it is a completely wrong method. The Parliament should discuss a proposed agreement and, if thought necessary, incorporate amendments in it before it is signed physically by the main parties.

Senator Vincent:

– The agreement can have no force until it has been ratified by the Parliament.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The agreement will be ratified, as the passage of this measure is assured because of the Government’s numerical superiority in this chamber. Therefore any discussion of the matter will be relatively worthless as far as individual senators are concerned. I want the attitude of the Opposition in this matter to be clearly understood. The Opposition considers that this attempt to stultify TransAustralia Airlines and to develop Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited at the expense of the Government company, in circumstances that I shall relate to the Senate, is bad in every conceivable way. The Opposition intends, by the use of every method at its disposal, to oppose the passage of the bill. Let there be no shadow of doubt in the minds of the contracting parties, honorable senators opposite, and all other parties interested in the matter, that it is the intention of the Australian Labour party, when next elected to office, to apply every lawful method to restore to TransAustralia Airlines its status quo before the agreement was entered into. It will be futile for the Government parties of to-day, which will be sitting inOpposition in days to come, to then claim that Labour’s attitude is unfair. So important is this matter that the Oppositionwill,during this debate, ask the Government to submit it to thepeople by referendum.If the Government does not accede to thatrequest, it is our intention, irrespective of how long it will take for the Australian Labour party to gain control of the reins of govern- ment-

Government senators interjecting,

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– From the running fire of interjections I am inclined to think that rank-and-file supporters of the Government honestly believethat the agreement that the Government proposes to ratify by this bill is fair and reasonable.

Senator Vincent:

– It all depends on one’s standard of honesty.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) stated in his second-reading speech that the agreement aims to ensure that the two major air services in this country shall be conducted under conditions of fair and active competition. How poorly did the Minister’s words describe what will happen! There could be some merit in the proposed agreement if it would result in fair and active competition. I shall endeavour to prove to the Senate that that is not the true intention.

Let us consider the concessions that it is proposed to grant to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. The agreement provides that the Commonwealth shall guarantee a bank overdraft of £3,000,000 to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to enable the company to purchase six heavy aircraft, and that over a period of years the overdraft may be extended to £7,000,000 in all, but it must not at any one time be more than £4,000,000.; it must be repaid by 1967. According to the Minister the proposed agreement will give to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited a substantial equality with Trans-Australia Airlines in relation to the carriage of airmails. There is no suggestion that tenders will foe called for the carriage of airmail. The Government intends to give to Australian National AirwaysProprietary Limited half of the airmail business and also to make available to the company freight from Commonwealth sources.

Senator Robertson:

– Is not that fair?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I wonder for how long the barrage of interjections by Honorable senators opposite will be kept up? At least they reveal the state of mind of the Government. To use. the words of the Minister, Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited are to be “ rationalized”, and in order to avoid overlapping expenditure and wasteful competition, they must keep each other under review for fifteen years in such matters as air routes, time-tables, fares and freights. Here is evidence of the manner in which the .Government is encouraging competition! I suppose that these two organizations, between them, control S5 per cent, of the air transport business in Australia. They must together watch a.11 matters that arise concerning air routes, time-tables, fares and freights. If one does not agree with the other on any one of those matters, whether it be the extension of an air route, or an increase or reduction of fares and freights, they must get together under a chairman and endeavour to reach a solution. This is the open, vigorous competition about which we have heard so much. If they cannot agree - and I know which organization will wield the big stick - the matter is to be referred to a retired judge of the High Court or of a supreme court, who will obtain all available papers, examine them and make a decision, which must be accepted by both parties. I repeat my earlier statement, that this agreement is being forced on Trans-Australia Airlines, which is not a willing signatory to it. It is obvious that rationalization will mean complete Stagnation for Trans-Australia Airlines.

The next purpose of the bill is to ensure that Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited shall share equally the opportunity to purchase heavy aircraft which become available for purchase. The bill goes further and .provides that if secondhand aircraft, such as Constellations or other big aeroplanes, which might be used by a company in which the Commonwealth has an interest become available, those aircraft also must be shared equally between the two organizations.

Senator Vincent:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I think that the honorable senator will admit that, as far as I have gone, the agreement is all one-sided. As he knows, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has other interests outside Australia. However, this bill does not provide that if surplus aircraft become available from some of the companies that it operates, such air Air Ceylon, Trans-Australia Airlines shall be entitled to an equal opportunity to purchase them. This is a one-way agreement. In fact, it is the most one-sided agreement that I have ever seen. The reason that has been given by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited down the years for its inability to compete successfully with Trans-Australia Airlines has been that Trans-Australia Airlines was allowed to buy all the heavy aircraft available and that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was not allowed to purchase any of them. Any one who is aware of the facts knows that that is not so.

Senator Guy:

– How many Convairs has Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited been allowed to purchase ?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited did hot wish to purchase Convairs. The company possesses nine Skymasters. Because of very wise judgment, to say the least of it, Trans-Australia Airlines sent its chairman to America, and he purchased Convairs in that country before they were completed. He bought those aircraft from the blueprints, at a price that represented little more than half of the final purchase price and a great deal less than half the price of the aircraft to-day. If honorable senators refer to the secondreading speech of the Minister, they will see that he is not sure just what restrictions were placed on Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in regard to the purchase of aircraft. The fac remains that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited considered that the Skymaster was the perfect aircraft and, accordingly, purchased nine of them whereas Trans- Australia Airlines pur chased five Convairs and only four Skymasters. Actually, each organization has an equal number of heavy aircraft. So much for the story that Trans-Australia Airlines was allowed to purchase all the heavy aircraft and that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was starved. The figures speak for themselves. At the present time, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited possesses more DC3’s than does TransAustralia Airlines and actually has the larger all-round fleet. It was simply bad judgment on the part of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited that it failed to secure Convair aircraft. That bad judgment has characterized much more of its business operations than is the case with Trans-Australia Airlines. Finally, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is to be given air route concessions. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, stated that the Government now appreciates that air route charges are fair and just and are recognized by air transport organizations throughout the world. But Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited refused to pay air route charges.

Senator Henty:

– Why did not the Labour Government compel it to pay the charges?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– We could not get the company to court. Had we been able to do so, there is no doubt about what would have happened. The company deliberately delayed a solution of this matter. Now, the Government recognizes the justice of imposing air route charges. After all, the Government does much to make aerodromes fit for use for aircraft; it provides radar facilities and all the safety devices that are so important. If the Government wishes to impose a charge in respect of such services, in my opinion it is not unfair to do so. TransAustralia Airlines paid the charges, whereas Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited simply refused to do so. This bill proposes to allow air route concessions to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, so that instead of the company paying the £1,000,000 which it owes in respect of the charges since 1947, it will now be obliged to pay only £337,000, which is a 66§ per cent, reduction.

Government supporters interjecting,

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– This legislation has certainly m.ade the supporters of the Government very tender about something or other. I do not know what it is, but I hope it is their consciences. Honorable senators will see that from 1952 to 1967 air route charges will be reduced by 50 per cent. Thus, the air route charges which? were attacked so bitterly by the supporters of the Govern-‘ ment when in Opposition are now recognized by them to be just.

Senator Brown:

– Will Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited have to pay the arrears that it owes?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The proposal is, apparently, to guarantee the company’s overdraft for £3,000,000, in return for which it will pay to the Commonwealth £337,000.

Senator Brown:

– But it will not have to pay the £1,000,000?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– No.

Senator Brown:

– Then it is robbing the people of Australia.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– That is correct. It is, perhaps, as well to ascertain to whom the Government is being so kind. What failing aircraft company, crawling along to its abyssmal end, is now to be assisted by the strong right arm of the Commonwealth and given money and half the business of the Commonwealth airline? What, is this old battling airline that needs such assistance ? It is Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, which is completely owned by great shipping companies, interstate and overseas. We find that this company has a capital of £1,500,000. That, I suggest, is the first real problem which confronts it. The company is trying to remain in a big business with too little capital to do the job. I think that every honorable senator will admit that that is so. The company needs £3,000,000 to purchase six aircraft in the immediate future. Yet it is endeavouring to run its business on a capital of £1,500,000. I suggest that it would be interesting to know the profits that were taken from the company in the early stages of its operations. The company is owned by Huddart Parker Limited, which holds 1,119,636 shares, the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Limited, which has a similar number of shares–

Senator Cormack:

– What is the value of the shares?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– They are 5s. shares. Holyman Brothers Proprietary Limited holds 1,121,136 shares; the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited 1,119,636, and the Orient Steam Navigation Company Limited 1,119,624. They are the main shareholders. Airlines of Australia, a small company operating in northern Australia, which was completely bought out by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, holds 350,000 shares. The four managing directors of the shipping companies to which I have referred - Mr. Hancock, Sir Leslie Moreshead, Mr. Packard and Mr. Parker, hold 1,500 shares each.

The net result is that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is completely owned and controlled by great shipping companies, the value of the assets of which, I suppose, could not be computed but would no doubt run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Yet the Australian Government is apparently obliged to keep alive a minor subsidiary of these great shipping companies of the world; I suggest that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is really no more than a minor subsidiary of the great companies to which I have referred. They have invested £1,500,000 in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, but are not prepared to put in any more money. They played for big stakes. All honorable senators know how closely the Conference shipping lines work in with one another to fix passenger and freight rates. They also appreciate how difficult it is for any one to compete against those combined shipping companies which, at one time, considered that, as well as controlling Australia’s shipping, it would be profitable also to control our airlines. They attempted “to do so and very nearly succeeded in achieving a monopoly in Australia. That is one of the complaints which the Australian Labour party has against monopolies. Honorable senators may remember how air services deteriorated when Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was the only substantial airline operator in Australia. At every opportunity it moved in and tried to control small airline operators. For instance it obtained a holding - although not a major holding - in Butler Air Transport Proprietary Limited in New South Wales, and it controls Guinea Air Lines Limited. The shipping companies which own Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited set out to establish a complete airline monopoly in this country and failed, principally because of the influence of TransAustralia Airlines. We do not know what interests these great shipping companies have in airlines throughout other parts of the world, but if an airline in which the Commonwealth is interested wishes to sell one of its heavier planes, Trans-Australia Airlines is obliged to share equally with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited the opportunity to purchase that aircraft. On the other hand, if Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, with a tremendous organization behind it, has the opportunity to acquire aircraft from airlines in which its controlling companies are interested, either overseas or in Australia, there is no question of TransAustralia Airlines being given an equal opportunity to purchase those aircraft. The Government has approached this matter on the wrong basis. It lias taken into consideration only the operations of Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited instead of dealing with the whole industry.

Senator Cormack:

– The honorable senator has not made it clear that the Labour Government first tried to destroy Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Why should I make that clear when it is not so? When Trans-Australia Airlines commenced operations, businessmen throughout Australia placed an embargo on its services. In some of the small capital cities attempts were made to embarrass businessmen who, for reasons of safety, travelled by Trans-Australia Airlines. In Perth and Adelaide it was announced in the social columns of the newspapers that certain businessmen had returned to these cities by Trans-Australia Airlines aeroplanes so that their friends would be able to criticize them for travelling by a “ socialized “ airline. Representatives of Australian National Airways Pro.pretary Limited also went from one business house to another in an endeavour to induce executives to travel in its aircraft instead of those of Trans-Australia Airlines. Despite all these efforts, Trans- Australia Airlines built up the greatest air passenger business in the country. Now that it has become so successful the Government has decided to destroy it.

In the financial year 1951-52, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited aeroplanes flew 277,000,000 passenger miles. In the same period Trans Australia Airlines aeroplanes flew 320,000,000 passenger miles, 43,000,000 passenger miles further than those of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Trans-Australia Airlines has built up an enviable reputation for service and safety. In 1951-52, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited aeroplanes flew 14,000,000 freight ton miles. Trans-Australia Airlines aeroplanes flew only 7,500,000 freight ton miles. The Government has now proposed to take from TransAustralia Airlines half of the quantity of mail that it formerly carried, with every justification, on behalf of the Government. But the Government has not suggested that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited should share with Trans-Australia Airlines the tremendous amount, of freight business that it is able to obtain because of its connexion with interstate and overseas shipping companies.

Senator Guy:

– That business results from fair competition.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The honorable senator contends that it is fair for Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to be given all the freight business of the shipping companies. Yet he would deny that it was fair for TransAustralia Airlines to be given all the airmail business of the Government which owns that company. Freight can be carried at times convenient to an airline and I should imagine that freight business would be far more profitable than passenger business. The Government has not arranged for Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to share its freight with Trans-Australia Airlines but it has agreed that TransAustralia Airlines shall share its 7,500,000 freight ton miles with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Under the Government’s proposal, TransAustralia Airlines will have to hand over half of its freight business as well as half of its mail services to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

It is a disturbing fact that the smaller airlines in Australia have been completely ignored by the Government. If Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited requires government assistance to enable it to remain in business, smaller companies must require similar assistance. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has contended that it is unable to replace its aeroplanes, due to the rising cost of imported aircraft. How then will the smaller companies be able to make replacements? Some of the smaller companies do quite a substantial amount of work.

Senator Guy:

– The honorable senator said that Australia National Airways Proprietary Limited had absorbed the smaller companies.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited absorbed all the smaller companies that it could control. Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited is one company that has been ignored by the Government. Like many other smaller companies, Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited is a pioneering company. In a sense, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited might be referred to as a pioneering company, but the men who did the pioneering in that company left it many years ago. But R. M. Ansett himself was a pioneer airman. I think it was in 1936 that he and his brother won a race from Brisbane to Adelaide. Neither they nor their competitors in the, race had modern equipment. They established their airline in 1937. Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited now carries 15 per cent, of air passengers between Melbourne, Sydney, Hobart and Brisbane. But the

Government has not considered assisting Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited. That company is a subsidiary of Ansett Transport Industry Limited, which is a public company, registered on the Sydney Stock Exchange. Mr. Butler, the founder of the Butler Air Transport Proprietary Limited, was a pioneer airman. He flew from England in an aircraft in which he could look over the top of the cockpit, and he is only about 5 ft. 5 in. tall. The Government should ascertain the needs of these pioneers, some of whom are performing valuable services for the people of the outback. They are not in the profitable part of the business. They are doing a good job. If Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited should be helped, these people also should be helped. Connellan Airways Limited is doing a wonderful job in the Northern Territory, and the MacRobertson-Miller Aviation Company Proprietary Limited is performing valuable services in Western Australia.

If the Government’s argument is correct, these companies may become bankrupt without its assistance. Instead of helping these companies the Government has decided to help the big shipping companies, which control Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and which need very little help. They have been able to sustain themselves very well for 100 years. Now that they have lost money in a subsidiary company they wish to have the Government assist them, although on previous occasions they have protested against government interference with private enterprise. Many aircraft companies throughout the world are making huge profits, and if these shipping companies provided more capital for Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and ran it more efficiently they could make profits also. But they do not intend to risk their money if the Government is silly enough to risk its money. Not one honorable senator can truthfully claim to know the details of the financial position of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. The Government will not make available the financial reports that it received on this company. Honorable senators have been provided with a list of profits and losses. How do we know whether it is right or wrong? As I have shown, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is a subsidiary of large shipping companies, and movements of money might well take place between the principal companies and the subsidiary company. Honorable senators do not know what charges have been placed on this company by the shipping companies. The Senate should have a complete survey of the financial position of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. The Government has stated that it might harm Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to make certain facts public. The details of the finances of Trans-Australia Airlines are not kept secret. Its balancesheet can be examined by anybody. Trans-Australia Airlines lost £70,000 during its last twelve months of trading. No honorable senator can justify . voting public revenue to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited without having a clear picture of the financial position of that company.

In 1949-50, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited lost £216,682. In 1950-51, it lost only £10,000. That was an extraordinary state of affairs. After having made a profit of £214,818 in 1949-50 and of £205,799 in 1950-51, Trans-Australia Airlines lost £70,000 during the six months ended the 30th June, 1952. Honorable senators can examine the balance-sheet of TransAustralia Airlines. What is the Government’s objection to making available the financial report upon which it acted in regard to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited? Honorable senators opposite know that it is very difficult to ascertain the financial position of subsidiary companies, particularly in circumstances such as these. At the very least, the people of Australia and the members of the Opposition are entitled to know the true financial position of the Australian National Airlines Commission. I believe that before taking the action proposed in this measure, the Government should have sought an expression of opinion by the people of Australia. No mention was made of this measure in the joint policy speech of the Opposition parties at the last election. It has come suddenly out of the clouds.

With feverish haste the Government is rushing, in the last days of the present sittings, to sustain Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited by guaranteeing overdrafts amounting to £7,000,000 over a period of years. What is wrong with asking the people of Australia what they think about this proposal? The Government has ignored public opinion, not only in regard to this measure, but also in regard to earlier sales of public assets, including the Glen Davis shale oil project and the Commonwealth’s shares in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Proprietary Limited, and Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. Australia is supposed to be a democracy in the truest sense; but the people are not to be given an opportunity to express an opinion on this vital measure, for which the Government has no mandate. It is strange indeed that a government which has moved so slowly in its efforts to safeguard the Australian economy by checking inflation and putting value back into the £1, should move with such feverish haste to lend financial support to a major airline whilst ignoring other airline operators throughout the Commonwealth. If the proposal were to support the airline industry as a whole, the Opposition would look upon it in a different light, but I am certain that the people of Australia will look with no more favour than does the Opposition upon the Government’s plan to help only the strongest private airline which is well able to look after itself, and at the same time to deprive the publicly owned airline of the drive and vigour and keen management which have done so much to put TransAustralia Airlines in the forefront of world airlines. The Opposition will oppose this bill and every other measure associated with it, to the utmost. When we are returned to the treasury bench, we shall do everything in our power to restore the position that existed before the agreement with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was entered into. In conclusion, I move -

That all words after “ bill “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “be deferred until after it has been submitted to the electors at a referendum “.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I support the bill on the ground that it is a constructive attempt to carry out the policy on which we were returned to office at the 1949 and 1951 elections. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 4183

DEFENCE TRANSITION (RESIDUAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator SPICER’ read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate will be glad to learn that the object of the bill is to dispose, once and for all, of the few surviving National Security regulations and orders. For the last half dozen years, successive Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bills, each prolonging for a year at a time, a gradually shrinking bulk of National Security regulations and orders, have been a feature of the end-of-the-year sittings of the Parliament. We have seen the last of them. The Government proposes to replace them with a new act, which will keep on foot for varying periods, the small residual groups of regulations and orders that are listed in the schedules, and which will not have to come before the Parliament again. One group of regulations, three in number, which are listed in Part I. of the First Schedule, will be continued for only the first six months of 1953. The first is the Apple and Pear Acquisition Regulations. Their only function now is to authorize the Board to complete the re-assessment of compensation for fruit acquired during the war, in accordance with a judicial decision. The re-assessment is nearly complete, but cannot be finished before the end of December, when under the present act the regulations would expire. The other two regulations in this first group, the War Deaths Regulations and regulation 66 of the General Regulations, will be replaced by regulations under permanent legislation which is now before the Parliament. I refer to the Defence Bill 1952 and the Explosives Bill 19.52, It may not be possible to bring these bills into operation and promulgate new regulations under them until the early part of next year; hence the proposal to continue the existing regulations, so that there will be no gap.

The two orders listed in the second schedule will be continued until the end of 1953, and will then lapse if not earlier revoked. They are the Cordage and Fibre Order and the Jute .Goods Order. The transition away from emergency conditions has not progressed as rapidly or as far, in respect of these matters, as it has in most other .directions. I am advised that the continuance of those orders will command general consent in the industries to which they relate. There remains the group’ of regulations listed in Part II. of the first schedule. Broadly, the position with these is that they do not draw their support from the defence power, and they are not now needed except for winding up or for transitional purposes, but it is not quite clear how soon they can be replaced or dispensed with. In these cases, therefore, no time limit is fixed. Indeed, no time limit is necessary, because their continuance does not depend on an emergency, or on emergency powers. I shall say a word or two about each of them.

The group of general regulations, which are listed first, authorizes the continued occupation of property of which possession was taken during the war, and provides the necessary machinery for assessing compensation. These are necessary only for winding up purposes. So also is the last item listed in this groups - regulation 2 of Statutory Rule 205 of 1945–an External Territories regulation which will permit the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to finalize certain proceedings transferred from the external territories during the war years. The Shipping. Co-ordination Regulations permit the exercise of certain powers in relation to interstate and over-: sea? shipping, and will eventually be replaced by permanent legislation. The Industrial Property Regulations are being progressively incorporated in tha revised patent trade .marks and designs legislation which is being prepared, and of which the .first .act has already been passed, though not yet proclaimed to commence. It is convenient to keep these regulations on foot in the meantime, but no question of principle in involved. To complete the list, ‘I mention that regulation 62 of the Supplementary Regulations belongs strictly to the industrial property group. The remaining supplementary regulation, No. 100, is evidentiary, and will, of course, disappear with the regulations to which it is incidental. With these limited groups, of exceptions, the remainder of the National Security Regulations which were continued into 1952 by the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1951 will all expire at the end of the present year. The bill contains the appropriate saving provisions. As 1 have said, the bill disposes finally of the remnants of the national security miscellany. Honorable senators, I am sure, will attend its obsequies without lamentation. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 4184

CIVIL AVIATION AGREEMENT BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4183).

Senator McCallum (New South Wales) [5.42]. - I listened with great interest to Senator Armstrong’s criticism. I have no objection to a person who believes that State enterprise is the better form of enterprise, opposing this bill, but ‘I do not think that the position as stated by Senator Armstrong is perfectly fair. He made two stupid statements towards the end of his speech. The first was that the Government had no mandate for this measure. It has a clear and definite mandate. In 1949 and in 1951, the Liberal party and the Australian Country party fought the election campaigns on the issues of socialism and communism We were opposed to both. The policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), which is often quoted by honorable senators opposite when they find something in it that seems to show a little inconsistency, or something that has not been carried1 out, has been very carefully- avoided’ on’ this occasion. If honorable senators opposite will read that speech, again, they will find that the Prime- Minister most definitely said’ that his’ Government would set out to restore free enterprise. That was the- very corner stone of our- policy, and so long as honorable senators opposite state the issue as one of socialism against free enterprise, I shall have no- objection. They have a perfect right to advocate socialism, and, if the socialist philosophy is to be accepted, even to do things whian amount, to confiscation because that is what socialism means. It would, be terrible, for; this’ country if socialism, which is opposed; by the majority of the people,, were to come in simply because every time- a step forward was’ mad:e by -honorable senator!? opposite, it could never be reversed by a governmnent of a different political colour.. That, of course, is a part of the practice and principle of socialism. We all recall the memorable statement by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. ‘Calwell), “ You cannot put the feathers back in a plucked fowl “, and the equally colourful statement of his then leader, Mr. Chifley, “ You cannot unscramble the eggs “. We are definitely doing those very things. We are restoring free enterprise. I have read the bill very carefully but there is little evidence in the debate on this measure in the House of Representatives or in this chamber, that it has been read carefully by members of. the Labour party. Opposition speakers have picked out points here and there, but they have made no attempt to survey the bill comprehensively. In this measure, a very definite attempt has been made to keep two great air transport organizations in existence, and to prevent either from crushing out the other, or both being crushed out in the process of the formation of a giant monopoly. Australians do not like monopolies either State or private. If anything, a State monopoly is the more dangerous. In our lifetime, we have seen the power of a State monopoly steadily rise until no competitor could stand up against it. The socialists’ cry of 50 years ago, that the State is merely the governing body for the capitalist class, is no longer true.

Great State instrumentalities have aseparate existence. We had- an excellent illustration of that fact a few days1 ago when an officer of a great State instrumentality sought to instruct members of the Parliament on what- that instrumentality wanted them to do.

Sitting, suspended from 5.46 to- S p.m..

Senator McCALLUM:

– I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 4185

EXPLOSIVES BILL. 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 41T5).

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– I propose to move an amendment which I shall ask the Minister to consider seriously as expressing the will of the Senate in relation to this bill. I shall do so because I believe that the Senate has not been given, adequate time to inform its. mind about the proposals embodied in the measure. The acceptance of the amendment will in no way affect the safety regulations now in operation. The purpose of the amendment is merely to suspend the judgment of the Senate on the bill for a relatively short period so that honorable senators may consider its implications. I do not propose to treat the Senate to a long exposition of the reasons for the amendment because I am sure that the Minister will readily agree to accept it. I move -

That all words after “ bill “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ be delayed until the Senate has a full opportunity to study its provisions, and consider its impact on State laws and State instrumentalities and authorities.”.

I shall highlight the problem that confronts us in relation to this bill. The series of safety regulations promulgated during the war have been a constant source of irritation to the State authorities which have frequently expressed dismay at the fact that the regulations have taken from them control of safety measures, which have been developed over a long period of years, to ensure the safe handling of explosives. There has been an agitation on the part of the State authorities to have the regulations withdrawn and power to control the handling of explosives handed back to them. Over the years the States developed a code of precautions that must be taken in the handling of explosives and other dangerous substances. The code has been embodied in acts of parliament passed by the States in order to ensure that their citizens shall be protected against the hazards resultant from the handling, transport and storage of explosives. It is true that the observance of the State laws on this matter frequently involved delay and, at times, expense, and I can well understand why, during the war years, the Commonwealth authorities wished to be free of them. During the war we agreed that the civilian population would have to be subjected to additional risks in order that the Commonwealth should be able to prosecute the war with expedition and vigour.

Senator Vincent:

– To which war doe* the honorable senator refer?

Senator ARNOLD:

– Some of us regard this matter very seriously. It is not one which should be made the subject of facetious interjection. Now that the war is over the Commonwealth cannot reasonably plead that the safety code developed by the States should be discarded and replaced by a new code instituted by the Commonwealth merely for the purpose of avoiding delay or expense. In recentyears we have seen the havoc that has resulted from the careless handling of explosives. Honorable senators will recall that about two years ago a vessel with a cargo of explosives blew up iri the port of Halifax, devastated a large area of that city, caused heavy loss of life and inflicted great hardship on many citizens. Only last year a ship carrying a cargo of nitrates caught fire while it was tied up at a wharf in Melbourne. Under the safety code drawn up by the States a vessel carrying a cargo of explosives would be prohibited from tying up alongside a wharf except in a specified area where it would not constitute a danger to other vessels and to port installations. Only the strenuous efforts of the Melbourne fire brigade prevented great damage from being caused to other vessels nearby and to wharfs and buildings adjoining the wharfs. We constantly face risks of that kind. The Minister has said that a serious incident has not happened since the regulations have been in force. For that fact, we are very grateful; but that is no reason why we should continue totake risks of this kind. At present I understand that shipments of ammunition from ammunition dumps are being unloaded at the Sydney wharfs. If that is true, a very serious hazard is being created, which should not be tolerated.

The Minister should be prepared to allow consideration of the bill to be deferred until honorable senators have had an opportunity to consult with the State authorities and ascertain whether the safety code which the Commonwealth has in mind will provide sufficient protection for the people. The bill merely provides that the Governor-General may make regulations relating to the handling of explosives. We do not know the kind of precautions the Government intends to embody in regulations. That is not good enough. On this occasion, the first upon which this Parliament has been asked to deal with a law relating to the safe handling of explosives, the Government should have drafted model legislation which would set a standard for the States to observe. Honorable senators will, I am sure, see the wisdom of delaying a decision on the bill at this stage. If the passage of the legislation were a matter of urgency, we should be obliged to arrive at a decision on the bill without delay. The Government, however, cannot claim that the bill is urgent because the existing safety regulations will continue to operate for some months to come. Consequently, we should be given an opportunity to examine the bill thoroughly before we pass judgment upon it.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– The Government is not prepared to delay the passage of a bill which was introduced into the House of Representatives about a month ago. It provisions constitute an improvement on the regulations that were promulgated by the Labour Government during the war years.

Senator Arnold:

– I agree that that is so.

Senator McLEAY:

– When the bill was presented in another place, the chairman of the Melbourne Harbour Trust, Mr.

McKenzie, who is also chairman of the Port Authorities of Australia, expressed a wish that the Government should receive a deputation of representatives of port authorities to hear certain suggestions which they desired to submit. The necessary arrangements were made and the technical officers of the Commonwealth discussed the matter with the representatives of the port authorities very thoroughly. As the result of the discussions the Government decided to embody an amendment in the bill during its consideration by the Senate. Honorable senators will observe that, under the circulated amendment the proposed new clause 5 (3.) will read as follows: -

Before making regulations for or in relation to the handling of Commonwealth explosives in a port, the Governor-General shall take into consideration any recommendations with respect to the proposed regulations made to the Minister by the committee known as the Permanent Committee of the Australian Port Authorities Association.

A copy of the bill was sent to all the port authorities and the measure was discussed by them with their respective State Ministers. For the benefit of Senator Seward, I inform the Senate that the “Western Australian Minister concerned regarded the bill in its original form as undesirable because he believed that the Commonwealth had not co-operated properly with the States on the matter. After the members of the deputation to which I have referred discussed the matter with the officers of the Commonwealth and the amendment which I have just read was formulated, the Western Australia Minister informed the Government that he was perfectly satisfied.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I assume that the Minister is replying to the amendment proposed by Senator Arnold and not to the matters raised by Senator Seward.

Senator McLEAY:

– That is so.

The PRESIDENT:

– I want that point to be clearly understood as, otherwise, he will close the debate. The Minister must confine his remarks to the amendment proposed by Senator Arnold.

Senator McLEAY:

– As the bill has the approval of the Port Authorities of Australia I see no reason why its passage through the Senate should be delayed.

Although Australia is not engaged in a hot war, we are now receiving explosives and explosive substances of a type not hitherto seen in this country. The Government is most eager to place the bill on the statute-book so that safety regulations may be drafted and promulgated without delay. The regulations are the portion that really matters. When they are prepared by a technical officer, they will be submitted to the chairman of the Port Authorities of Australia, Mr. McKenzie, before they are promulgated. I hope that the Senate will not delay dealing with the measure. Explosives are entering the port of Adelaide and we want to put the matter on a proper basis. I assure honorable senators that we have the co-operation of the States in this matter.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Arnold’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Thebill.

Amendments (by Senator McLeay) agreed to -

That sub-clause (2.) of clause a be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-clauses: - “ (2.) Without limiting the generality of the power to make regulations conferred by the last preceding sub-section, the regulations which may be made under that sub-section include regulations for or in relation to -

safety measures to be observed at, in or upon a place, vehicle, aircraft or vessel at, in, upon or in the vicinity of which there are Commonwealth explosives; and

the establishment, and the functions and powers, of committees to advise the Minister on such matters as are prescribed. “ (3.) Before making regulations for or in relation to the handling of Commonwealth explosives in a port, the Governor-General shall take into consideration any recommendations with respect to the proposed regulations made to the Minister by the committee known as the Permanent Committee of the Australian Port Authorities Association.”.

That, in clause 6, sub-clause (1.) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-clause : - “ (1.) The regulations may empower a person -

to provide, by order, for any matter which may be provided for by the regulations ; and

to direct, by order, that a vessel in which Commonwealth explosives are, or are to be, loaded may be moored or berthed in a port specified in the order.”.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– This bill is intended to renew a power to make regulations. That simply means that legislative power with regard to this matter is being passed almost untramelled to the departmental officers. The Government may disguise the power as it will. The right of the legislature to review regulations is a matter of great difficulty and delay. By approving of a bill to authorize departmental officers to make regulations in relation to the carrying of explosives we shall pass to the departmental officers legislation-making power. Despite the Minister’s apparent wish to expedite the passage of this measure, I should like him to inform me whether the State authorities have been consulted about the impact that it will make on the legislation of the States. I do not subscribe to the suggestion that has been made that the Commonwealth standard will be less rigid than are the standards of the States. If I know anything about Commonwealth administration, there will be a network of red tape which will present an insoluble tangle to persons who handle explosives. I am greatly concerned about the proposal to raise a new superstructure above the framework of the States, because the ordinary practical people who have charge of explosives from day to day may experience difficulty in understanding the requirements of the respective laws. The laws of the six States will remain, and by this bill we shall delegate to departmental officers the duty to frame regulations. I have almost reached my limit of tolerance of this kind of legislation.

Senator Sandford:

– So have we.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– As I said earlier, I have been informed that the chairman of the Port Authorities of Australia has conveyed to all the State instrumentalities a copy of the bill and copies of the amendment, and I understand that they have concurred in the proposals.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– Oan the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) assure me that the State authorities, including the Board of Fire Commissioners of New South Wales, have been fully informed of the provisions of the bill?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I understand that only the port authorities of the States have been consulted about the provisions df the measure.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– The permanent committee of the Port Authorities Association only handles explosives within the port area. In Victoria

Senator Sandford:

– Where the political scene is explosive.

Senator CORMACK:

Senator Sandford is one of the most explosive persona in the political life of this country. In Victoria, the Chief Inspector of Explosives, who controls a section of the Chief Secretary’s Department, is responsible for the safe handling of explosives, including areas for which the port authorities have specific responsibilities.

Senator O’flaherty:

– There is a similar arrangement in other States.

Senator CORMACK:

– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Sena.tor McLeay) assure me that the stringent regulations that are administered by the Chief Inspector of Explosives in Victoria will be observed by the Commonwealth? Have the port authorities in Melbourne been consulted about the handling of explosives within the area of the port of Melbourne? Have the laws of Victoria in relation to the handling of explosives in that State been examined ? This is the crux of the matter. I know that, under the Defence power, the Commonwealth has an untrammelled right in relation to the carriage and storage of explosives. As this is a States House, I consider that the Minister should inform honorable senators whether all the authorities that are properly responsible for the maintenance, custody and safe storage of explosives in the States, other than the port authorities, have been consulted about the provisions of the bill.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– The State explosives expert, who was at the conference, maintains the closest possible liaison with the port authority, and I understand that the State authorities maintain a very close liaison with the fire authorities.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

– I have wondered whether we are encroaching unduly on the fields of power that belong properly to the States. Is there any real necessity for the Commonwealth to, in a sense, override the powers of the States in relation to explosives? On other occasions I have protested both in this chamber and in the Queensland Parliament about the encroachment of the Commonwealth on domains of power that belong to the States. The Minister should inform the committee why the Commonwealth proposes to invade this field of State activity, and why it is necessary for us to set up a Commonwealth superstructure which may confuse the minds of people who are required to handle explosives in the States. I should be glad if the Minister would clarify the matter.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– The Commonwealth authorities, in conjunction with the States, have been controlling explosives for as long as I can remember. The States have no objection to the Commonwealth making regulations in relation to explosives, in connexion with the framing of which they have been consulted, provided that the Commonwealth is prepared to work in co-operation with the port authorities and with the State representatives. I assure Senator Maher that the Commonwealth is not intruding unnecessarily into this field. For very good reasons, the closest possible check is kept on the transportation of explosives from ports to the fields of battle, and in relation to consignments of explosives to the Commonwealth. The bill has the approval of the port authorities, the Western Australian Government, and, I understand, the Victorian Government.

Senator VINCENT:
“Western Australia

– As far as I can see, there will be a set of regulations under the laws of the States, and another set under the laws of the Commonwealth. Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport assure the Senate that there will be no conflict between the Commonwealth and State laws?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I can give the honorable senator that assurance, because the port authorities were consulted in relation to this legislation.

Bill - as amended - agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4190

CIVIL AVIATION AGREEMENT BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4185)’.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

Senator Armstrong has stated that the Government has no mandate in relation to the proposed agreement, and that the matter has been unduly hurried. Those statements were quite untrue, as is proved by authoritative and unambiguous statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), during the 1949 general election campaign. The right honorable gentleman said -

We believe that private competitive industry by its very nature is more efficient, can produce the goods better . . . and by producing and selling them in competition affords to the people that combination of quality, usefulness, and moderate price which they are entitled to demand. We insist, and we say this to the owners, managers and workmen alike, that private industry must be non-monopolistic, efficient, and concerned with the satisfaction of the customer.

With relation to this particular matter he stated -

Tn civil aviation, we shall maintain and expand full and developing air services. . . . As for the Government airlines, which were designed by the Chifley Government to be monopolies (and failed to be so only because of a High Court decision), we shall put them on to a true competitive basis, with no preferences either in cheap capital or dollar expenditure.

That was a clear and unambiguous promise. This matter has not been hurried forward. It has been under discussion for a long time. All members on the Government side of the chamber have had an opportunity to express their views on it. This bill is an attempt to carry out a definite promise given during the election campaign.

The measure contains a number of novel features and deserves to be debated in the Senate in a different atmosphere from that which has prevailed on the Opposition side of the chamber. It deserves to be treated as a somewhat novel experiment.

Senator Sandford:

– Novel is right I

Senator McCALLUM:

– Despite all the noise from honorable senators opposite, I intend to state the points that I wish to make. This bill is an attempt to re-establish competition. We must face the situation that a deliberate attempt was made by the Chifley Government to ruin private enterprise as one of the elements in public transport. The position then was totally different from that which prevailed in the early days of transport in the States when, as honorable senators know, private enterprise could not do the job. That is the history of our State railways. Attempts were made to establish private companies, but they failed. The States had to step in. That was the position with regard to rail transport, but it was not so with aviation. Up till 1945, the pioneering work in the aviation field was done by private companies. Senator Armstrong admitted that to be so this afternoon and made a kind of plea for some of the small aviation companies, with which I fully agree. But the position is that, because of an insensate belief that the Government must run every enterprise, the Chifley Government stepped in and deliberately attempted to create a public monopoly. It was frustrated in its attempt only by the decision of the High Court, that such action would be unconstitutional. When this Government came to office it found that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited had been placed in a position of prejudice because of the action of the Chifley Government in attempting to establish a monopoly. We devised ways of putting aviation services on a basis of competition that was as fair as possible. lt is not the basis of competition that I would have desired because, owing to the action of a socialist government, the field had been ruined. ‘ lt was not possible really to re-establish competition without favour. Consequently, we were obliged to resort to the various measures referred to in this bill. I repeat that there are novel features in the proposed agreement and in the bill. Some of them may not succeed completely; nevertheless they represent an attempt to establish conditions under which the two major airlines may compete, instead of allowing a government monopoly or a private monopoly to operate. I do not think that any one who listened to Senator Armstrong’s review of these features of the bill would have obtained a true picture of what is being done. The honorable senator stated that the Government will provide money for Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. It will not do so, but will merely guarantee an overdraft as compensation for the deliberate sabotage of private enterprise by the previous Labour Government. In addition to that guarantee, provision is made for reduced air-route charges. One could gather the impression from the remarks of Senator Armstrong that these reduced charges will operate only in favour of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, whereas the truth is that they will operate to the advantage of both Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans- Australia Airlines. The honorable senator also referred to the sharing of mails, which I admit is a novel feature. The position is that these two major authorities are operating in the field of air transport without room for other companies to come in, and the simple devise of sharing the mails has, therefore, been resorted to. Finally, machinery is proposed to secure rationalization, which is a device with which I am not particularly enamoured. However, there can be seen in competition between the two organizations elements that may be to the disadvantage of both the parties concerned and also to the travelling public.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What does “ rationalization “ mean?

Senator McCallum:

– It is possible, for instance-

Senator O’Byrne:

– To adapt a biblical phrase, “ To him who has, from him who has not . . .”.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator George Rankin). - Order! If Senator O’Byrne interjects again I shall take action.

Senator McCallum:

– It is possible for two organizations to arrange their time-tables so as to enable them both to operate in the best interests of the public. Time-tables can be so staggered as to ensure that travel by various airlines can be provided at all hours of the day. That is what I understand by rationalization - an elimination of those features of competition which are not in the public interest.

There is one fallacy in particular which we should remove from our minds. In the campaign of mendacity that has been waged against this bill, the story has been circulated that the Government is taking away the property of the people. Let us examine that concept. I suggest that the interest of the people in transport is that they should be provided with an efficient service at reasonable charges. It is completely fallacious to say that an airline owned by the Government and which may charge high rates for inefficient service is any more the property of the people than is a private airline which provides clean, quick and cheap service. There is no difference whatever between the service that I obtain, for instance, from the Commonwealth Bank, with which I happen to have my account, simply because I know and trust the officers with whom I deal, and that provided by, say, the Bank of New South Wales. Any institution which provides service is the property of the people just as much as is a government service.

As I endeavoured to point out this afternoon during one of my two earlier attempts to make this speech - the interruptions occurred because the Government desired to introduce other items of business - these governmental institutions tend to develop into authorities which have their own rights and privileges. The danger is that they are apt to become our masters instead of our servants.

There can be no doubt whatever about the policy that the Government was elected to pursue and that it has rigidly endeavoured to effect since it came to office. That policy is designed to recreate private enterprise and to put an end to this ideal of the super-state which gives all employment, finds all favours for everybody and, in effect, finally determines what kind of lives people shall lead.

Senator Grant:

– Was not the honorable senator once a socialist?

Senator McCallum:

– I was a socialist once, before I was 30 years of age, but I am not a socialist to-day. I ceased to be a socialist because I realized the fallacies of socialism. During the last 40 years those fallacies have been increasingly demonstrated. No State of the ‘Commonwealth has so amply demonstrated the pitfalls of socialism as has Queensland. Forty years ago those in charge of the affairs of that State endeavoured to bring everything under the control of the State. To-day, they are frightened to try any experiment in socialism, because it has been proved that the philosophy is a false one. There is no greater fallacy- than that a Stateowned undertaking provides better services to the people than does a privately owned, enterprise.

I support this bill as an experiment. I do not believe that it is the last word, because I think that aviation throughout the world is developing in directions and by methods which are becoming increasingly novel. We must adapt ourselves to those methods. The Opposition does not stand up to the problems of civil aviation when it simply states that if it is returned to office it will restore the status quo. That will not be. practicable. Ii will be utterly impossible to put civil aviation back in the position where it was when this Government came to office, or even where it will be when the bill before the Senate is passed. In my opinion, we should be well advised to obtain from other parts of the world expert opinion on civil aviation matters. I should like to see an expert, possibly from the great, Dutch airlines or one of the other leading companies which have solved many problems, come to Australia and advise us. I am prepared to support any reasonable amendment of this bill after the measure has been given a fair trial. There is one thing, nowever, which I shall never support, and that is simply to place the whole of these two magnificent airlines in the palsied hands of inept bureaucrats.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- In dealing with this bill, it seems to me that it is necessary to fix in our minds the fact that in Australia at the present time two major airlines, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines, are operating. This “ horror “ bill, which we have before us for consideration, contains a provision for the approval of an agreement between the Commonwealth and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in which there is provision for the granting of guarantees of finance to that company and also for the making of loans for the purpose of enabling the company to carry on. Another provision relates to the rationalization of air services. The final provision, one might say, requires the obsequious observance of the agreement by Trans-Australia Airlines. We must look at the action taken by the Government to’ arrange this agreement, which has been drafted on most unusual Hues. The Senate has not had placed before it a report by an expert upon the plant and aircraft of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Honorable senators do not know anything about the present financial position of the company, nor have we seen a report by an actuary of the estimated development of air services in Australia during the next fifteen years. As a matter of fact, every honorable senator is in the dark concerning the essential points of this agreement. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has been represented to us as a kind of ragged waif, coming to the Government, with tears in its eyes, emaciated-looking, undernourished and wondering what will happen to it. But the Government has taken it in and provided it with this agreement. I propose to state the names of the shareholders in this ragged waif of a company which is crying and wingeing about the beating that it has received at the hands of TransAustralia Airlines. One of the shareholders in Australian National Airways

Proprietary Limited is Huddart Parker Limited, an incorporated company which holds 1,119,636 shares. Other shareholders in Australian National . Airways Proprietary Limited are the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand Limited, the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company Limited and Holyman Brothers Proprietary Limited, of 60 Brisbane-street, Launceston. I mention the address of that company because a certain honorable senator has on more than one occasion attacked Trans-Australia Airlines, and now that we know that Holyman Brothers Proprietary Limited is a shareholder in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, we know why he has attacked Trans-Australia Airlines. I do not propose to mention the other shareholders in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited because they are private individuals.

Let us examine the balance-sheets and assets of the companies which are shareholders in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and which have sent this poor, puny child to the Australian Government to beg for a few pence to carry on for the next fifteen years. Only about twelve months ago this company, in effect, pointed a gun at the head of the Government and said that it had decided not to carry on unless it received special consideration. It wished to operate on its own terms. No doubt the terms of the agreement that the Government has submitted to the Senate have been dictated entirely by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. They are not what the ‘Government has offered. They axe what Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has “wrung from the Government. Huddart Parker Limited does not appear to be .suffering .from poverty.. It has a paid ap capital ;of £31,250,000, comprising ‘500^000 6 per <cent. cumulative preference shares and 7.50,000 ordinary shares of £1. For the trading year ended the 30th June, .1951, this company was in a position to pay the dividend «on -its preference shares and a dividend of 15.8 per cent. on its ordinary shares. For ‘Certain reasons, it declared its ordinary dividend at IS per cent.

The trading profit of the company was £147,748 and its income from investments was £107,385 making a total profit of £255,133 for the year. The fixed assets of this poor little company - that is the value of its freehold and leasehold properties - amounted to £576,288. Its assets in the form of ships, plant, &c, amounted to £632,399. It held £1,438,5.07 worth of shares and debentures in other companies and £1,254,310 in cash and bonds. The company’s assets were valued at £5,145,17.0. Some of the companies in which this company holds shares are J. and A. Brown Proprietary Limited, Abermain-Seaham Collieries Limited, Hebburn and .Metropolitan Collieries Proprietary Limited, Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, the Melbourne Steamship Company Limited, and Tasmanian Steamers Proprietary Limited.

Some time ago honorable .senators wondered who had purchased the Government’s shares in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. Huddart Parker Proprietary Limited evidently bought some of them. Some time ago honorable senators heard of a sale of very valuable coal-mining machinery. Who purchased it ? Huddart Parker Limited is a shareholder in several coal mines. Another company which is interested in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand. It is not a pauper. At the 30th June, 1951, its assets included .65 vessels totalling 207,784 tons and two vessels under construction. The total value of these vessels was £4,862,435. It also had cash amounting to £147,659. Its .assets totalled £7,674,117. Another shareholder in Australian National Airmays Proprietary Limited, the Orient Steam Navigation Company Limited, is not .scraping along in penury, either. Its assets including fleet, payments on account of tonnage, building, premises and plant amounted to £4,355,449. Its other securities were valued at £4,988,702. Its total assets were valued at £12,293,159. The ordinary shareholders in this company are not Australian residents. At the :30th .June, 19 51, .the .assets of the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited, another shareholder in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, including steamers, motor vessels and other vessels, amounted to £1,216,204. It owned freehold and leasehold properties worth £221,482 and its government securities, bank deposits and cash in hand amounted to £1,190,482. Its shares in other companies were worth £911,379. The total value of its assets was £4,090,189. During the year ended 30th June, 1951, after providing for depreciation and all other charges it made a profit of £116,268. The Orient Steam Navigation Company Limited and the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand - two shareholders in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited - are under the direct control of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company Limited. The consolidated balance-sheet of this company for the year ended the 31st December, 1950, showed fixed assets valued at £87,552,277 and current assets valued at £63,758,537. The total value of its assets was £139,546,508. The total assets of the four shipping companies which are shareholders in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited are worth £29,202,635. If the assets of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company are taken into consideration, the total assets of the shipping companies that are interested in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited amount to £168,749,143.

Why have the Liberal party and the Australian Country party agreed to give financial guarantees and make advances on loan to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited ? The people of Australia are asking that question. The Government has proposed to lend Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited £4,000,000 although the assets of the shipping companies which are interested in this Australian company amount to over £100,000,000. Why do not the shareholders in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited support this poor little company which has been sent along to the Government to ask for a few pence ? One of the novel features of the agreement that was referred to by Senator McCallum was the rationalization of services. The agreement provides that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans- Australia Airlines must take immediate steps to rationalize fares, freights and air routes. What does the

Government mean by “rationalization”? It means that the services of the two companies must be dovetailed. Mention was made in the agreement of wasteful competition. What is wasteful competition? I shall give an instance of it. Recently 300 men who lived in various suburbs of Brisbane paid their fares and travelled from their homes to apply for one job. That was a case of wasteful competition but the Government has not done anything about that. It only believes in preventing wasteful competition insofar as it is required to take business from TransAustralia Airlines and hand it to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. What public interests will be served by this agreement? The public is satisfied with the service that has been given by Trans-Australia Airlines. The public is proud of the. service which, the Australian Government has been instrumental in providing. In “ rationalizing “ air services no doubt the Government intends that the representatives of the two companies shall confer with the object of amalgamating their air routes in such a way that it will be impossible to distinguish the services of one company from those of the other. Then we find that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is to receive a “ substantia] share “ of airmails. What does that mean? As there are only two companies in the field, surely it means that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is to have 50 per cent, of the mail-carrying business. The agreement also provides that warrants for travel by the services of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited shall be available to Commonwealth public servants. Apparently public servants who are required to travel by air will be provided with a book of warrants for air travel. This will enable Ministers of this Government to learn the political inclinations of public servants. By examining the warrants, Ministers will be able to learn whether public servants travel by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited or by Trans-Australia Airlines. Knowing this Government as I do, I am certain that if a public servant travels by Trans-Australia Airlines, he will be regarded as a Labour supporter and his chances of promotion will be prejudiced.

As I have said, now that the agreement is in operation, it will not be long before it will be possible to distinguish between the services of Trans-Australia Airlines and of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. The rationalization that the Government has in mind is the dovetailing of air services, but the profits made by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will go to the shareholders in that company. In effect, a private industry is being nationalized in such a way that the Australian Government will have to take all the financial risks involved in its operations. The agreement is the dream of a monopolistic trader. It is sp lopsided that it is a wonder that it does not fall over altogether. It is clear from the provisions of paragraph 8 of the agreement that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is seeking not to compete with its opponent, but to avoid competition. As Australia’s population increases, and more air routes are required, there will be haggling over new services. All such disputes will be dealt with by an infirm retired judge. That is what is being done to this vital national undertaking that Labour left with this Government for safe keeping. The Government is doing everything possible to divest itself of control. This measure is a splenetic action. I realize, of course, that honorable senators opposite are giving expression to their natural instincts. They are handing the people’s money over to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to assist that company to compete unfairly with Trans- Australia Airlines. The aim is to wipe Trans-Australia Airlines off the commercial map altogether. The bill is not inconsistent with the Government’s actions in other fields. We are told that the Government believes in free competition; but it is merging the major air line operators in such a way that competition will be impossible. The Government says that it does not believe in the means test in relation to social services, and that its policy is to abolish the means test, but it has not done so. Honorable senators opposite say that they do not believe in. combines and monopolies, yet the Government of which they are supporters have withdrawn from Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and so has left the oil cartel free to do as it wishes in this country. The Government claims also to believe in lower taxation, but it continues to levy high taxes. We are told that the Government believes in full employment, yet it has so manoeuvred the Australian economy that considerable unemployment has resulted. The Government promised to expand the Australian economy, but it has deliberately contracted it. The Government professes not to believe in prices control, but it has voted £1,000,000 to the States for the administration of prices control. We are told that the Government docs not believe in controls, yet here we have a bill which places a crippling control on Trans-Australia Airlines. And these activities will continue until the people of Australia vapourize the Government in 1954.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

.- Senator Benn has shown little understanding of the salient features of this bill. He evaded them very well and indulged in extravagant, outrageous and irresponsible language. He revealed himself to be a hater of private enterprise and of fairness. He left no one in any doubt whatever that he favours a socialist monopoly of the Australian airways. It is quite evident that he was very well briefed by the opponents of private industry. He mentioned the names of certain shareholders in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited; but I have yet to learn that it is a crime to be a shareholder in a company. What is wrong with putting money into an undertaking that will develop this country? I know, of course, that the honorable senator does not want Australia to be developed. He does not want to help the pioneers. He wants to “ down “ them and put his foot on them as he would put his foot on Australian National AirwaysProprietary Limited to-morrow if he had an opportunity to do so. The investing of. money in an industry is an ordinary every-day business proposition. Senator Benn himself may be a shareholder in a company, but could that company be taken to task merely because he might, or might not, be a man of substance? I regret that the honorable senator was unable to give us a better exposition of the bill.

Towards the end of 1949, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) enunciated a policy which has now become known as the 1949 joint policy speech of the present Government parties. In that speech, the right honorable gentleman said -

As for the Government airlines which were designed by the Chifley Government to be monopolies and failed to be so only because of fi high court decision, we shall put them on a true competitive basis with no preferences cither in cheap capital or dollar- expenditure.

This bill will ratify an agreement under which the major airlines of Australia are put on a fair and competitive basis. and will give effect to still another major item of policy proclaimed in the joint policy speech to which I have referred. When a policy is enunciated prior to an election, it is simply the outline of a three-year programme to which effect is to bo given during the life of the ensuing Parliament, provided, of course, that the party which enunciates the policy is returned to power. In 1949, the present Government was returned to office but not to power. Not until April of last year, after the double dissolution, which has so many unpleasant memories for honorable senators opposite, did the Menzies Government have a majority in both houses of the Parliament. The Government was returned in 1951 on the same policy and programme as it had announced in 1949-, and in the eighteen months that have elapsed an amazing number of major policy items has been given effect. It is reasonable to predict that the whole of the policy enunciated in 1949 and again in 1951 will have been given effect before the three-year period which commenced in December, 1949, has expired, and certainly before the next general election.

Whilst I agree that both our major airlines are giving splendid and efficient service, no one can deny that Trans- -Aus. tralia. -Airlines was established in 19.46 with the object of wiping out Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and’ all other private airline operators^. Had it not been for the- High Court’s decision in the- airways case, we should have had socialized airlines in Australia to-day. Only, because of the decision of the High Court against the monopolizing of air services by the Government - a decision which was in accordance with the policy of the. present Government parties - are private airlines in existence to-day. No one can successfully contend that the private airlines were given a fair go until recently. Trans-Australian Airlines was given- every, assistance- by the socialist Government with a view to eliminating all private companies. Every possible obstacle- was put in the- way of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Some honorable- senators opposite: - I d’o not say all of them - in their desire to injure Australian National Airways Pro.prietary Limited, did1 not miss an opportunity to ask damaging questions about that company. Most of the questions were mean and contemptible, and were entirely without substance. Those who asked- them rendered a grave disservice to the development of aviation in this country. I believe that the people of Australia resented those tactics because, notwithstanding the drawbacks and disabilities suffered1 by Australian National Airways, that airline to-day carries more passengers and twice as much freight as Trans-Australia Airlines carries. I do not blame honorable- senators opposite for advocating socialism. They are pledged to a policy of socialism. Even Senator Benn has signed that pledge, and I shall read it for his benefit.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator must confine, himself to the bill.

Senator GUY:

– I am endeavouring to show that the Labour Government tried to socialize the Australian airways. I am reminding Opposition senators that, in so doing; they were being quite consistent, because- they are pledged” actively to support and advocate at ali times the Labour party’s objective- which is the socialization of industry, -production, distribution and exchange. I do not blame- the Opposition for- advocating social-ism. That is the policy of the Labour party. Labour believes in government monopolies. We on this side of’ the- chamber do not believe in monopolies, public- or private. Monopolies exclude choice, and the- exclusion of choice means the end of freedom. W’e believe in the healthy breath of competition. This bill provides’ for airline development commensurate with the- needs- of Australia on a fair and- competitive- basis. The socialist Government, which preceded the present Government, advanced to TransAustralia Airlines a total amount of £4,370,000, hut no such financial assistance was made available to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Until recently, Trans-Australia Airlines paid no interest on the money advanced to it. Up to date it has paid only £273,000 on that account. There was unfair competition between TransAustralia Airlines and the private airline companies because the Government instrumentality paid neither income tax nor sales tax, whereas the private airlines were compelled to pay both taxes. The socialist Government not only insisted that all airmail must be carried by the Government airline, but it also substantially increased the subsidy paid for the carriage of such mail. I believe that in some instances the subsidy was increased three fold. Even when the PostmasterGeneral asked Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to carry airmails which Trans-Australia Airlines could not carry, a differential rate was paid for the service. In fact, the company was paid only the rate that had applied before Trans-Australia Airlines received the magnificent increase to which I have referred. In 1950-51 the mail subsidy paid to Trans-Australia Airlines amounted to £540,000. Despite the enormous assistance granted to the Government airline its accumulated losses to date amount to no less than £870,000. The Postmaster-General paid three times as much to send a letter by the Government airline as it formerly paid to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited for the service.

Senator Ashley:

– Stamps cost three times as much as they did when the mail was carried by the private company.

Senator GUY:

– The honorable senator, who knows nothing about the subject, is more to be pitied than, blamed for his ignorance. If Trans-Australia Airlines had carried mails at the same rate as had been paid to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, and had not been so heavily subsidized, the Australian National Airlines Commission would have an accumulated loss to date of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. It is quite easy for a government instrumentality to> remain solvent when the taxpayers’ money is readily made available to it. TransAustralia Airlines received from the Chifley Government another handout of £124,000, for what was claimed to be developmental services. An examination of the facts shows that few developmental services were pioneered by it. In fact, Trans-Australia Airlines never pioneered unpayable air routes; the pioneering of such routes was invariably left to private enterprise. Outback centres would have been served by the private airline companies without subsidy had they been given proper treatment. Trans-Australia Airlines, instead of developing new routes, rushed into all sorts of unfair competition with the private companies on the most profitable air routes which had been pioneered by them. It operated services between Melbourne and Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane and Melbourne and Hobart. It collared all the profitable air routes before it commenced to do any pioneering work. Yet it received no less than £124,000 for developmental services! Trans-Australia Airlines contended that the Adelaide-Darwin route was a developmental service, but it is well known that an up-to-date and efficient service was established on that route by a private airline company long before TransAustralia Airlines was thought of. In fact all of the routes in which TransAustralia Airlines operates were pioneered by private enterprise. The position of Trans-Australia Airlines in the airline business reminds me of the tail-light of a motor car, which lights up the track after it has been travelled over.

Another injustice was inflicted on the private airline companies by the socialist Government when it declared that all government traffic, which represents a tremendous portion of the available business, must be allotted to Trans-Australia Airlines. Private airline companies cannot compete with a government-controlled organization when the government is able to impose controls which affect the whole of their business. The sort of fair and active competition for which this bill provides cannot be maintained if the existence of a private airline company depends upon the policy of the Government of the day. The purpose of this bill is to remove air services as far as ia possible from the realm of party politics. Honorable senators have condemned this legislation, which will place both TransAustralia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited on a basis of parity. It is interesting to recall that even the socialist Government conducted negotiations for the merging of the two airline organizations, ‘and that the negotiations broke down only because of differences in relation to minor matters. Opposition senators were then prepared to associate with private enterprise; now they regard such a proposal as highly obnoxious. A great deal of humbug and hypocrisy has been exhibited by honorable senators opposite during this debate. Shedding crocodile tears, they have complained that this measure will result in the bankruptcy of small airline companies. Is not the policy of the socialist Government designed to that end? [Quorum formed.’] But for the High Court’s decision, the airline operators other than Trans-Australia Airlines would have gone out of business long ago. If honorable senators opposite had had their way, Trans-Australia Airlines would have had a monopoly in the air. During this debate, Opposition senators have demonstrated how little they care about equity and fairness. Either they have not read the bill, or, having read it, they do not understand it. The socialist Government, in accordance with its pledge and platform, intended to wipe out private enterprise which pioneered the airways of Australia. Applications for capital issues by the private airline companies were rejected out of hand at a time when money was being poured into Trans-Australia Airlines. The Government spent millions of dollars on the purchase of equipment for the government airline at a time when the private airline companies were denied sterling to meet their commitments.

The agreement which this bill seeks to ratify will place both major airline operators on a basis of equality.

Senator Cole:

– Where is the fairness in the agreement?

Senator GUY:

– The honorable senator has no conception of fairness. Indeed, he hates fairness. Financial assistance to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is to be guaranteed by the government. The government instrumentality will receive exactly the same treatment. The agreement provides that as far as is practicable government business, such as the carriage of mail, shall be equally divided between the two organizations, and that government officials and members of the Parliament will have the right to travel on whichever airline they choose.

Senator Armstrong:

– They have had such a right for the last two years.

Senator GUY:

– That is not so. I could produce a letter written in the last twelve months by the Department of the Interior stating that members of parliament must travel on services operated by TransAustralian Airlines. Senator Armstrong knows very well that he is not telling the truth. He is upset because the Government, to use a vulgar phrase, believes that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited should get a fair “ crack of the whip “. That is the sole reason why he may now choose which service he will patronize.

Senator Critchley:

– Does the honorable senator travel on the service provided by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited?

Senator GUY:

– I travel on the service most convenient to me.

Senator Critchley:

– The honorable senator is not game to travel on services operated by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited because he regards them as too risky.

Senator McCallum:

– That is a wicked statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! These unseemly interjections must cease.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; ALP (N-C) 1941-42

Senator Or anl interjecting,

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! When 1 am addressing the chamber honorable senators must remain silent. Honorable senators who interject again will find it risky.

Senator Cole:

Senator Cole interjecting,

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! A quorum was called for by an Opposition senator only a few minutes ago. Honorable senators who come into the chamber and after having remained in it for a few moments begin to interject should know better. They would do well to take their job more seriously.

Senator GUY:

– I am sorry that Opposition senators should make derogatory remarks about a private airline company. Senator Critchley’s interjection was full of mean and contemptible innuendo. I made no reference to air accidents experienced by Trans-Australia Airlines because it would be most unfair for me to do so. All airlines have accidents at some time or other, but it can be said with truth that the airlines of Australia have fewer accidents than do those of any other country. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has not had a greater number of accidents than has any other airline organization.

Senator Critchley:

– I did not say that it, had.

Senator GUY:

– Opposition senators are always asking questions on that subject. This bill and its cognate measures provide for the reduction by 50 per cent, of air route charges, which constitute a major expense of the airline operators. Neither Trans-Australian Airlines nor any other airline operator could continue to meet the charges originally imposed. The Government proposes to place all airline operators on the same basis by an all round reduction of air route charges by 50 per cent. Provision is made for rationalization, but apparently honorable senators opposite do not understand it. Under the socialist Government which sought to eliminate private enterprise, two aircraft from different companies could often be seen flying virtually side by side along identical routes, each of them loaded to only half their capacity. One aeroplane could have done the trip with all the passengers who were offering. Surely such a practice is uneconomic and foolish in the extreme. It involves doubling all overhead expenses. It is almost unbelievable that the honorable senators opposite cannot understand such elementary economics. All that waste of expenditure was incurred without any advantage.

Under the rationalization scheme, representatives of each company will confer on duplicated services with a view to reaching an agreement and eliminating waste. If the companies are unable to agree, provision has been made for a system of arbitration that will determine the issue. The arbitrator’s decision will be final. Both companies will receive equal treatment in the allocation of import licences and airport facilities. An important provision is that all aircraft that are purchased under the agreement must remain in Australia. During the war, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited rendered yeoman service to this country. It provided aircraft for the defence services and maintained communications at critical periods.

Senator Armstrong:

– And the company was paid for its services.

Senator GUY:

– Of course it was paid. Senator Armstrong is paid for his services and he receives twice as much as they are worth. ‘One paragraph in the agreement is particularly valuable. It states -

If at any time during the continuance of this agreement the Commonwealth is involved in war or the Minister informs the company that there is immediate danger of the Commonwealth being so involved, the company will, if requested to do so by the Minister, make available for use by the Commonwealth in such manner and for such time as the Commonwealth requires the whole or such part as may bc required of its aircraft, spares, accessories, equipment, hangars, workshops, buildings and facilities.

That is a very important provision in the agreement because it will mean that in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, we shall have the nucleus of an air force. Combined with Trans-Australia Airlines and its resources, the country will be well equipped for air communications. From a defence angle, in common fairness and because the Government has a mandate from the people, this agreement is fully justified.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The Government apparently realizes fully the importance of this bill and the effect that it will have upon air travel in this country, because after the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) had spoken, it selected two supporters of the Government to speak upon the measure. Both delivered to the Senate a dissertation upon socialism. They are fully qualified to do so because both have had experience in socialism. Both of them are renegades from the Labour party.

Senator McCallum:

– I rise to a point of order. I object to the use of the word “ renegade “.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McCallum has objected to the word “ renegade “. It should be withdrawn.

Senator ASHLEY:

– If the term is offensive to the honorable senator, I shall withdraw it and state that he is an ex-member of the Australian Labour party. Soon he will be an exmember of this Senate. Considerable reference has been made to the 1949 general election and to the qualities of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). A document has been produced twice by. each of the honorable senators to whom I have referred. Senator Guy referred to the socialized airlines as though airlines were the only socialized public instrumentality in Australia. The honorable senator did not mention the socialized activities of the Post Office. This bill seeks the approval of the Senate to the ratification of an agreement that was signed on the 24th October last on behalf of the Australian Government by the Prime Minister and on behalf of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited by Mr. Ivan N. Holyman, a director, and Mr. J. O. Declerck, secretary of the company. It is claimed that the agreement is the result of the Government’s belief that the best services can be provided for the people of Australia under conditions of competition and that it will ensure that the two major air services shall be conducted on the basis of fair and active competition.

The Opposition and the people of Australia are deeply concerned to learn why Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has been chosen specially by the Menzies Government for such favorable treatment. As is disclosed by the agreement contained in the bill, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is a subsidiary of a shipping combine. That combine is not short of funds and there is no reason why it should not keep Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited afloat financially. The shipping combine includes Huddart Parker Limited, Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Limited, Adelaide Steamship Company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, and Holyman Brothers. That monopoly is interlocked with mining interests towards which the Government is also very considerate. Huddart Parker Limited has four collieries in northern New South Wales. Therefore, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is an offspring of coal-mining interests also. The term of office of the Menzies Government has been notorious for the number of legislative enactments that have been bludgeoned through the Senate, particularly for the benefit of cartels and combines. This agreement will stand out as a monument to the patronage that has been bestowed upon wealthy companies by this Government.

Members of the Government and their supporters are constantly prating about the virtues of competition. They emphasize that competition is essential particularly in the provision of services for the people, yet by this agreement the Government seeks to destroy competition and, in fact, to endanger the civil aviation services of the nation. Clause 3 of the agreement provides that at the request of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, the Commonwealth will guarantee payments to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia of loans not exceeding £3,000,000. During the debate to-night I heard an interjection that the Government was not providing the money. Certainly that is true, but the Government will have to pay if Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited does not do so. If at any time during the first ten years of the agreement Trans-Australia Airlines is authorized to purchase a new or second-hand heavy aircraft, a similar opportunity has to be given to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. It is amazing that an agreement could be drawn up to contain such one-sided conditions. It does not matter how many aircraft are purchased by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, whether they are second-hand or not. No provision is made for a similar opportunity to be provided for Trans-Australia Airlines.

I ask honorable senators to consider the generous financial provisions that are implied in clause 3 of the agreement and its sub-clauses under the marginal note, “ Financial assistance “. Not only is the Government prepared to guarantee loans up to £4,000,000, but if the company is unable for any reason to secure the loans, the Government is prepared to advance the money. Should loan money be refused to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited because of the deterioration of the company’s financial position, the Government will then advance the money- that is required. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is to be provided with £4,000,000 for a term of ten years. The financial commitments of the Government must not exceed £4,000,000 during that ten years. When the States were refused finance to build homes for the people, it was assumed that there was a shortage of loan money. Although the Government told the States that it was unable to provide additional finance for the building of homes, the construction of water conservation and irrigation schemes, and other public works, such as hospitals and schools, it is now able to provide the finance that is required by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. I wonder for how long the Government will permit the postal business of this country to be handled by a government instrumentality. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) stated in his second-reading speech -

I stress again the main principle of the Government’s policy as desiring to see internal air services of Australia conducted under conditions of active competition, so that the best possible service will be available to the Australian travelling public. . . . The problem was and is a complex one.

I direct the attention of honorable senators particularly to the following passage -

After the most earnest consideration, the Government adopted a series of principles which followed from its basic policy that the major internal (services should he conducted under conditions of active competition. Briefly, these principles are -

Each operator to be given a proper and substantial share of airmail.

The implication was that Trans-Australia Airlines would be compelled to hand over to its rival, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, not less than onehalf of its airmail business. That is the logical meaning of the phrase “ proper and substantial share “.

Senator Vincent:

– Does the honorable senator agree that that principle is fair ?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I have no doubt that Senator Vincent will be afforded an opportunity to address the Senate in due course. On the face of it, that seems to be a fair provision, and it would be logical to assume that air freight business also would be adjusted equitably.

Before the present Government came to office the Postal Department itself arranged for the carriage of mails. That right is to be denied to the department in future. Furthermore, the proposed agreement does not provide for the calling of tenders for the carriage of mail. Senator Guy has referred to the increase of postage on airmail. If provision were made for the calling of tenders for airmail there would be real competition between the two major airlines. Such a provision should be inserted in the agreement, in the interests of the public. Already, before the agreement has been ratified by the Parliament, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has profited by it. There has been a redistribution in relation to the carriage of airmail in the early mornings from Queensland to Sydney. Formerly, all «f that mail, which averaged 1,400 lb. a dc~. was transported by Trans-Australia Airlines. Now, 200 lb. a day is transported by Trans-Australia Airlines and 1,200 lb. a day by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. I challenge the Minister to deny that 70 per cent, of the airmail from Sydney is now transported by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. This indicates the desire of the Government to destroy Trans-Australia Airlines, which has performed a wonderful service to the people of this country. At least TransAustralia Airlines should have been allowed to retain one-half of its former airmail business.

With the exception of Hargraves, the Minister did not refer to any of the pioneers of aviation in this country, and no other honorable senator has referred to them. No mention has been made during the debate of heroic flights by Sir Charles Kingsford Smith, Mr. Charles Ulm, Captain P. G. Taylor, Mr. Bert Hinkler, or Mr. Butler, all of whom risked their lives in the air. They, not the shipping combines or business monopolies, were the real stalwarts of private enterprise. Those great aviators risked their lives by going up in frail machines to plot suitable air routes for the carriage of passengers and mails. But the shipping combines, fearing competition from air services, did all in their power to crush the efforts of the gallant pioneers. At every opportunity, supporters of the ‘Government refer glibly to free enterprise, although the vested shipping interests tried to drive the pioneers from the skies. They determined to control the skyways as well as the waterways, and when Sir Charles Kingsford Smith and Mr. Charles Ulm were pioneering the airways of this country, they succeeded in preventing mail contracts from being granted to the infant Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. The attempts of both Sir Charles Kingsford Smith and Mr. Charles Ulm to develop commercial aviation were crushed. Those gallant aviators were reduced to barn-storming in order to earn a living. Ultimately, they both lost, their lives in heroic adventures in the air. It is sheer hypocrisy for honorable senators opposite to speak about restoring equal rights to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, because that subsidiary of the shipping companies never had any moral right to dominate the field of civil aviation in this country. The name Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was decided upon by our pioneers of aviation, the men who made possible the aerial development of this country, whose reward was to be forced into flights of a risky nature. They should have become directors or partners of a company such as Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is to-day. The power of money was brought to bear upon them by the shipping combines. Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith could not obtain sufficient mails when he endeavoured to establish an air service between Australia and New Zealand because the shipping companies were so strong that they prevented him from doing so. So much for the mealymouthed talk of honorable senators opposite to the effect that it is their aim to defend free and open competition.

There is no doubt that the shipping companies have determined that they will control not only our waterways but also our airways. If the shipping combines had themselves drawn up this agreement they could not have done so in a manner more favorable to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited than the agreement which the Government proposes. By the distribution of air mails, the Government has endeavoured to ensure that Trans-Australia Airlines will be destroyed and that its business will accrue to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. The agreement also provides for a substantial financial concession to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in respect of air-route charges. Those charges have been revised retrospectively. Apparently this Government believes in dealing with certain matters retrospectively-

Senator Cooke:

– Except soldiers’ pensions !

Senator ASHLEY:

– I admit that it is not very much concerned about those. It is more interested in the wealth of the country. Approximately £1,000,000 is owed to the Commonwealth by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in respect of air-route charges, but the proposed agreement provides that the company will be obliged to pay only £337,000 of that sum, which means that it will be relieved of the necessity to pay £663,000. That, in itself, is a very nice present for the company. In addition, the air-route charges will be reduced by 50 per cent, from 1947, which will be another substantial concession, particularly as the reduced charges- will operate for fifteen years. The Government is not only ensuring that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will receive more than a fair deal, but also seeks, by this agreement to bind future governments for fifteen years.

It is my firm belief that the service provided by Trans-Australia Airlines to the people of Australia, and its record of safety, are outstanding. I say nothing about the unfortunate incidents in connexion with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited because they might well have happened to any air transport organization. However, Trans-Australia Airlines has a record of service–

Senator Kendall:

– Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has a record of service over 25 years, including the war years.

Senator ASHLEY:

– How many crashes have there been during that time ? The record of service of Trans-Australia Airlines will carry it through, despite the favorable conditions which this agreement bestows on Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. I am confident that, in the long run, Trans- Australia Airlines will come out on top. I hope that the Government will review this agreement. The Postmaster-General (Senator Anthony) might consider it in the light of the reference to “A proper and substantial share of Government business “ and may wish to ensure an equitable distribution of that business between the two organizations. Of course, real competition cannot do any harm, but it seems to me that the agreement, as it stands, favours Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

The agreement provides that persons travelling on warrants, including members of Parliament, may choose the airline by which they wish to travel. I point out, however, that during the last few months, and particularly in recent weeks, I have observed very few public servants travelling by Trans-Australia Airlines. In my opinion, the reason for that state of affairs can be attributed to the attitude of this Government. I have no doubt that if a Labour government were in office it would be found that public servants would travel by Trans-Australia Airlines because they would support the company favoured by the government of the day. The present Government favours Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and has been responsible for the production of this agreement. All that I ask is for a fair distribution of air freights. Given such a distribution, I am confident that Trans-Australia Airlines will hold its own and remain afloat.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– I could not let this opportunity pass without referring to the point which Senator Ashley has laboured - and 1 use the term in all its senses - for the last twenty minutes, that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has been carrying 70 per cent, of the weight of mails and Trans-Australia Airlines only 30 per cent., which Senator Ashley said is grossly unfair to Trans-Australia Airlines. The two organizations are to be given an annual subsidy of £300,000 each. Yet, according to Senator Ashley, the Government proposes to unload the major portion of the mails onto Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, whereas both organizations should carry the same weight of mails. But of course that is not the position. No one appreciates that fact more than does Senator Ashley.

I wish to refer to one or two matters which have been raised during the debate, and I also propose to discuss a couple of balance-sheets and auditors’ reports which have been made available recently. Let us look at first things first. When the Labour party was in office, it introduced legislation which was designed to push Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited out of existence and to create a Government monopoly for TransAustralia Airlines. I suggest that no honorable senator opposite has the courage to say that that was not the purpose of that legislation. It is the very outlook on life of honorable senators opposite to establish a government monopoly of all enterprise. They tried to finish off Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and would have succeeded in doing so had it not been for the High Court, which held that the legislation was invalid, despite the prophetic vision of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). Having failed before the High Court, they then decided that they would drive Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited out of existence by other methods. They said, in effect, “All airmails must be carried by Trans-Australia Airlines. We shall force all government passengers to travel by Trans-Australia Airlines and remove the whole of that traffic from Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited “. They proposed to do so, although Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited had been operating for ten years before Trans-Australia Airlines came into existence and had pioneered all the air routes. It should not be thought that I wish to decry TransAustralia Airlines. In my opinion it is a very good airline. In fact, they are both very good airlines. Because that is so, I travel by whichever service suits me best. I shall continue to do so, because, under this Government, we have the right to travel as we wish.

The next step of the Labour Government in its campaign to drive Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited out of existence was to impose prohibitive air-route charges in 1947. The hypocritical honorable senators opposite maintain that although those air-route charges were imposed in 1947, they were never enforced. I suggest that they were not enforced because the Government knew that they were not valid.

Senator Morrow:

– That is not true.

Senator HENTY:

– Of course, it is true ! The Government made no attempt to collect those charges because it knew that it could not dp so. The charges were imposed as a part of the campaign to drive the private airline out of existence. That had been the aim of the Australian Labour party ever since it was elected to office. Indeed, it was dismissed from office because it was so unfair. Senator Ashley said that the Postal Department should call for tenders for the carriage of airmails. Yet he was a member of a government which paid Trans-Australia Airlines for the transport of mail three times the price at which a private airline would have carried it. His Government would not call for tenders.

Senator Ashley:

– That is a lie.

Senator HENTY:

– It is not. The Labour Government paid 9d. per lb. for each 100 miles that airmail was carried from Tasmania to the mainland when it could have had it carried for 3d. per lb. for each 100 miles. In the course of his second-reading speech the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) said -

The directors of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited therefore approached the Government and proposed the amalgamation of Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. I believe that this proposal was first advanced by the company to Mr. Chifley, but the proposal came to nothing during his term of office.

That fact was referred to by Senator Guy. It is no secret why the proposal came. to nothing. The reason is set out in a letter from Mr. Coles, the then chairman of Trans-Australia Airlines to Mr. Chifley. He advised Mr. Chifley not to pay for the acquisition of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited but to give him a monopoly of government passengers and airmail for five years and he would put Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited out of business. That is why Mr. Chifley abandoned all attempts to amalgamate Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

Honorable senators interjecting,

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I think that some honorable senators should be ashamed of their conduct.

Senator Sandford:

Senator Sandford interjecting,

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Sandford, are you aware that I am on my feet?

Senator Sandford:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Then obey the Chair.

Senator Sandford:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

-^; is time that the honorable senator .paid due deference to the Chair. I should not have to draw his attention to that fact. I expect him to respect the Chair.

Senator HENTY:

– The following statement is contained in the sixth annual report of the Australian National Airlines Commission in respect of the financial year 1950-51 : -

It is confidently expected that the public demand for air freight will continue to increase and the commission plans to expand its air freight facilities as aircraft become available.

Iri respect of the year 1951-51), the next annua-] report of the Commission stated-^

The decrease in the volume of freight ‘was not unexpected.

Twelve months previously the commission had intended to acquire more aircraft because it expected an increase in the volume of freight. What is the explanation of this state of affairs ? Without doubt, the airmail business is the basis of the whole situation. During the last two years Trails-Australia Airlines was paid over £1,000,000 for the carriage of airmails. One is entitled to presume that there was some basis for the payment of that amount. During 1950-51 Trans-Australia Airlines carried 2,542 tons of airmail for the carriage of which it received £540,000-. In other words, it received payment at the rate of £216 a ton of mail. This year it carried 2,000 tons of -mail, 542 tons less than it carried last year.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Last year TransAustralia Airlines carried mail without collecting the surcharge to which it was entitled.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Henty has the floor and I would like to hear what he is saying.

Senator HENTY:

– In view of the fact that payment had been made to TransAustralia Airlines at the rate of £2±6 a ton for the carriage of airmail last year it should have received £117,072 less this year from the Postal Department because it carried 542 tons less mail. In fact, it received only £26,000 less than it received last year for the carriage of airmails. Year after year, the socialist government attempted to put TransAustralia Airlines into a paying position by increasing mail subsidies, irrespective of the amount of mail carried.

Senator Cooke:

– Does the honorable senator want Trans-Australia Airlines to be wiped out ?

Senator HENTY:

– No, I want the Government to ensure fair and equitable competition The Labour Government tried to eliminate competition and make Trans-Australia Airlines a monopoly but the High Court stopped it from doing that.

The problem that the Senate has -to consider concerns more than one <bi two airlines. I thought that Sena-tor Armstrong was going to develop a theme that I had in mind but he ‘failed to do so. This problem, must be examined soon, whatever government is iri power, ‘from the point of view of the industry as a whole. Many companies such as British Commonwealth Pacific Airways Limited, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, Qantas Empire Airways Limited and T’asman Empire Airways Limited are beginning to lose substantial amounts of money because of the tremendous cost of aircraft. The last available balancesheet of Qantas Empire Airways Limited relates to the year 195’0, in which year that company put aside £921,000 to provide for new aircraft. Unfortunately, iri the same year, the government airline was able to put aside only £240,000 for this purpose. The Australian National Airlines Commission has contracted to buy another £3,000,000 worth of new aircraft shortly arid they will have to be bought with new capital. Every aircraft company in the world has been unable to put aside sufficient reserves to purchase new aircraft because of their vastly increased cost. Unless there is another great increase in air fares and freights in this country the industry will be in a difficult position. If airlines have to spend millions of pounds on their capitalization they will soon be in a similar pOsitiOn to the railways. They will have to increase charges and become uneconomic units. I do not criticize the Labour Government for having tried to establish one airline service. I only disagree with the method by which that Government tried to attain its objective. Surface transport is a serious competitor of the aif lines. If we are to avoid increases iri air fares and freights we shall have to amalgamate all air companies into ohe.

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Establish a monopoly !

Senator HENTY:

-The Government will maintain competition with the government airline; But a population of 8j000,000 people cannot carry four airline services with four separate organizations unless fares are to increase.

By rationalizing the services of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines, costs will be kept down. The success of our air services depends largely on keeping costs as low as possible. Certain aspects of the Auditor-General’s report point clearly to the fact that unless our airline system is overhauled we shall strike trouble in the next two or three years. I should like to see a thorough inquiry made into the whole problem. The Government should appoint for this purpose a committee consisting of three competent airline experts from overseas, a representative of Trans-Australia Airlines and a representative of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. A royal commission investigated the development of airways in this country as far back as 1924. The time has come for another exhaustive inquiry into this very important matter. When the estimates of the Department of Civil Aviation were under consideration, I drew attention to the fact that money was to be expended on aerodromes that were becoming obsolete. To-day, trains hauled by dieselelectric locomotives can carry passengers more quickly and cheaply from some country centres to the cities than they can be carried by air. That, of course, is due to the time occupied in transporting air passengers first to the airport by bus, then to their destination by air, and finally into the city by bus again. For instance, it is quicker to travel by diesel-electric train from Benalla, in Victoria, to Melbourne, than it is to fly. That is a development that is occurring in many parts of the Commonwealth, and it is a factor that must be considered when dealing with expenditure on aerodromes that are no- longer useful. Only helicopters will not need large aerodromes. The Department of Civil Aviation will have to be very careful indeed in sanctioning capital expenditure on aerodromes. This and many other problems could be examined by the authority that I have suggested and a pattern set for the development of civil aviation over the next few years.

Another important factor in high airline costs is the inadequate utilization of aircraft. For instance, aircraft operating services between Australia and other countries are frequently allowed to stand idle at airports upon the completion of a journey to Australia, whereas they could be serviced and used for perhaps a few days on interstate routes. Aircraft are extremely costly, and their economic operation depends upon keeping them in the air. That is the only way to keep the cost of air travel down. We are all agreed, regardless of our party affiliations, that the cost of air travel to the public in this country must be kept as low as possible. I do not suggest that safety measures should be neglected. That is the job of the Department of Civil Aviation, and it has rendered splendid service in that connexion. Cheap freight charges, too, are essential. It is of no use for airlines companies or government departments to decide arbitrarily to increase air freights by, say, 20 per cent. Competition in the carriage of goods is becoming more severe. A few years ago, many commercial organizations made substantial use of air transport to avoid losses caused by pilfering on the wharfs. This pilfering has been reduced, and more and more people are returning to cheaper methods of freighting. The airline operators will find the greatest difficulty in maintaining their present goods traffic.

I believe that the agreement deals equitably with Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. They are both good organizations and I hope they will continue in strong competition. Each has excellent officers. I know of some officials of Trans-Australia Airlines who would be assured of a job with any private organization. They work for Trans-Australia Airlines as if it were their own business. There is a young freight’ salesman in Tasmania who is as good as anybody I have seen in private enterprise. Certain Trans- Australia Airlines airport managers, too, are most efficient. I have no intention to run down Trans-Australia Airlines, but I intend to ensure that every feature of its finances with which I disagree shall be brought to the public notice. This year the balance-sheet of Trans-Australia Airlines shows a loss of £74,000. One can only deplore the attempt that was made to avoid showing that loss. Spare parts on ledger cards were written up by £99,000. That would have meant, of course, that every time an aircraft had to be repaired the cost would have been proportionately higher. That was sheer stupidity, and I am glad that the Auditor-General drew attention to what was being done. That sort of thing must stop. If we are to run a government airline, let the people know its true financial position. Whilst I am a member of this chamber I shall make every endeavour to ensure that the people shall be acquainted with the true position. I support the bill.

Senator SANDFORD:
Victoria

– This proposal ranks very high indeed amongst the many outrageous actions of the present Government. . It is a sell-out to the private interests represented by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Senator Henty has always been a strong protagonist of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, but it is rather amusing to know that he always travels by TransAustralia Airlines. He knows that it is the safe and friendly way. There is a saying throughout the Commonwealth, “Travel T.A.A., the friendly way, crash your way with A.N.A., or chance it with Ansett”. I have no wish to depreciate Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, but that saying reflects the people’s confidence in the dependability of the government airline. Senator Henty made much of the Government’s airmail subsidy to Trans-Australia Airlines, but I contend that if we are to have a government airline - and I am sure that everybody agrees that we should - the government airline should carry our airmail. In the annual report of the PostmasterGeneral for the year 1949-50, the following passage appeared : -

T.A.A. continued as the principal carrier of domestic airmail. This air service carried all classes of mail matter without payment of fees and provided mail facilities to isolated outback districts which could not be serviced by surface means.

No private company would be willing to undertake non-paying services to outback areas. Only through a nationally owned airline can air travel be brought to the people of the outback. Private airline operators will undertake only profitable services. However, let us get down to the bare facts of this proposal.

Senator Spicer:

– That would be a welcome change !

Senator SANDFORD:

– The interjection by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) is quite unparliamentary as you, Mr. President, will agree. I shall disregard it because it merely adds strength to my conviction that at times the Minister does not know where he is.

Debate interrupted.

page 4207

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 4207

CIVIL AVIATION AGREEMENT BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator SANDFORD:

– Let us consider the facts relating to this matter. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is a privately-owned company, whereas Trans-Australia Airlines is owned by the taxpayers of Australia. I do not think that any person in Australia, not even a member of the Government, would deny that Trans- Australia Airlines has rendered, and is rendering, a great service to the people. Government supporters will, I am sure, agree that no air service in the world is superior to that provided by Trans-Australia Airlines. The private airline companies, principally Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, exerted pressure on the Government, and acting true to form, the Government came to heel and was prepared to sabotage the interests of the people by jeopardizing the future of Trans-Australia Airlines. Government supporters have repeatedly stated that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited pioneered air services in Australia. Let us consider the composition of the company. Its principal shareholders are Huddart Parker Limited, the Union Steam Ship Company of New

Zealand Limited, W. Holyman and Sons Proprietary Limited, the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company Limited. Those companies own approximately 1,119,000 of its shares. In addition, approximately 356,000 shares are owned by Airlines of Australia Limited. Is it not obvious that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited /s interested in the airline business solely in order *>o reap profits and pay dividends to its shareholders? It is true that the company operated the major air services in Australia before the establishment of Trans- Australia Airlines, but it is equally true that its interests are wrapped up with those of the shipping combine of Australia. Until TransAustralia Airlines was established the outlying areas of Australia were neglected in the provision of air se]vices. The private airline companies did not provide services comparable with those rendered by Trans-Australia Airlines. They gave no thought to the need for developmental activities until after Trans- Australia Airlines had been established. Since the Government instrumentality was established and commenced operations in 1946 the people have shown an ever-increasing tendency to patronize it. The best measure of the esteem in which an airline organization is held is the passenger traffic which its aircraft carry. TransAustralia Airlines now carries almost twice as many passengers as Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited does. .

Senator Guy:

– Do not be silly!

Senator SANDFORD:

– In a given period Trans-Australia Airlines aircraft flew 14,000,000 passenger miles compared with 7,000,000 passenger miles flown by aircraft of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. These figures indicate the degree of public support given to the government instrumentality. The figures relating to the carriage of freight are the reverse. I contend that the degree of esteem in which an airline organization is held by the public is shown, not by the freight mileage, but by the passenger mileage flown. Australian National Airways Proprietary

Limited refused to develop new air routes because they would not prove profitable. The principal argument advanced by Government supporters in favour of this legislation is that it will bring about free and active competition between the airline organizations. The Government’s idea of free and active competition is to take from Trans-Australia Airlines, which enjoys a splendid record for safety, dependability and excellent service, a portion of its business, and to hand it over to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

I come now to the consideration of airroute charges. I regret that Senator Henty, . who is always denouncing socialistic enterprises and praising private enterprise, has left the chamber. Since the early days of aviation in Australia the Government has spent large sums of money on the provision of aerodromes and the installation of air navigational aids. Honorable senators opposite, who are the great opponents of socialism, contend that the private airline companies should have the free use of those facilities which were provided by the taxpayers. Is it not only fair that the airline companies that use these facilities should pay for them? Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited made full use of the facilities but refused to pay for them, whereas Trans- Australia Airlines paid the charges in full. The company even went to the extent of challenging the validity of the charges before the High Court of Australia. Most amazingly, the hearing of the case was delayed for about four or five years. In the meantime this tragic Government came into office. Under this legislation the Government proposes to remit the amounts due by private airline companies for the use of the facilities. The case before the High Court will now lapse. Government supporters, who make a plea for fair competition, cannot have it. both ways. I want to know where the Government obtained authority to do away with the people’s assets. In the past few months legislation has gone through the Parliament virtually giving away the people’s assets to private enterprise. That is in line with the policy of anti-Labour governments no matter under what name they masquerade. They change their names often because they have to do so. When the Labour Government was in office, supporters of the present Government vociferously demanded that its proposals should be submitted to the people. If the Government has any faith in what it is doing now it will submit this question to the people. But the Government knows that its time is short. It is like a wolf in a fowl yard. It is determined to do as much slaughtering as it can before it is slaughtered itself. The Government should take note of the vote in Flinders and in Ashfield. In a few weeks it will know the verdict of the people of Victoria in the State general election. Incidentally I should like to know whether Senator George’ Rankin, who persistently interjects, belongs to the McDonald, Norman or Hollway group. He and the Government that he supports are as mixed up as are the Victorian politicians.

The Australian Government has not a mandate from the people to dispose of their assets. It is dissipating the assets of the people without justification or permission. Surely the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) will agree as a lawyer that the Government is only the trustee of the people’s assets. If a lawyer sold property, of which he was a trustee, without the permission of the owner he would be struck off the roll. The people of Australia are waiting for an opportunity to strike off this Government. It i3 going to extremes to help private companies which are in opposition to the people’s airlines. Trans-Australia Airlines has no superior in the world and it is the best airline in Australia for safety and service. The Government is not satisfied with crippling and sabotaging Trans-Australia Airlines; it has disposed of its interest in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited and Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, and it is hawking the shipping line round the world. The Government is prepared to go further and guarantee Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited a loan totalling between £3,000,000 and £6,000,000. The same’ Government has said that it has not sufficient money to enable the States to carry on their projects. It claims that it has not. enough money to assist education in the States. It cannot fill any of its loans, yet it is prepared to guarantee a substantial loan to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited at the behest of its bosses. What will be the result? Honorable senators have been told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that although the accounts of Trans-Australia Airlines can be scrutinized thoroughly, we have no right to demand a full examination of the accounts of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited because it is a private company. Because this Government has guaranteed a loan of between £3,000,000 and £6,000,000 through the Commonwealth Bank, the country might have to honour the obligation should Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited default.

This Government is sufficiently dishonest and criminal in its intent to endeavour to tie future governments for fifteen years. Did honorable senators ever hear such colossal effrontery? It has never been equalled. I am suggesting with realism that when the Labour party is returned to power in the near future it will do everything that is legally and constitutionally possible to restore the position with regard to airlines. The first consideration of private companies is to obtain profits. I do not like to refer to the unfortunate mishaps that, have been the lot of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited but honorable senators must be practical.

Senator Vincent:

– The honorable senator travels by Trans-Australia Airlines.

Senator SANDFORD:

– Why does Senator Vincent travel by TransAustralia Airlines? He does so because he knows it is safer. I have never seen one honorable senator opposite with an Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited ticket, because they know that Trans-Australia Airlines is the safe and friendly way. If honorable senators only came to their senses for a few minutes they would realize that the first consideration of a government airline is safety and service. That has been proved. I suggest in all sincerity that this Government is being dictated to by the private airlines. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has held a gun at the head of the Government. The company and the banks helped the Government in 1949 and in 1951 and the Government has to repay the debt. As soon as this Government obtained a majority in both Houses after the double dissolution, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited held a gun at its head. Its officers approached the Government, not as supplicants, but with demands and at last they have been successful. The second-reading speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) was a mass of contradictions. First he said that the Government was not prepared to acquiesce, but finally the Government surrendered to pressure by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Although TransAustralia Airlines is carrying almost twice the passenger traffic that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is carrying-

Senator Wedgwood:

Senator Sandford is getting mixed up now.

Senator SANDFORD:

Senator Wedgwood is always mixed. She is like McAlpin’s flour - self-raising.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Honorable senators must come to order. When I call certain honorable senators to order for transgressing there is no reason why other honorable senators should follow their bad example.

Senator SANDFORD:

– Before the establishment of Trans- Australia Airlines, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited battened and fattened upon the people of Australia. Senator Henty referred to the carriage of airmail. Why is not a government service entitled to carry airmail? Senator Henty might as well say that because private transport is operating on the road it should have a share of mail contracts. The Government talks about competition, but it intends to take away from the people of Australia their free choice. The records of Trans-Australia Airlines show that the people are satisfied that it provides the safe and friendly service. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will have a big advantage over TransAustralia Airlines in relation to air freight. The Minister for Shipping and Transport made no mention in his second-reading speech of any proposal to take freight traffic away from Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and give it to Trans-Australia Airlines. That was because Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is tied up with the shipping combine.

The proposed agreement is one of the most atrocious proposals that have ever been submitted to the Parliament for ratification. It proves conclusively that the Government is prepared to “sell out” to favour the vested interests that were responsible for its election to office in 1949 and again in 1951. The Government is weak-kneed and impotent; it is still prepared to yield to pressure from outside interests, despite the result of the recent by-election in the division of Flinders. I am quite sure that the swing to ‘Labour will be manifested in the general election for- the Victorian Parliament that is to be held on the 6th December, because the people have “ had “ antiLabour governments. Like a wolf in the fowl-yard, the Government will go on slaughtering until finally it will itself be slaughtered.

Sitting suspended from 11.32 p.m. to 12.15 a.m. (Thursday).

Thursday, 6 November 1952

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I have very much pleasure in supporting the bill. I believe that it will serve a very useful purpose from the point of view of civil aviation in Australia. Its basic aim is to continue the existence of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, which is one of our major airlines. Many arguments have been advanced against the bill by honorable senators opposite, but in my opinion if the measure is considered from a national viewpoint, and having regard to development and fair competition, those arguments are not worthy of serious consideration. Perhaps the best method of dealing with this bill is to look back over the history of civil aviation in Australia. Honorable senators may remember that many small airline operators have tried to place commercial aviation in this country on a proper footing. Some of them failed. In Queensland, which has a very long coastline, unsuccessful air services were commenced on several occasions. I recollect a company known, I believe, as Australian National Airways, which was a subsidiary of the service conducted by Sir Charles Kingsford .Smith in Sydney. That company operated up and down the Queensland coast for a considerable time but ultimately failed. Later, another company, which, if I remember correctly, was Qantas Empire Airways Limited, also commenced to operate a service along the coast but could not make it pay. Those people invested capital in their attempts, which showed that they had the spirit of adventure and enterprise. Unfortunately, they were not successful. Ultimately, a company known as New England Airways, which was commenced on a small scale in Lismore by Mr. G. A. Robinson, took over the run after some years had elapsed. Later, with the aid of an influx of capital from overseas, it became Airlines of Australia. Over a. period of time that company found that there were various difficulties in financing an airline, and it eventually became associated with Australian National Airways. As honorable senators know, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was then established, with Airlines of Australia holding an interest in it. That is the pattern of the development of civil aviation along the coastal, fringe of Queensland. Similar development also occurred in other parts of Australia. For instance, in Tasmania two small airlines amalgamated under the title of Holyman Airways, which later became Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and eventually took its place as a national airline operating services to all the States of Australia.

I suggest to honorable senators that a great deal of courage, enterprise, initiative and vision was required of the people who commenced the undertakings to which I have referred. Those who pioneered aviation in this country are entitled to our gratitude. Instead of scorning them, we should take off our hats to them and thank them for putting Aus tralia in the forefront of commercial aviation. If companies such as Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited had not existed prior to World War II., Australia would- have been in a much worse plight than it was during the war years. The fact that this company possessed first-class commercial aircraft was of great assistance to Australia. When the position was very dark in northern Australia, the quickest means of transport of essential war equipment was by air. The aircraft owned by Australian National Airways were commandeered by the then Australian Government and were freely used by it. Had they not been available, the story might easily have been a different one for us.

When we look back at the history of commercial aviation in this country we see something of which we should be proud. A great deal has been said by honorable senators opposite concerning the standard of service which Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited provided when it was the only first-class airline in this country. To indicate the standard of that service, I point out that when Trans-Australia Airlines was commenced it copied many ideas from Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. In addition, Trans-Australia Airlines enticed to its staff many members of the staff of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited by offering them higher salaries. I could supply the names of some of those officers, if necessary. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was then considered to be one of the finest airlines in the world.

Senator Sandford:

– By which airline does the honorable senator travel?

Senator WOOD:

– If the honorable senator is able to see, he will notice that I am holding in my hand an Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited ticket.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I ask Senator Sandford to desist from constantly interjecting.

Senator Sandford. - Other honorable senators are also interjecting. I have not got it all on my own.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I did not hear the remark of the honorable senator.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– I rise to a point of order. Is it in order for an honorable senator to remain seated while addressing the President?

Senator Sandford:

Senator Wright would not know.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It is not in order for an honorable senator to address the President while sitting down, nor is it in order for him, after his attention has been called to a misdemeanour, to persist in misconduct. Interjections must cease.

Senator WOOD:

– Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited did not achieve its position as one of the finest airlines in the world merely by sitting down. It sent its top executives overseas, particularly to the United States of America, where they ascertained the latest ideas and methods of running an air service. The employees of the company so improved upon those methods that at a time when American airline companies were operating at a loss, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was able to operate at a profit because of its efficient management. The company has at all times shown a progressive spirit which all Australians should admire. Those honorable senators who were interested in civil aviation at the time will remember that it was Captain Holyman, the present head of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, who introduced the first Douglas aircraft to Australia when he brought to this country a DC2. I remember that people laughed at him and scorned the idea that such aircraft would be suitable for Australian conditions. When he decided to inaugurate a twice-daily service between Australian capital cities, it was thought that he was mad. The vision that he then displayed is reflected in the fact that to-day there are many air services operating between our capital cities.

Senator Sandford:

– Who is the Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited agent in Mackay?

Senator WOOD:

– That is the kind of dirty question which one could expect from the honorable senator. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has its own office in Mackay, but I book as a travel agent for that company as well as for Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited.

Senator Sandford:

– Then the honorable senator is speaking from a biased point of view.

Senator WOOD:

– I believe in giving credit where it is due. Not only did Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited bring the first DC2 aircraft to this country, but it also brought out the first DC3. In order to increase thefficiency of the airline, the company later brought out DC4’s. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has always been progressive. I suggest that condemnation of such a company by men who are supposed to be capable of sound thinking shows great shortsightedness.

Honorable senators opposite have referred to the profit motive, which is usually uppermost in their minds. I ask those of them who have investments in business or property whether they have invested their money merely for the joy of doing so. Do they not expect a return from their investment?

Senator Sandford:

– That is no answer.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I again ask Senator Sandford to cease interjecting.

Senator WOOD:

– The ordinary individual who offers his services for wages does so because he wishes to earn money. That is his incentive. A country increases its achievements only by the efforts of individuals. Profit is ah incentive. It is a strange thing that very often people in private businesses, because of the profit incentive,’ are able to conduct their affairs much more economically than are governments which are not supposed to think about making profits. I do not seek to castigate any particular airline. Let us be fair and give credit where credit is due. The Opposition has endeavoured to cast a dirty slur on the safety record of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Honorable senators opposite have professed, in the past, a desire to foster civil aviation. If they were keen to foster aviation they would not try to frighten people from the airlines. They would speak of the safety of air travel.

The safety record of airlines in this country is remarkably good. Although the Opposition has endeavoured to cast a slur on Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, it has not mentioned the Trans- Australia Airlines aeroplane that ran through the fence at Fairbairn aerodrome recently, nor the Convair which took off from the aerodrome at Brisbane with parliamentarians and only just managed to get back to the aerodrome. Two other Convairs, when landing in Melbourne, reversed their propellers and charged the civil aviation tower and people scrambled out of its road.

Senator Sandford:

Senator Sandford interjecting,

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Sandford, if you will persist in interjecting I shall name you.

Senator Sandford:

– All I am suggesting

The PRESIDENT:

– Will you sit down? I have been very tolerant with you - perhaps over-tolerant. If you have not the good common sense to observe the rules of this chamber, there is a remedy which I shall put into operation. You have had every latitude that any reasonable person could give you. I thought that you would respect the Chair. I shall not warn you again.

Senator WOOD:

– On another occasion, as a pilot was about to take off he had a feeling that something was wrong. He got out of the plane and as he did so the undercarriage collapsed because it was not locked properly. These incidents happen to various companies but, fortunately, they do not always have serious results. Instead of frightening people honorable senators should endeavour to build up confidence in air travel. It is most unfortunate that this element has entered the debate. Authorities on aviation have acclaimed the efforts of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Not long ago Captain Holyman was at an aviation function in London. The chief of the aviation organization in the United Kingdom who was present toasted Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited as the greatest airline in the Empire at that time. Let us be proud of the fact that some people in this country have achieved something. One of the great troubles of the Australian people is that they belittle those amongthem who are successful. We should be proud of our airlines, particularly many little companies in Queensland. Why do honorable senators opposite vent their nasty spleen on a company which pioneered air transport before Trans-Australia Airlines was established? The object of the Labour Government was not that Trans-Australia Airlines should provide competition but that it should eliminate Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

Three young ex-air force men started a private air service from Townsville to Mount Isa. They pioneered that route. What happened? Trans- Australia Airlines tried to squeeze them out of business. It operated a service three times a week on the same route at the same time of the same days on which the other service operated. The Labour Government was mad on socialization. It wanted to squash all competition with government services. If it had squashed Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited it would have squashed all the other airline companies. If the Government wiped out a business in which any Opposition senators were personally interested they would set up a howl. Opposition senators have claimed that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited had not paid for the use of aerodromes. Opposition senators did not build the aerodromes. It was the people of Australia who built them and during the last few years more people have travelled by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited than by Trans-Australia Airlines. Those people are entitled to use the aerodromes. Has Trans- Australia Airlines paid for the roads which convey motor transport from the city terminals to the aerodromes? No! Not every aerodrome has been built by the Australian Government. Many local authorities have constructed their own. Various local authorities have also built the roads which lead to the wharfs and railways and aerodromes. They have not been paid for doing that. They consider that they have provided a service for the public. Aerodromes and meteorological services are also provided for the people. Honorable senators opposite would be sorry in time of war if they loaded airline companies with taxes and so extinguish them. Had it not been for the fact that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited owned first class aeroplanes this country might have been in a worse position than it was in at the beginning of the war. It was fortunate that in a short time a small company should have grown to a large company such as Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. The development of major air routes must be undertaken by big companies because such development requires a lot of capital. “What is wrong with encouraging big companies? Big companies bring more capital to the country and the more capital that is invested the more employment is made available to the people. I see no objection to the development of big companies. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited grew from a very minute company. We should be thankful that it was a big company during the war. Only big companies would be able to provide aeroplanes for the transport of troops immediately upon the outbreak of another war. In another war four-engined transport planes which can travel long distances would be necessary because the war would probably be fought a long way from Australia. Civil aviation must be developed according to a co-ordinated scheme which will integrate it with defence planning. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has exhibited its progressive tendencies ever since its inception. It has played its part in the development of the transport industry. If this company were squeezed out of business a great majority of the people of Australia would be very wrath with the Government. I should not wish to support a government which squeezed out of existence a company with the record of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Hidden in the history of every company are some stories that they do not want to have published. Some companies have been more unfortunate than others. Let us hope, in the interests of civil aviation, that every company that flies the skyways of this great country will not have to face the risks and accidents that have been experienced in the past. With the increasing improvement of navigational aids, flying is becoming safer. The airline companies of Australia have a record to be proud of and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is a company of which we can be proud. Whilst this company has had occasional misfortunes, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited went through a long period without accident.

I commend the Government for introducing this legislation which is worthy of a government that believes in free enterprise. I support free enterprise. I know that if honorable senators have the opportunity to invest in a private company and make a profit they will have no qualms about doing that. I am proud that the Government is prepared to enable Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to compete fairly with TransAustralia Airlines. The people will be greatful for the action that the Government has taken in introducing this measure. This is a very worthy move by a government which believes in free enterprise.

Senator Hendrickson:

– The honorable senator has said that about 40 times.

Senator WOOD:

– It is just as well to impress these facts upon Opposition senators, who have said a great deal about the by-elections in the Ashfield and Flinders electorates. They have said nothing about the by-election in Keppel in central Queensland, at which the Labour majority was reduced from 1,200 to 611 about two weeks ago. That is an indication of what the people of Queensland are thinking to-day. We, as Australians, should be eager to encourage the investment of overseas capital in this country. In Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited there is both local and overseas capital. Overseas investors could probably have made a greater profit on their capital had they invested it elsewhere, but they believed in the future of Australia. Transport is not the profitable source of revenue that many people believe it to be. For proof of that one has only to consider the huge losses that are being sustained on the New South Wales and Queensland transport systems. This bill will help to keep

Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited afloat. That company is a great example of private enterprise. It has been prepared to go ahead and do something worth while to help in the development of this country. I realize that what I am saying is most distasteful to honorable senators opposite whose record in relation to air services is not as good as it might be. I was associated with air transport during the war, and I know the racketeering that went on. Elderly people and women and children were denied priorities to make necessary journeys, but air travel was freely available to boxers and other individuals who were able to get priorities from the Labour Government. I commend this bill because it gives effect to one of the vital planks of the policy of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party. We on this side of the chamber believe firmly in free enterprise, and in giving to all individuals an opportunity to rise to higher things. The Labour party on the other hand believes in levelling down all sections of the community. They are dyed-in-the-wool socialists. Our wish is to put Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited on a proper basis. Both in this chamber and in the House of Representatives statements have been made to the effect that when Labour returns to office, the airways agreement will be torn up. That threat recalls to mind the remarks of the German Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg about the “ scrap of paper “ just prior to the outbreak of World War I.

Senator Sandford:

– And Bob. Menzies resigned !

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I have given Senator Sandford every latitude. He has been interjecting constantly. I have warned him of the possible consequences of his actions. I now name him.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That Senator Sandford be suspended from the service of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before putting the motion, I shall give Senator Sandford an opportunity to make an explanation of his conduct.

Senator Sandford:

– What am I supposed to explain? If I have done anything to offend the Chair, I withdraw with pleasure.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have named you for persisting in interjecting after you had been warned. You have disregarded the authority of the Chair.

Senator Sandford:

– After the Minister for Shipping and Transport had moved for my suspension from the Senate, you asked me for an explanation of my conduct, Mr. President. I immediately rose and asked what I was supposed to explain. I added that if I had done anything to offend the Chair, I withdrew with pleasure.

The PRESIDENT:

– I accept your explanation.

Senator WOOD:

– It is disgraceful that any member of this Parliament should threaten to tear up an agreement entered into by an Australian government. Whatever obligations are entered into by the Parliament should be honoured. To suggest otherwise will convey to the minds of the Australian people the impression that there are certain dangerous men in the Parliament of whom the country should be made aware. I have very much pleasure in supporting this bill, which again makes clear to the Australian people just how strongly this Government stands for free enterprise.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to order. Senator Wood said that there were certain dangerous men in this Parliament, but he did not name them. I should like to know whether he includes any member of the Senate in that description. We on this side of the chamber are entitled to know that.

The PRESIDENT:

– In my opinion there was nothing offensive in what Senator Wood said.

Senator Critchley:

– The words are offensive “to me. I should like to know whether Senator Wood included me or any other honorable senator on this side of the chamber amongst the “ dangerous men “ to whom he referred.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Critchley says that the words are offensive to him, and I ask Senator Wood to withdraw them.

Senator WOOD:

– In deference to you, Mr. President, I withdraw, and say that I was not. referring to Senator Critchley.

Senator Sandford:

– I. rise to order. I draw your attention, Mr. President, to the fact that Senator Wood has excluded only Senator Critchley from the charge that he made in relation to certain “ dangerous men “. He may have been referring to other honorable senators on this side of the chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is the honorable senator’s point of order?

Senator Sandford:

– The honorable senator claimed that the alleged threat by the Opposition members to end the airways agreement should Labour be returned to office was analagous to the tearing up of the “ scrap of paper “ prior to World War I. He said that there were certain “ dangerous men “ in the Parliament. I take exception to those words.

The PRESIDENT:

– As Senator Sandford objects to the words, I ask Senator Wood to withdraw them.

Senator WOOD:

– In deference to you, Mr. President, I withdraw the remark. I mentioned Senator Critchley only because he asked me specifically whether he had been included. Senator Sandford is only small fry in the party and is too small to be included.

Senator Sandford:

– I object to that.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am a tolerant person, but I believe that some honorable senators should show a little more respect for the Chair. I do not propose to allow this debate to develop into a “free for all”. Senator Wood must withdraw his remark unconditionally.

Senator WOOD:

– Out of deference to you, Mr. President, I withdraw it.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I shall do my best to restore peace in the chamber. In the dying hours of a session honorable senators are perhaps inclined to become irritable, due, no doubt, to the long hours of sitting. I was most interested to hear Senator Wood’s remarks. They confirmed the opinion that I have always- held, that there is a need for us to so foster enterprises that are run in the interests of the people that they will not only com pete with, but eventually will eliminate, organizations whose only objective is to exploit the people’s dependence upon the services that they provide. Apparently, Senator Wood, like his colleagues on the Government benches,, is opposed to any profitable governmental enterprise that is run in the interests of the people- of Australia. Immediately a government enterprise begins to show a profit on its operations it is condemned by honorable senators opposite and their supporters. It is a pity that they do not realize how generations of the future will snigger over their miserable attempt by the use of backdoor methods to strangle one of the greatest and most successful government enterprises that has ever been established in this country. I have nothing but praise for the Australian National Airlines Commission. In a relatively few short years, through the sheer efficiency of its staff, and. as the result of initiative, enterprise, and business acumen displayed by the chairman of the commission, Mr. Coles, Trans-Australia Airlines has become one of the leading airline operators in the world. It has been attacked by honorable senators opposite, not because its business methods conflict with theirs, but solely because they wish to strangle it in the interests of their supporters. The snide, backdoor method of attack indulged in by honorable senators opposite is worthy of the utmost contempt.

I support my colleagues on this side of the chamber who said that the setback that Trans- Australia Airlines would suffer as the result of the passage of this legislation would be only a temporary one. When Labour again assumes office the evils which this Government has . committed will be rectified and TransAustralia Airlines will be restored to its former status.. The Australian National Airlines Commission has made noteworthy achievements in the development of aviation in Australia. There is a great need for the provision of adequate air services to the outback areas to enable them to be opened up and developed, for the carrying of mails without surcharge and for the continuance of the pioneering work in aviation that still remains to be done: Trans-Australia Airlines is engaging in those activities. The forty-first annual report of the Postmaster-General’s Department for the year 1950-51 states -

Trans-Australia Airlines, the principal operator of the Commonwealth domestic airmail services, extended its network, the most important expansion being the establishment of regular routes to serve the large area known as the Channel Country.

Australian National Airways Proprietray Limited does not operate services to the Channel country. Since the war the principal pioneering work in aviation in Australia has been undertaken by TransAustralia Airlines, which was established for that purpose. The report continues -

At the close of the year, the route mileage operated by Trans-Australia Airlines was 15,253 and the company was carrying approximately 80 per cent, of the total domestic airmail loading. During the year Trans-Australia Airlines also conveyed more than 3,000,000 lb. of unsurcharged mail by services which usually carry only mail matter bearing air fees.

At the end of the year 77 air services were being used regularly for the carriage of mails within the Commonwealth and to the Territories of Norfolk Island, and Papua-New Guinea. Of these services 62 carried surcharged air mail only, the other 15 routes being used for ordinary mail not bearing air fees.

The value of that phase of the operations of Trans-Australia Airlines alone justifies its existence.

My colleagues have submitted a case in defence, not only of Trans-Australia Airlines, but also of the principle involved in this proposal. We believe that the profit motive, which is so strongly supported by honorable senators opposite, is not in the best interests of -the people. The Government, which is the temporary holder of the reins of office, has a responsibility to govern the people in the interests of the people. The attack made by honorable senators opposite on TransAustralia Airlines to-night is virtually an attack upon the principles of democracy. I shall not listen quietly while Senator Wood and others of his ilk make an all-out attack on this government instrumentality. When honorable senators opposite realized that this government enterprise was being successfully operated in the interests of the people in their selfishness and greed for profit they determined to wreck it. Already the Government has sold the assets of the people in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. It has closed down “the Glen Davis shale oil plant, regardless of the fact that that undertaking provided an excellent laboratory for the training of technicians in the extraction of oil from shale. In Australia we have no equipment of the kind used in the great plants established on the Rhine for the extraction of oil from coal, yet we have unlimited coal measures in Queensland from which we may have to extract oil to meet our requirements of the future. Now, by backdoor methods, the Government proposes to strangle TransAustralia Airlines, an eminently successful government enterprise.

The agreement embodied in this bill, fair as it may appear to be on the surface, is so one-sided as almost to raise a laugh. It has been presented to us as a fait accompli, and as the Government has the numbers it will be ratified. The Government has rejected the judgment passed on it by the people at the Flinders by-election. Knowing the extent of its unpopularity, it is seeking to pay off its wealthy supporters. It proceeds on its way to political extinction unmindful of the fate of governments of similar complexion in the State sphere and the splits that have taken place in the anti-Labour parties which have forced them repeatedly to change their names in an attempt to escape the consequences of their past misdeeds. The Government was not given a mandate to conclude an agreement of tha kind embodied in the bill. I hope that the people will never give it a mandate to conclude such an outrageous agreement. The people are learning in the hard way the motives that actuate this Government. Perhaps they have to learn in the hard way or they will never learn at all. Having obtained a so-called mandate from the people under false pretences, the Government is now engaged in ruthlessly disposing of the people’s assets against their wishes.

Senator Gorton:

– A moment ago the honorable senator contended that the Government had not received a mandate from the people.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The Government claims to have a mandate from the people to implement its policy, but by no means can it claim that it has received from them authority to sell down the river great government enterprises which were established for their protection. The Government should refer this bill to a referendum of the people. Only if, at the next Senate election, the Government obtains a majority of seats in this chamber, can it claim that it has a clear mandate to give effect to the proposals contained in the bill. The shocking feature of the agreement is that it will bind the Government of Australia for a period of fifteen years.

Senator McLeay:

– Not long enough!

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The approaching Senate election is the only thing that sustains me in submitting my case at this hour. I realize that the Government has the numbers to carry the bill and that my remarks will leave no impression on it. The Government does not know where it is going. It is in a position somewhat analogous to that of a man on a raft drifting at the mercy of the trade winds, or that of the artist who recently drifted on a raft from Darwin, hoping that he would eventually arrive in Timor, but not knowing where he would make his landfall.

This is a very contentious bill, which affects the future of an important and successful government enterprise. It is our duty to raise our voices in protest against the retrograde step that the Government has taken in signing this agreement. It has turned back the clock of aviation in Australia. The Government should realize that the old order of laisser-faire, the “Blow you, Jack; I’m on the fire truck “, “ Get in for your cut “ and “ The Devil take the hindmost “, has gone for ever. The sins of private enterprise, its exploitation of the people and its worship of profits, have been uncovered and revealed in all their ugliness. To-day, the ordinary man in the street is beginning to dig below the surface. This measure represents an attempt to grant a slight extension of life to the concept that any enterprise conducted by a government cannot be successful. But Trans-Australia Airlines has been successful, and, when the Labour party returns to office, it will re-establish the organization on its original footing and will foster its development for the benefit of the people.

The bill is only a part of a pattern that has been woven since this Government has been in power. During “World War II., the people of Australia united for the first time in their history. They believed then that they were working for the good of the nation and themselves as a cooperative Commonwealth. But, as soon as the war ended, the press, the radio and the Liberal party tried to break down that unity, in which lies the only hope for the future prosperity of Australia, and, indeed, of the world. This Government has sought to destroy all those institutions that have promoted harmony. It has given generous hand-outs to the profiteers, the racketeers and the exploiters. These changes will not make much difference in the long run, because the profit motive will disappear as the misdeeds of the Government and its supporters are exposed. I am certain that. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will not be able to compete successfully with Trans-Australia Airlines, even with the assistance that will be given to it under the terms of this bill. The Peninsular and Orient Steam Navigation Company Limited, which is the master organization behind the companies that own Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, made a profit of £19,000,000 last year. Why should it bother about providing services to the outback areas of Australia? It is not interested in any activity that does not provide it with large profits. Therefore, it will gradually vacate the field of air transport, because it will find some other more fruitful sphere of activity. Well and good ! Trans- Australia Airlines will then be able to take its rightful place. In the event of war - and I sincerely hope in my heart that there will not be another war - Trans-Australia Airlines would be able to act as a subsidiary to the Royal Australian Air Force and do a great deal to sustain our war effort. Its organization could be readily brought into use at any time. If we had to rely on private companies to take the mails to the outback regions, the people of the outback would never get the service that is provided for them by Trans-Australia Airlines. That is why I am keenly interested in the expansion of TransAustralia Airlines, regardless of pelf and immediate profit. Australia has a great future, but it needs the help of an organization like Trans-Australia Airlines, operating without the restrictions that will be imposed upon it by this bill. That is why I defend the people’s airline so vehemently against the iniquitous agreement to which the bill relates. I speak for the united Labour party when I say that, when we are returned to office, we shall take all possible legal steps to abrogate the agreement. We believe that it is wrong in principle and in every detail. I hope that it will not be long, and that too much harm will not be done, before we shall be able to give effect to our promise.

Senator CORMACK (Victoria) [1.21 a.m.l. - One of the distressing experiences of life is to watch the psychological and physical deterioration that takes place during a period of adolescence, and having witnessed-

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to order, Mr. President. I understand that, under the Standing Orders, personal reflections are disorderly. You were in consultation with another honorable senator, and perhaps you did not hear Senator Cormack making a personal attack upon me. I should like him to refrain from making such attacks.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I was engaged in conversation, but I certainly heard enough of Senator Cormack’s remarks to be aware that he made no personal reflection on Senator O’Byrne. I have often been made the subject of personal attacks, but I have not objected, because the epithets directed at me have not applied to me.

Senator CORMACK:

– I had only half -completed my sentence when Senator O’Byrne interrupted me. I shall end it by saying that, having witnessed that deterioration, I feel impelled to support the bill.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I shall not compare the efficiency of Trans-Australia Airlines with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, but I point out that the Government is acting wrongly when it plans to finance an organization such as Australian National Airways Proprietary

Limited. As other honorable senators have pointed out, the shareholders of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited consist mainly of the members of a shipping combine. The shipping combine that operates in Australia has a parent organization in London which has a capital of £300,000,000. Why should the people of Australia be taxed for the purpose of financing a wealthy organization such as that? All the money that will be lent to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited under the terms of the agreement will never be repaid. Those amounts, and the air route fees and landing charges that will be cancelled by this measure, will have to be provided from the pockets of the taxpayers. The Government is greasing the fat pig, and there is no occasion for doing so. Senator Wood has said that we must lend the money to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in order to try to keep the company afloat. What a condemnation of private enterprise ! We are called upon to keep it afloat by pumping the hard-earned money of the people into its coffers. If this organization cannot finance itself, it should go out of existence. Honorable senators have heard it said that it will be in a sound financial position when it receives half the mail contract. At present that contract is worth £500,000 a year to TransAustralia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited receives £50,000 from it. That means, in effect, that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will receive £225,000 more yearly after this bill is passed. If Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited pays landing charges, the mail contract money will not keep it afloat financially because it has lost more than that sum in two years according to the company’s figures. I do not accept its figures.

The people have been taxed to the” extent of £16,000,000 to construct landing grounds and equip them with meteorological services and educate the operators. Why should the people be taxed so that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited oan use those facilities for nothing? A man who had chartered an aircraft told me that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited charged him for landing charges but they were never paid to the Government. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited took that money under false pretences. Why should private enterprise be allowed to fleece the people? The Australian people will resent this bill eventually because they will awaken to the fact that they are being taxed to keep private enterprise going. Honorable senators on the Government side have stated that the Labour Government did not take any action to force Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to pay landing charges. That is incorrect. Clause 4, sub-clause (2.) of the bill states -

Upon the payment by the company to the Commonwealth of the sum of £337,717 16s. referred to in sub-clause (1.) of this clause, the Commonwealth will take steps to discontinue the action instituted by the Commonwealth against the company Summons No. 7 of 1948.

A Labour government took out that writ against the company claiming for landing charges. This Government intends to withdraw that writ if the company pays one- third of the amount that it owes. I heard it said also that landing charges were extortionate. The Labour Government collected details of landing charge rates from all parts of the world and the Australian charges were based on the average rate of overseas charges. The landing charge of a DC3 aircraft is £2 7s. 3d. The Government intends to reduce it to £1 3s. 9d. The people are to be taxed further to help private enterprise. I have said before that nearly every organization that shows a profit is subsidized from the people’s taxes. Shipping companies are subsidized. Many other organizations receive subsidies. Then the Government holds them up as examples of successful private enterprise. This bill is a disgrace and the people should rise against it. It means more taxation to make further profits for a huge combine that has a capital of £300,000,000 behind it. It is dastardly. The proposed loan of a sum up to £4,000,000 to the company will never be paid back.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

– There seems little point in adding any embroidery to the cogent and conclusive arguments that have been advanced by honorable senators on this side of the chamber in support of the bill but I should like to refer to a statement that was made by Senator Armstrong when he inaugurated the debate. That statement has been repeated from time to time by many speakers on the Opposition side. It was to the effect that the Government had no mandate to introduce this legislation and that it should be submitted to a referendum because never before had there been any suggestion to the Australian people that an agreement of this type would be submitted to the Parliament. In reply I shall refer to a document that I might describe as the bible of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) because on many occasions he, with a proper regard for the truth that is enshrined in this policy speech of 1949, has often quoted it to us. Honorable senators are forced to the conclusion that if it is not embroidered upon his heart in letters of gold, at least it is carried in his head as a touchstone of the principles and policy that should properly guide a political party. The policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in 1949 contains a specific reference to airlines. It states -

As for the Government airlines, which were designed by the Chifley Government to be monopolies (and failed to be so only because of a High Court decision), we shall put them onto a true competitive basis, with no preferences either in cheap capital or dollar expenditure.

That was put to the people in 1949, and again in 195.1, and that is precisely what this agreement proposes to do. It is a complete and final answer to the suggestion that there is no mandate for this legislation and that the people had no prescience that it would be put forward. Only one other point of significance has come from the rank fustian that has emanated from the honorable senators on the opposite side. That is the question of strangling Trans- Australia Airlines. As I listened my heart was softened-

Senator Brown:

– Not the honorable senator’s brain?

Senator GORTON:

– No, I have many years to go before I reach Senator Brown’s category, but my heart was softened as I heard the cries of horror and grief at the thought that this great government enterprise would be put out of business in spite of its great directing brains because it was to be placed upon a competitive basis and was to be allowed only half the government freight. I was sorry, because the members of the Opposition made me think that that might be so. But there was no need for me to be sorry because, in the next breath, they told us that Trans-Australia Airlines would never be driven out of business, because Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was not going to be interested in carrying passengers or in carrying freight, that it was, going to get out of this business, and that it was not interested in pioneering - despite what it has done in connexion with the air beef lift. If that argument is. true, Trans- Australia Airlines certainly could not be driven out of existence. If it is not true, and if Trans-Australia Airlines is driven out of existence by fair competitive methods,, it is not a. great airline, it is no good, and it should be driven out of existence. But it will not be. There is plenty of scope for two airlines in fair competition. We are giving that scope. The Opposition objects to the bill because it wants no scope for fair competition. As Mr. Dedman said when he introduced the- bill for the establishment of TransAustralia Airlines, the Labour party wants- nothing, but a government monopoly airline, nothing but nationalization, and’ nothing but a legal1 prohibition of fair competition with that government airline. We are giving scope- for fair competition. ‘We told the people that we would give it, and I believe that the people agree that we should- give- it.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I do- not wish to criticize the efficiency, of the services that are provided either by Trans-Australia Airlines or Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited,, but I point out that it is easy for a, private airline company to provide an efficient service so long as. it; is. assured that it wilt be able to use other people’s money to do so. That, is what will happen when this bill has been, passed.. Australian National Airways’ Pro.prietary Limited has- provided very efficient service in the past. So has Trans-Australia Airlines:

Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will continue to provide a very efficient service provided somebody comes to its rescue with money. Some shipping companies have provided a very efficient service when the Government has come to their rescue with a huge subsidy, and then they have made a nice profit. There is nothing new in the Government coming to the rescue of a private enterprise when it fails to conduct a successful business enterprise.

I have never heard a clearer admission of the failure of private enterprise to carry on successfully under its own steam that I have heard from Government senators to-night. They have uttered the greatest condemnation of a private enterprise that I have ever heard in this chamber. They have admitted that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will go out of business if the Government does not come to its assistance and bolster it with business taken from a government airline. It is curious that the. Government, which is the. trustee of an airline- that belongs to the people of Australia, is taking business from that airline and giving it to a privately owned competitor. If two men with fleets’ of lorries- were competitors in the. carrying trade, and if one of the men got the upper hand and began to make a considerable profit, is it likely that he would relinquish some of his business to strengthen the position of his opponent and, by so> doing, turn his profit into a small loss.? That is what the Government is doing. In 1949-50, Trans-Australia Airlines made a profit of £214,818; whilst Australian National’ Airways Proprietary Limited incurred a loss of £216,682. In 19.50-511, Trans-Australia. Airlines made a profit of £205,799, and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited incurred, a loss- of £10,000,

Senator MORROW:

– Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited paid no landing charges.

Senator AYLETT:

– I shall not go into, that matter now.. Trans-Australia Airlines belongs to the people of this country. The Government is the caretaker of it for the time being, It is in the. position of the trustee of an estate, but it proposes to take business, from a profit-making undertaking owned’ By the people for the purpose of bolstering a private company which, through inefficiency, is incapable of running its business at a profit. That private company has held a gun at the Government’s head. It has said that if it is not given some of the business that is now being done by the Government airline, it will go out of existence. The Government is so weak, and so unable to protect the interests of the people, that it has fallen for that threat. It has agreed, not only to give away some of the business of Trans-Australia Airlines, but also to arrange for the private airline company that is in competition with it a loan which may prove eventually to be a straight-out gift. If Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited continues to slip back to the degree to which it has slipped back during the last year or so, £4,000,000 will not help it very much. If it continues to incur losses at the present rate, having taken a half of a profitable part of the business of Trans-Australia Airlines, probably both airlines will incur a loss. In those circumstances, how could Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited repay the £4,000,000 that it is going to borrow either from the Government or from another source? The Government has given a guarantee that, if the company cannot obtain the money, it will do so. If Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited continues to incur losses at the present rate, that money will not be repaid, and the Government will have the company’s aircraft on its hands.

Senator Hannaford:

– Trans- Australia Airlines has not repaid its loan yet.

Senator AYLETT:

– If the Government left Trans-Australia Airlines alone and did not try to cripple it, it would soon be in a position to repay the money that has been advanced to it. This Government has always been a champion of private enterprise. It has claimed that privately owned enterprises are more efficient than government enterprises. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, a private company, incurred a loss of £216,000 in 1949-50, whilst Trans- Australia Airlines, a government enterprise, showed a profit of £214,000.

Senator Kendall:

– From where has the honorable senator obtained these figures ?

Senator AYLETT:

– They were cited by the Minister in his second-reading speech. Do I understand that backbenchers on the Government side of the chamber are challenging figures that were cited by a Minister? If so, there is no wonder that they are not sure where they are going. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) stated in his second-reading speech that each operator of the major internal airline services would be given a proper and substantial share of airmail business. Could any honorable senator opposite imagine an ordinary carrying firm which was operating efficiently handing over to a competitor a portion of its business because the competitor had sustained a trading loss?

Senator Armstrong:

– I suppose the Government will be wanting to hand over some of the business of the Postal Department to private enterprise before long.

Senator AYLETT:

– Yes, that would be in keeping with its attitude. It is grossly unfair to the people of this country for the Government to enter into the proposed agreement for a period of fifteen years. The Minister also stated that Government business would be freely available to both airlines. I have no objection to that principle provided there will be real competition, and that the private enterprise stands on its own feet. The Minister then said that each operator of the major internal airline services would be assisted financially to acquire new heavy flying equipment. I have already criticized this proposal. Although the Government has stated that it cannot provide money for public works to enable employment to be provided for some of the 100,000 unemployed persons in this country, apparently it can find money with which to assist a privately run airline. Only last week a number of unemployed Italian immigrants rioted in Sydney, and I am convinced that much blood will be spilt if the Government does not soon provide work for them. Although the shares in Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited are backed by cash and other assets to the value of £160,000,000, the company has cried poverty. Running true to form, the Government prefers to assist this big private enterprise rather than to provide jobs for men who have lost their employment as a result of its administration.

Senator Henty referred to the inefficiency of the government airline. I do not know whether he meant what he said, but that is the phrase that he used. As the honorable senator travels frequently by aircraft operated by Trans-Australia Airlines, it was indeed strange that he should make such a statement.

Senator Kendall:

Senator Henty did not mean that Trans-Australia Airlines’ aircraft were operated inefficiently.

Senator AYLETT:

– As the proceedings of this chamber were being broadcast at the time, no doubt many people heard that statement, and it will appear in Hansard.

Senator Kendall:

– He meant inefficiency from a business point of view.

Senator AYLETT:

– I made a note of the honorable senator’s statement at the time, as I was unwilling to trust my memory. I did not think that any member of this chamber would assert that either airline was inefficient. “While Trans-Australia Airlines is being run efficiently under its own steam, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited needs financial assistance in order to become efficient. I do not agree with Senator Gorton’s contention that the Government received a mandate from the people to enter into the proposed agreement. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) did not even hint in his policy speech that he intended to transfer business from Trans-Australia Airlines to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

Senator Kendall:

– The right honorable gentleman said straight out that the government airline would be placed on a true competitive basis.

Senator AYLETT:

– He did not say that he would take away business from Trans-Australia Airlines and enter into an agreement to guarantee an overdraft of £4,000,000 to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. He was not game to announce openly that, if returned to office, he would commit the Government to assist an established private enterprise to the extent of millions of pounds. I do not think for a moment that the Government would guarantee an overdraft of millions of pounds to any individual or company that wished to establish a new factory in Canberra, Sydney or Melbourne. If Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is entitled to financial assistance from the Government, it follows that the Government should likewise assist any other private enterprise which seeks assistance. The Government should not make fish of one and flesh of the other. The Government intends to ladle out financial assistance to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited as previous non-Labour governments did to the shipping companies. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is in financial difficulties as a result of inflation. If the Government had honoured its election promise to restore value to the £1, or had even maintained the value of our currency at the level at which it stood when it entered office, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, the shipping companies, and other businesses would not now be experiencing financial hardship.

Motion (by Senator Kendall) put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 8

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Armstrong’s amendment) be left out.

TheSenate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 23

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I rise mainly to protest against this process of legislation by exhaustion. I can see no reason why honorable senators should be expected tobehave like insane persons. We have heard a great deal to-night about private enterprise and efficiency. I suggest that this method of conducting the work of the Senate is hardly an example of efficiency. Honorable senators are paid a high salary by the people of the country to give of their best in dealing with legislation which has a tremendous effect on the general life of the community. At this timeof the morning nobody is at his best. We are supposed to be amongst the most important people of the country and are required to deal with the expenditure of millions of pounds. How are we of the Opposition effectively to oppose this measure, with which we do not agree, if we are not in a fit physical state to do so ? We cannot do justice to the subject. Every individual honorable senator knows that he should be home in bed; yet collectively honorable senators are prepared to remain here for hourafter hour. There is no reason why we should not meet again to-morrow, or even next week. If this isan example of private enterprise, I am dead against it. The members of the Opposition started the day with a party meeting at 10 a.m. yesterday morning. It is now after 2 a.m. If it were a case of national emergency, our attitude would be entirely different. However, the Government is merely attempting to cover up its inefficiency by applying the “ guillotine It is usual for bills to be rushed through during the last week of a sessional period, but during the last six or eight months every bill-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator is right away from the bill. The matters to which he is referring have nothing to do with it.

Senator GRANT:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. ‘Chairman. I hope that the Senate will now adjourn and meet again after honorable senators have had a rest for eight or ten hours. “We should behave as intelligent people and not as pugilists trying to knock one another out by attrition.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania Leader of the Opposition

– I propose to take a few minutes of the limited time available to express my opinion of the bill and of the agreement which it seeks to make effective. I direct my attack in this matter not at Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, which is one of the compulsory parties to the agreement, but at the Government. So that it will be clear that I make no attack upon Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, let me at once repeat the tribute which I paid to that company when airlines legislation was under consideration in this chamber in 1945. I then paid tribute to the company as the sponsor of a wonderful interstate system of aircraft services. I also repeat, what I then said, that I take pride in the fact that the driving force in that organization is really the Holyman brothers of Tasmania. Having removed Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited from the ambit of the attack that I propose to make on this bill, -I wish to approach the measure from one or two aspects that have not yet been touched upon in this debate. I state my opinion in one sentence when I say that this agreement is a wanton outrage and is intended to be a shroud for TransAustralia Airlines. When TransAustralia Airlines came into the air transport field in 1945 it raised immeasurably the standards of airline services in Australia. I make that statement as the result of observations over many years. From the time the first passenger aircraft flew across Bass Strait I have been flying frequently and regularly. There was an enormous improvement in the service provided by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited immediately TransAustralia Airlines entered the field. That improved service included less time spent at depots, reduced flying time, and better service generally for the people of Australia. Unquestionably, the advent of Trans-Australia Airlines had that very salutary and excellent effect for the benefit of the people of Australia. How did that improvement come about? How, in particular, did Trans-Australia Airlines, starting from the ground floor only as an idea, como to enter the air of Australia with such a marvellous service within a matter of months? It was possible for one reason only, and that was the enthusiasm, enterprise and ability of the operatives and executives of TransAustralia Airlines. I pay a great tribute to the personnel of that organization. One of the worst aspects of this agreement is that it strikes a blow at that enterprise, enthusiasm and initiative.

I am concerned about the psychological effect that thi3 bill, and the agreement to which it seeks approval, will have upon the members of the staff of Trans-Australia Airlines. They have really put their heart into the work for Trans-Australia Airlines, and I can assure the Senate, from my talks with the pilots and a number of operatives, that this move by the Government has taken the. heart out of them. One pilot said to me quite recently that it was a very poor reward for the amount of effort and enthusiasm that members of the staff had put into the Government’s own instrumentality, Trans-Australia Airlines. This approach must take the heart out of those who have made such a success of the government-owned airline. I regard this attack upon the morale of TransAustralia Airlines as one of the worst features of this bill, and I supplement that statement with the comment that, in the last two years, a war of nerves has been waged against the staff. A threat of legislation of this nature has hung over the hoad of Trans-Australia Airlines. Members of the staff feared that TransAustralia Airlines might be abolished, and they might lose their jobs. Now, it culminates in a position-

Senator -Courtice. - Of confiscation.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– No, I shall not describe it as confiscation. TransAus.tralia Airlines has achieved its excellent standing in the community under two great handicaps compared with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. The privately owned organization was free from every constitutional limitation, and free to roam over Australia, subject to getting licences from the proper authority; but TransAus.t.ralia Airlines is restricted to interterritorial and interstate travel. That was the first great handicap upon the new airline. It was not free to engage in intra-state activities without the consent of State governments.

The second handicap was that TransAustralia Airlines was compelled to shoulder the responsibility of a common carrier of passengers and freight, which imposed upon it a complete liability to carry goods safely. When it became a matter of putting into an agreement provisions to ensure some basis of equality between Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, I ask the Minister to explain why an approach was not made to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to ensure, for the benefit of the passengers it carries, that it would accept the responsibilities of a common carrier, i. assume that some honorable senators have Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited tickets. If we examine the tickets, we find that clause 6 expressly negatives the liability of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited as ; common carrier. I do not propose to occupy the time of the Senate by reading that clause, but with the consent of honorable senators, I shall incorporate it in

Hansard for the purposes of record. It is as follows: -

The passenger, his luggage and goods are carried entirety at his own risk, and the carrier accepts no responsibility for damage, including death, injury, delay or loss of any nature arising out of or incidental to the said carriage or any service ancillary thereto (including transport of the passenger, his luggage and poods, to and from any aerodrome or taking off on landing places, and including also such substituted carriage as is in the next condition hereafter mentioned) and the passenger for himself and his executors, administrators and dependants expressly renounces all claims against the carrier in respect thereof, whether the same may be due or alleged to be due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the carrier or not.

When I look at this bill through the eyes of the members of the staff of TransAustralia Airlines, I see, as I believe they must see, that it circumscribes them and emasculates the organization which they built and hoped to expand. What do they see when they examine the agreement? I shall put six or seven points to the Senate in a couple of minutes. They see that every provision in the agreement is in favour of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and directed against Trans-Australia Airlines. They see that airmail which they were accustomed to carry has been taken from TransAustralia Airlines. I pause at that point to say that competition in carrying airmails in other countries, and in getting them to their destinations- under adverse weather conditions, has been one of the most potent causes of air accidents. Safety provisions are infringed, because people desire to get the mails to their destinations and preserve their prestige as air operators. I do not apply that statement to Australia at the moment, because there has been one main carrier of airmails in recent years.

Then the staff of Trans-Australia Airlines must see that the passenger traffic and air freight, which the organization was entitled to expect from its proprietor and sponsor, the Government of Australia, are also to be reduced, and shared with the competitor against which it ha3 emerged to the pre-eminence which it enjoys to-day. Members of the staff see, too, that Trans-Australia Airlines is to be confined and restricted in the purchase of aircraft, and that it is to be kept down to the level of its competitors. They see that their opponents are financed by the Government of Australia, which is Trans-Australia Airline’s own proprietor or sponsor. They see that a retired judge, completely outside the industry, who has had no training in it and no knowledge of it, is ultimately to determine the routes upon which they may embark, their time-tables, fares and freight charges. They see, also, the route charges are to be altered completely in favour of their competitor. The charges are to be cut down by twothirds in order to ease the way of the competitor.

What can one expect to be the view of those who to-day control TransAus.tra i ia Airlines and who, according to all the tributes, which have been very properly paid by Government supporters to them, are providing a most excellent service? They would not be human if they did not feel disheartened, and consider that a blow had been struck at the morale and expectations of the whole staff. That feeling must permeate executives and operatives alike. The one factor which will keep the staff together, and maintain the high level of efficiency of Trans-Australia Airlines will be the expectation that another government will take over in the not-distant future, restore the organization and put it on the way to the great future that members of the staff have envisaged ever since they helped to establish it.

Senator Kendall:

– By putting Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited out of business?

Senator McKENNA:

– No. I shall now deal with the proposal for the financing of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited under this bill. The sponsor of Trans-Australia Airlines is to provide Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, the competitor of the government-owned airline, with finance up to £4,000,000, or a guarantee for the purpose. That undertaking is based, according to the Government, upon the condition of the finances of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. We need to know who investigated the affairs of Australian National Airway3 Proprietary Limited on behalf of the Government. What was the nature of the report? In what ancillary activities does Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited engage? For instance, were only the operations of the airlines taken into account, and were all other factors disregarded? It has been put to the Senate by the Government that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited could not finance th. development which it envisages at th” present time, but it is most significant to note that in the British aviation journal, the Aeroplane, of the 29t,h August last, there is a most interesting article entitled “An Australian Operator’s Views “. We see in this bill the agreement which purports to have been signed on the 24th October, yet on the 29th- August last Captain Ivan Holyman gave a most extensive interviewin London in which he revealed all th” terms of the agreement. I merely want to draw attention to one passage in that interview. It reads as follows: -

Because of previous Government discrimination against A.N.A. the airline had lost approximately £1,000,000 during the past three years. In the financial year .Tune, 1951, to May, 1952, the loss had been about £300,000.

Here is the important sentence -

However, because A.N.A. had invested profitably in other associated industries the com pany had continued to come through itf troubles in a, sound state.

The Senate has been told that the company is in the gravest of difficulties. We know that it has powerful sponsors. In view of the fact that Captain Holyman claimed that the company was in a sound position, I invite the Minister for Shipping and Transport .(Senator McLeay) to explain the necessity to provide it with finance. Why has the Government portrayed this company as struggling for existence when its chairman of director? stated, two months before this agreement, was signed, that the company was in a sound position?

I now ask the Minister to tell us who really wanted this agreement. TransAustralia Airlines did not. It might surprise the Minister to hear me say that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited did not want this agreement, either.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator McKENNA:

– - As no other honorable senator has risen, I shall take my second period. In the course of his second-reading speech, the Minister said -

The directors of Australian National - Airways Proprietary Limited therefore approached the Government and proposed the amalgamation of Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. I believe that this proposal was first advanced by the company to Mr. Chifley but the proposal came to nothing during his term of office.

Let me read a similar paragraph from a second-reading speech on this bill which was made in another place -

The directors of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, therefore, approached the Government and proposed the amalgamation of Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. They said it was not possible for the two airlines to compete on a profitable basis and that a single entity was the only possible way of conducting civil air services within Australia. Indeed, I believe this proposal was first advanced by the company to Mr. Chifley; the proposal came to nothing during his term pf office.

Did the Minister for Shipping and Transport put his blue pencil through the following words: -

They said it was not possible for the two airlines to compete on a profitable basis and that a single entity was the only possible way of conducting civil air services within Australia.

Why is that the only sentence in the second-reading speech of the Minister who represents the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Hasluck) in the House of Representatives, which does not appear in the speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport in this chamber?

Senator Wright:

– Did the Minister’s remarks refer to 1946 or to the present time ?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– They refer to 1949. The two speeches to which I have referred were made within days of each other yet a very important sentence has been ruled out by somebody. By whom has it been ruled out and why? Is it not clear that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has been forced into this agreement by the Government? The only body that wants this agreement is the Government. TransAustralia Airlines did not ask for it. It has every disadvantage for that company. According to the Minister representing the Minister acting for .the Minister for Civil Aviation, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited considered that it was not possible for two airlines to compete on a profitable basis and that a single entity was the only possible way of conducting civil air services within Australia. From the statement by the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation it would appear that the principal party to the agreement has expressed the opinion that it would be a failure. What is the Government’s reason for persisting with this agreement? Can it be any other than that which has been suggested by Senator O’Byrne and other Opposition senators - a desire to sabotage its own concern or, in other words, to put TransAustralia Airlines out of business? The whole tendency of the agreement is to build up Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. That can only be done to the detriment of Trans-Australia Airlines. Obviously, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited have been coerced by the Government into accepting the agreement.

Senator Guy:

– Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has signed the agreement.

Senator McKENNA:

– It has signed after putting to the Government its considered opinion that two airlines could not compete profitably and that a single entity was the only possible way of conducting civil air services in Australia. The proposal of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was rejected by the Government, and the company has been forced into accepting this agreement. I should like the Minister for Shipping and Transport to answer the following questions : - Who deleted the sentence to which I have referred from the speech of the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Civil Aviation and why was it so deleted? Does the Minister accept the view of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited that the present proposal must end in failure or does he intend that the agreement shall have the effect of amalgamating the two companies? This measure is a wanton outrage. I repeat Dr. Evatt’s remark that the dew of death is on the brow of this Government. T liken the Government to a wounded buffalo, doomed to oblivion, charging wildly about and endeavouring to drag every one into destruction with itself. I conclude with the old quotation : “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad “.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I should like to ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) whether the Government has any plan for assisting the smaller airlines. These are a substantial factor in the air transport system of Australia but have been completely ignored by the Government. If Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited would go into liquidation without the assistance of the Government such companies as Butler Air Transport Proprietary Limited, MacRobertson-Miller Aviation Company Proprietary Limited and Connellan Airways must be in a similar position. Unless the Government wants to destroy those airlines it must do something for them. The Government contemplates dividing the airmail business on a fifty-fifty basis between Australian National Airway’s Proprietary Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines. That being so, the smaller airlines will not get any airmail business and the Opposition would’ appreciate it if the Minister would indicate whether the Government intends to do anything for those smaller companies.

Senator Guy:

– The previous Labour Government did not do much for the smaller airlines.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– We did a great deal. If the honorable senator persists in living in the past he will be buried in the past. I remind him that he is now living in the present, and that the Government has a majority in both Houses of the Parliament. Therefore, the responsibility of government rests upon the parties with which he is affiliated. It is a very weak argument to excuse the shortcomings of his own Government by pointing to what the previous Government did or could have done. The Government proposes to guarantee Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to an amount of up to £4,000,000. On its own argument, unless it also sustains the other private airlines of Australia, they must ultimately fail, as the Government suggests Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited would fail if it did not get government support’. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is not a poor company. It has big shipping concerns behind it. But Connellan Airways is a company that has not the financial resources of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Therefore, that small concern is much more likely to fail than the larger company. Senator Henty alleged that TransAustralia Airlines was inefficient but I suggest that the Government will be subsidizing inefficiency if it subsidizes Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited at the expense of TransAustralia Airlines. The Minister said in his second-reading speech that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited carries almost 50 per cent, more freight than does Trans-Australia Airlines, and that Trans-Australia Airlines carries about 16 per cent, more passengers than its rival does. Although quoting percentages easily leads one into error, I suggest that freight carrying is more profitable than the carriage of passengers. Despite the fact that Austraiian National Airways Proprietary Limited carries 50 per cent’, more freight and 15 per cent, fewer passengers than Trans-Australia Airlines, and has been established longer and no doubt has written off more of the capital cost of its equipment, it has sustained losses running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. But TransAustralia Airlines has made profits, even allowing for the value of airmail carried and the payment of about £1,000,000 in air-route charges since 1947. I suggest that the money paid in air-route charges would more or less cancel out the money received from the carriage of airmail.

Senator Guy:

– What about income tax?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Income tax is not paid when a company sustains losses.

Senator Guy:

– What about sales tax?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Unless I inspected the figures, I could not be in a position to state the amount the company has paid in sales tax. I suggest that there is a great degree of inefficiency in Australian “National Airways Proprietary Limited and that the Government is seeking to subsidize that inefficiency. I endorse the views of Senator McKenna, and I suggest that the Government should have laid down conditions for its assistance to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, and that it should have insisted upon the company becoming a common carrier.

Senator McLeay:

– What is the difference between a common carrier and an ordinary carrier?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– A common carrier must accept any freight or any passenger because it has no right of rejection. Moreover, it has complete responsibility for the goods and passengers that it carries. Senator McKenna has incorporated proof in Hansard that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited deliberately excludes itself from being a common carrier by certain printing on the back of its tickets. The whole of this measure indicates that the Government’s dealing with the company has been one-way traffic. The Government has given everything and has received nothing, in return. Therefore, the Opposition persists in opposing this measure.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– It is obvious that Senator Armstrong does not know what he is talking about, because the fact is that passenger traffic is more profitable than freight.

Senator Armstrong:

– How does the Minister know that?

Senator McLEAY:

– That is the information that I have received from technical officers who handle these matters. Whether Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is a common carrier or not, the company carries twice the amount of freight that Trans-Australia Airlines carries. Senator Armstrong has displayed his ignorance in speaking about Con nef an Airways, because at present this Government is giving it a bigger subsidy than was given to it by the previous Government. We are giving it 75 per cent, of its revenue.

Honorable senators interjecting,

Senator Wood:

– I rise to a point of order. There is continuous interruption of the debate, and it is difficult to hear what the Minister is saying.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! Honorable senators should maintain silence.

Senator McLEAY:

– The amount that this Government contributed to Connellan Airways last year was £36,000, and I remind honorable senators that that was a contribution and not a guaranteed loan. It is a mere quibble to. say that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited did not want an agreement with the Government. I had discussions with the company, and it was quite obvious that a complete merger would have been a more economic proposition than two separate services. To say that the company was not prepared to accept the Government’s proposition is not correct, and I do not propose to spend any more time on that matter. The Government has not given any preference to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, because that company and TransAustralia Airlines will have equal rights to freight and passenger traffic. I invite honorable senators to draw their own conclusions from a comparison of this Government’s endeavour to do the fair thing by both companies with the socialist government’s attempt to destroy the company that has done so much to pioneer, air services in this country.

Senator SANDFORD:
Victoria

– The Opposition and the people df Australia are very perturbed about this agreement. The Government is to guarantee to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited a loan of between £3,000,000 and £6,000,000. The Government says that it has made a complete inquiry into the affairs of Trans-Australia Airlines, and has gone as far as possible into the finances of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. We are told that because Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is a proprietary company, it is not bound to disclose its balance-sheets. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has pointed out, Captain Holyman said in London only a couple of months ago that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited was in a perfectly sound condition. I should like to know whether the Australian Government will be able, in the event of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited defaulting in the repayment of its loan, to compel such repayment. According to admissions that have been made from the Government side of the chamber, the Government would not have any legal standing in the matter. It is clear that there is no doubt in the public mind about the relevant efficiency of the two organizations. In the short period of its existence, Trans-Australia Airlines has gone far ahead of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in passenger traffic, and that is the real test of public opinion. Freight cannot be taken into account. A parcel has no choice but to go on the aircraft by which it is consigned. The travelling public, however, can appreciate a safe and efficient service. In spite of the handicap of being unable to operate intra-state services without the approval of the State governments concerned, Trans-Australia Airlines, which started many years after Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, has outstripped the latter company in passenger traffic. However, in spite of the high public favour in which Trans-Australia Airlines is held, the Government is going to sabotage it. If I could think of a stronger word to describe the Government’s action I would use it. The Government is going to sabotage the people’s airline for the benefit of a company which consists mainly of shipping interests. Passenger traffic has been Attracted to Trans-Australia Airlines because of its efficient service and its record of safety. It is interesting to note that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited carries roughly twice as much freight as is carried by Trans-Australia Airlines. Quite obviously that is because Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is tied to shipping and other commercial organizations. This Government is seeking to bind future administrations for a period of fifteen years. The proposal is atrocious. The bushrangers of the past were gentlemen compared with honorable senators opposite. Again I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) what safeguards have been taken to ensure that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited shall not default in the repayment of its loans.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) said that the establishment of Trans-Australia Airlines had led to a considerable increase in the efficiency of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. That is entirely wrong. I probably use air services as much as anybody else, and I know that the standard of service of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to-day is not much different from its standard before Trans-Australia Airlines came into the field. The service has always been good. Instead of endeavouring to belittle the efforts of one company, let us say that the efficiency of Australian airlines generally is high. During the war American servicemen and other prominent American visitors to this country said that the service given by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited - and this was prior to the establishment of Trans- Australia Airlines - was better than that of American airlines, and America, of course, is considered by many people to have reached the pinnacle of civil aviation.

The Leader of the Opposition also complained about the loss of airmail revenue by Trans-Australia Airlines. But what about the loss that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited suffered when Trans-Australia Airlines came into the field and was given the job of carrying all airmail? Throughout this debate, a filthy slur has been cast on the safety record of private airlines, and the suggestion has been made that the carriage of mails by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited may endanger aircraft because of the belief that “ the mail must go through “. Some honorable senators opposite have been seeing too many moving pictures. Have they no faith in the Department of

Civil Aviation? Are they not aware that the Department of Civil Aviation controls the movements of aircraft and can decide whether or not an aircraft shall take off ? There has also been talk about the possibility that keen competition may lead to the cutting of fares and a consequent lowering of safety standards. I remind the committee that the Department of Civil Aviation also controls fares. The Leader of the Opposition spoke, surprisingly enough, of an alleged lack of confidence amongst the staff of Trans-Australia Airlines since the introduction of this bill. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber will confirm that, since this Government came into office, not one, but many pilots, co-pilots and other air crew members have said that they want to see the two companies kept going. I know that the pilots -employed by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited hold the same view for the simple reason that while the two organizations continue to exist, their bargaining power will remain strong. As TransAustralia Airlines is a government instrumentality it does not pay tax. Members of the Opposition have made a great song and dance about the fact that TransAustralia Airlines has regularly paid air-route charges.

Senator Armstrong:

– Those charges have amounted to nearly £1,000,000.

Senator WOOD:

– I ‘point out to the honorable senator that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, since its inception, has paid in taxes and charges to the Government, including income tax, a sum in excess of £3,000,000.

Senator Armstrong:

– How does the honorable senator know that?

Senator WOOD:

– Of course, one would not expect members of the Opposition to mention a fact of that kind even if they had knowledge of it. Senator Armstrong and his colleagues could have elicited that information from the records of the debate that took place in the Parliament

On the measure under which TransAustralia Airlines was established. I emphasize that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, since its inception, has paid in taxes and charges to the Government a sum that is three times greater than the amount that

Trans-Australia Airlines has paid in airroute charges. I have not the slightest doubt that the people of Australia would deplore any development that would deprive this country of the first-class air services that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is now providing.

Senator COLE:
Tasmania

– I understand that Trans-Australia Airlines has on order six Vickers Viscount aircraft, the first of which is scheduled to be delivered early in the new year. I should like the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to inform me whether under this measure Trans-Australia Airlines will be obliged to make three of those aircraft available alternately to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited as the aircraft are -delivered. I should also like to know whether the Government is prepared to make representations to those States in which TransAustralia Airlines is not permitted to operate intra-state to allow it to do so. Trans-Australia Airlines cannot operate intra-state in Tasmania, for instance, although it is desirous of providing a service from Tasmania to King Island and also a service to Flinders Island.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The Holyman organization now has a monopoly of those routes.

Senator COLE:

– That is so. As the Government claims that the principal objective of this measure to establish equality of competition between TransAustralia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will the Minister say whether the Government is prepared to make representations to the States concerned along the lines that I have indicated?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I inform Senator Cole that Trans-Australia Airlines will retain the six Vickers Viscount aircraft which it now has on order. The provision with respect to the sharing of aircraft between the two organizations applies only in respect of aircraft that may be purchased from organizations in which the Government has an interest. The honorable senator also asked whether the Government is prepared to make representations to States in which Trans-Australia Airlines is not permitted to operate intra-state to permit it to do so. That matter requires careful consideration. The major organizations, must not be allowed to put out of business small companies that have pioneered efficient services in certain areas. In any event, as the matter involves government policy, I am not prepared, at this juncture, to say whether the Government would be willing to comply with the honorable senator’s request.

Senator Sandford:

asked whether Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited could offer satisfactory security in respect of any advance on overdraft that the company might obtain from the Commonwealth Bank on the guarantee of the Government. The honorable senator knows perfectly well that no bank is prepared to make available an advance unless satisfactory security is offered by the applicant, and I have no doubt that the Commonwealth Bank is as efficient as in any other financial institution in negotiating transactions of that kind. The Government has no cause for concern that its interest may not be preserved in this matter.

Senator Sandford:

– It is proposed that the Government will guarantee the repayment of loans to a certain amount that are made available by the Commonwealth Bank to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

Senator McLEAY:

– The company would require advances mainly for the purchase of aircraft. For instance, six Vickers Viscount aircraft would cost approximately £3,000,000. In guaranteeing advances made to the company, the Government will have available to it rights and remedies that are available to guarantors in normal circumstances. The Government, as the principal guarantor, would be able, if necessary, to sue the principal debtor, which would be Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, and would be entitled to recover the security given by the principal debtor to the Commonwealth Bank. Therefore, the Government’s interests will be fully protected in transactions of this kind.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D.Reid.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– The Minister informed us in his second-reading speech that, during the year ended the 30th June, 1952, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited flew 14,000,000 freight tonmiles, while Trans-Australia Airlines flew 7.500,000 freight ton-miles. Since the bill provides for the rationalization of air services, and as the Government has decided that the carriage of mails shall be divided between Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines, is it intended that one-half of the freight at present carried by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will bc carried by Trans-Australia Airlines ? We have been told that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has collected landing charges from certain of its customers. As two-thirds of the landing charges imposed by the Government on the company will be waived, I should like to know whether action will be taken by the Government to ensure that moneys collected by the company from its customers for that purpose will be refunded to them in whole or in part.

Senator Spicer:

– Obviously the honorable senator has not read the bill.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

in reply - The matter is covered by the agreement, which provides -

The company will pay to the Commonwealth within one year from the date of the commencement of this agreement . the sum of £337,717 6s. in full satisfaction of all claims by the Commonwealth against the company for air-route charges in respect of the period commencing on the first day of August One thousand nine hundred and fortyseven and ending on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two.

Senator Morrow:

– That is not an answer to my question.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 4234

TARIFF BOARD

Annual Report

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table-

Tariff Board Act - Annual Report for year 1951-52, together with summary of recommendations.

The report is accompanied by an annexure which summarizes the recommendations made by the Tariff Board and sets out the action taken in respect thereof. It is not proposed to print the annexure.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 4234

NAVIGATION BILL 1952

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments) :

Clause 7 -

Section fourteen of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ (8.) Where the prescribed complement of “ (9.) Where the number of duly certificated officers included in the prescribed complement of officers for a ship has not been obtained, the Deputy Director shall not approve, and the superintendent shall not authorize, the taking to sea of a ship unless he is satisfied that the officers to he carried on the ship are able tn perforin all the duties to be performed by the duly certificated officers included in the prescribed complement of officers for that shi]). “ ( 10. ) The master of a ship who has received an authority under sub-section (8.) of this section may take the ship to sea with not less than the prescribed complement of officers specified in the authority

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 1 - Omit sub-section (8.) of proposed section fourteen, and insert the following subsection : - “ (8.) Where the number of officers included in a class of officers specified in the prescribed complement of officers for a ship has not been obtained and the master or owner of the ship satisfies a Deputy Director that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of officers (including the seeking of the assistance of the organization of which officers included in that class are members ) , the Deputy Director may, by writing under his hand, authorize the master to take the ship to sea with not less than the complement of officers specified in the authority.”.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) pro- posed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I should like to have an explanation from the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) of the reason for the proposed amendments. The Senate has been presented with a schedule of amendments covering five closely-printed pages at the hour of 3.15 a.m. On the 15th October, this bill was gagged through the Senate despite the strong objections of members of the Opposition. Only four Labour speakers took part in the second-reading debate. Three speakers were on the Government side of the chamber. No time was allowed for discussion in committee of this extensive bill, which embodies 38 clauses covering 21 pages. The Minister owes the committee an explanation of the haste with which the bill was forced through the chamber on the 15th October. Why was it rushed through this chamber and then allowed to remain undebated by the House of Representatives for nearly three weeks? Furthermore, what is the reason for the extensive amendments that were made to it in the House of Representatives at the behest of the Government, even though discussion of the measure in the committee stage in this Senate was “gagged”? I notice that the schedule of amendments now before the committee includes sundry improvements. Some of them, no doubt, arc drafting amendments. The first amendment, which is now under consideration, provides that the power to decide whether a ship with less than its prescribed complement may put to sea shall not be placed in the hands of the superintendent at the port of departure. The Opposition strongly objected to the original provision, and I am pleased to see now that the amendment provides that such power shall be vested only in the Deputy Director of Navigation. I notice also that the Government proposes that the deputy director shall refer all such decisions to the Seamen’s Union of Australasia. The Deputy Director of Navigation and the union must be satisfied that the master or the owner of the ship concerned has made reasonable efforts to obtain a full crew. This amendment represents a distinct improvement on the original provision, but our general objection still remains. We contend that n ship should not be permitted to put to sea without a full complement. I remind the Minister that he treated the Senate in a cavalier fashion when he insisted that the bill be forced through the chamber between 4.29 p.m. and 11.59 p.m. on the loth October. I hope that he will offer a full explanation of the extensive amendments that have since been made by the House of Representatives.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) will appreciate the fact that the Govern ment was experiencing trouble on the waterfront when this bill was introduced into the Senate. Ships were being delayed, largely as a result of a conspiracy by representatives of the Communist party of Australia in various ports. In the circumstances, I was anxious to secure a speedy passage for the measure. I did not propose to consult the Maritime Industry Commission in advance concerning the Government’s proposal to dissolve it. On the day the bill was introduced in the Senate, the member of the commission who represents the Department of Shipping and Transport attended a meeting of the commission and explained the measure to it. Some of the original provisions of the bill were drastic. My department considered that such provisions were necessary. The matter was referred to representatives of the trade union movement, and they approached the honorable member for Bendigo in the House of Representatives, Mr. Clarey, who discussed the views of the movement with me. The trade unions objected to some of the clauses, particularly one which provided for the imposition of penalties in excess of those provided for in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The consultations involved also the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) and officers of his department. At a second conference, the trade union representatives asked the Government to amend certain provisions that they considered to be too drastic. The Government then gave consideration to the watering down of those provisions. That is one reason why consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives was delayed. The schedule of amendments that has been submitted to the Senate appears to be formidable, but honorable senators will find that most of the amendments are of a machinery nature. Only four of them provide for important alterations of the original provisions. The first amendment, which is now before the committee, was considered to be advisable because of the weight of the responsibility of making decisions to send ships to sea with less than their prescribed complements. The Government decided that authority to make such decisions should be vested in the Deputy Directo’r of Navigation, one of the highest officers in the Department of Shipping and Transport, instead of in superintendents at ports of departure.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I remind the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) that, even if he saw fit not to refer the bill to the Maritime Industry Commission or to discuss its provisions with the trade union movement, the Opposition afforded him an opportunity to appoint a select committee for the purpose of considering it. The time was very limited. The proposal was that the committee should report within a fortnight. Had that been done, the matter could have been thrashed out with the bodies concerned and this Senate could have played a responsible part. The Minister denied the Senate that opportunity and left it to go elsewhere. The truth is that he did not at that time give to the Senate the courtesy of the explanation that he has given the committee now. He left the Senate in complete ignorance of the reason why the bill was being rushed through. I shall make no further comment at this stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives Amendment No. 2. - In sub-section (9.) of proposed new section 14, omit “the Deputy Director shall not approve, and the Superintendent shall not authorize,”, insert “a Deputy Director shall not authorize “.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– It would be helpful to honorable senators if we were supplied with notes upon the effect of each amendment.

Senator McLeay:

– This is a small amendment that is consequential upon the first amendment.

Senator McKENNA:

– I suggest that as each amendment is called, information explaining it should be supplied to honorable senators. We have had no opportunity to consider this large number of amendments. The amendments have just been put into our hands and they have not been properly considered. The committee would be helped if the Minister would give an explanation as each amendment is called.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– By this amendment the Deputy Director is substituted for the Superintendent. As I have said, it is consequential upon the first amendment.

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to a point of order. Is this discussion in order? I direct attention to Standing Order 222, which states -

When a bill shall be returned from the House of Representatives with Amendments, the Message with such Amendments shall be printed, unless the Senate otherwise order, and a time fixed for taking the same into consideration in a Committee of the Whole.

What is the position? Has the Senate considered that aspect?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The bill is in order because it has not been otherwise ordered and the committee has accepted it. The standing order has been suspended.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives Amendment No. 3. - In sub-section (10.) of proposed subsection 14, omit the word “ prescribed “.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish to make only one comment. Surely the omission of the word “ prescribed “ is merely the correction of a drafting error ?

Senator Spicer:

– A printing error.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is the type of information to which I have referred. Had the committee been given an opportunity to consider such matters, this error would have been picked up earlier. This only emphasizes the danger of rushing such measures through the chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives Amendment No. 4. - After clause 7 insert the following new clause: - “ 7a. After section fourteen of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 14a. Where-

  1. a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade ordinarily carries a number of officers of any class greater than the number of officers specified in that class of officers included in the prescribed complement of officers for that ship; and
  2. the master or owner has not obtained the number of officers included in that class ordinarily carried on that ship, the master shall not command the officers and crew to take the ship to sea unless -
  3. the master or owner satisfies a Deputy Director that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of officers (including the seeking of the assistance of theorganization of which officers included in that class are members) ; and
  4. the Deputy Director authorizes the master to take the ship to sea.’.”.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is a very important new clause because the principle of taking ships to sea without complete complements is concerned. The Opposition is opposed to such a practice and it does not favour the clause for that reason. It is an improvement upon the proposition that was put to the Senate in the original bill in that the deputy director of navigation is to be the individual who will make the necessary determination. Nevertheless the Opposition still does not favour the clause.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– This section is not unimportant and the expression “ ordinarily carries a number of officers of any class greater than the number of officers specified in that class of officers included in the prescribed complement of officers for that ship “ is vague. It elevates the ordinary practice of a particular ship to a status superior to that prescribed because the provisions of this clause now operate on a fractional basis of the customary complement as distinct from the minimum legal complement. It strikes me as the oddest idea by which to regulate the authority of a person and responsible official to give an order to send a ship to sea. I ask the Minister why this form of approach has been adopted in preference to what would seem to be the simple idea of altering the prescribed complement. I cannot grasp the conception whereby we are going to have lawful orders to proceed to sea in relation to the customary complement of officers which a ship ordinarily carries. We have been told in the past that it has been lawful since 1921 for a ship to proceed to sea with four-fifths of its complement.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– This is a new clause which will prevent the master of a ship which ordinarily carries more than a complement to sail short-handed unless he gets authority from the director. My technical officers have advised me that this is necessary to carry out the intention of the new amendment.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

Senator Wright has raised a very important question. How is the number of officers that a ship ordinarily carries determined ?

Senator McLeay:

– It is prescribed. In some instances, by agreement, a ship carries more than the prescribed number.

Senator McKENNA:

– If a ship ordinarily carries more than the prescribed number of officers, the question may arise of how many more than the prescribed number it ordinarily carries. How is that matter determined?

Senator McLeay:

– By agreement between the owners and the union concerned.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is a matter of agreement?

Senator McLeay:

– Where a ship carries more than the prescribed number, it is done by agreement between the owners and the union concerned.

Senator McKENNA:

– Is the number registered anywhere? Where can the number be ascertained? I am genuinely interested to know how one can ascertain the number of officers ordinarily carried in excess of the prescribed number. Is there a record of that?

Senator Wright:

– By what means is it determined?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is the point.

Senator Spicer:

– I can find out.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am asking the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to tell me. Is it necessary to search the ship’s papers in each case? Does some record have to be kept at the Navigation Office? How is the matter determined?

Senator Kendall:

– By agreement with

Hie Maritime Service Guild.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– I believe that the Government is trying to act in conformity with requests that have been made by people who are anti-Communist and believe in a quick turn-round of ships, but, under the amendment, the officer appointed, whoever he may be, will still have to consult with the officers of the organization to which the men belong before he decides whether a ship shall go to sea. What will that achieve? The Minister has always said that ships are delayed by a Communist-controlled union. Will there be anybody who will be able to say what the complement of staff on a ship must be before it can be permitted to sail? Or are we still to he left at the mercy of the wolves - that is, Communists such as Elliott? Are we still going to leave it to them to say whether a ship will go to sea ? In what way will the new procedure be different from the present practice?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I think Senator Hendrickson is confused. I explained earlier that the complement of a ship is prescribed by regulation. When the normal complement is greater than that prescribed and that normal complement cannot be obtained, the master cannot take the ship to sea unless he obtains the permission of the deputy director to do so. We have substituted the deputy director for the superintendent.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 (Engagement or supply of seamen) .

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 5. - Omit the clause.

Motion (by Senator MCLEAY) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Will the Minister explain why a clause which I thought would be a protection to seamen, is to be deleted?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– It has been deleted at the request of the unions. The Department of Shipping and Transport wanted to clarify the position, but some of the unions thought there was something sinister in the clause, and asked us to delete it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 6. - After clause 8 insert the following new clause: - 8a. Section thirty-nine of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the proviso to sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section : - (1a.) Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding sub-section, a seaman who has been rated as A.B. before the commencement of this sub-section shall continue to be entitled to be so rated.’.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 -

Sections forty-three and forty-four of the principal act are repealed and the following section is inserted in their stead: -

Bouse of Representatives’ Amendment No.

  1. – Omit “ section is “, insert “ sections “.

Amendment agreed to.

Bouse of Representatives’ Amendment No.

  1. – Omit sub-section (8.) of proposed section forty-three, insert the following subsection : - “*(8.) Where the prescribed crew for a ship has not been obtained and the master or owner of the ship satisfies a Deputy Director that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain the prescribed crew for the ship (including the seeking of the assistance of the organization of which seamen of the description of seamen who have not been obtained are members), the Deputy Director may. by writing under his hand, authorize the master to take the ship to sea with such crew as is specified, in the authority, being a crew of not less than four-fifths of the engine room stall’, and four-fifths of the deck complement, of the ship.”.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– This is a provision of a type to which the Opposition is opposed. If we do not proceed to a division on it, it will be only because we do not want to occupy the time of the committee at this late hour. But that does not alter the fact that we object to a provision that authorizes a ship to be taken to sea without a full complement. The proposed sub-section is an improvement upon the provision that it is designed to replace, because the deputy director has been substituted for the superintendent, and there must be a reference to the organization of which seamen are members. Will the Minister tell the committee whether the changes have been proposed at the request of the trade union movement.

Senator McLeay:

– They have been proposed at the request of Mr. Monk.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I register an emphatic protest against this provision, because it will not do justice to seamen.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I enter my protest against the provision, even as amended. If seamen are absent from their ship, they are deemed to be deserters on the ground that they have imperilled the safety of the ship and the lives of the passengers. If it is right to describe a seaman who is absent from his ship as a deserter, and to contend that the safety of the ship would be imperilled if it put to sea without him, I do not consider that we should agree to a clause that will allow a ship to be taken to sea with only four-fifths of its complement. If it is not to be regarded as a crime to allow a ship to go to sea with a depleted crew, for the life of me I cannot see why it should be such a serious crime for a member of the crew to be absent from duty. The Navigation Act was drafted only after a great deal of research and investigation. I consider that the clause, even if amended as proposed, seriously alters the intention of the original act.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– -For very many years it has been customary for ships on the Australian coast to carry a larger crew than is necessary for the safe navigation of the ship while at sea. The clause has been drafted on the basis of a full complement 20 per cent, on the safe side. Even if the margin was 50 per cent., the actual number of seamen and firemen still available for duty would be sufficient to ensure the safe navigation of the vessel. The additional men carried perform cleaning duties and handle cargo, gear, hatches, and passengers’ luggage in port.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Do officers do that work?

Senator KENDALL:

– I am referring to the crew. I assure the committee that no master worth his salt, including practically every master in the Merchant Service Guild, would take a ship to sea if it was not seaworthy in the sense of being manned properly. There is absolutely no danger in a ship sailing onefifth short of its complement. There is no connexion between the provisions for the imposition of a heavy fine on a member of the crew who is absent without leave, and the provision that a ship may sail one-fifth short of its complement. If a ship sails without a member of the crew, absent without leave, the shipping company has to go to the trouble of engaging another man at the next port of call, and it has to incur incidental expenses in connexion with his belongings, if they are still on board.

The minimum requirement in relation to officers is set out in the schedule to the principal act. The number of officers to be carried was decided by an agreement between the Merchant Service Guild and the shipping companies. It is based on the tonnage of the ship. Ships of less than 1,000 tons carry only a master and two officers; in ships of more than 1,000 tons, a master and three officers are carried. However, the number of officers carried is frequently one less than the number I have mentioned. There is nothing to prevent a master from taking to sea a ship of over 1,000 tons with only two mates. The only difference in routine would be that the officers would perform four hours duty and then have four hours off duty, instead of four hours duty followed by eight hours off duty. The lesser number of officers would not interfere with the safe navigation of the vessel. When I was a young man it was customary for officers to work what was called “four on and four off”. “Four on and eight off “ is a comparatively recent innovation.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– By his statement that in many instances ships carry more than the complement of crew prescribed by law, Senator Kendall has condemned the clause. In effect, he has stated that it does not matter if a ship puts to sea with a crew one-fifth less in number than the number prescribed by law. I cannot accept the implication that shipping companies today pay men to ride around as tourists and do not require them to do any work beyond the few jobs that Senator Kendall mentioned. The honorable senator has stated that many ships carry more than the complement prescribed by law. I contend that the lives on board would be endangered if a ship were permitted to put to sea with only four-fifths of its complement and any members of the crew became incapacitated by accident, or fell sick.

Senator Kendall:

– It would make any one sick to listen to the honorable senator.

Senator MORROW:

– We are sick of Senator Kendall’s blarney. He wants to revert to the conditions that obtained twenty years’ ago. I shall vote against the clause.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

.- I agree entirely with the views that have been expressed by Senator Morrow.

Senator Kendall:

– He misquoted me completely.

Senator GRANT:

– I shall not misquote Senator Kendall. He stated that for a number of years he worked at sea on the basis of four hours on duty, followed by four hours off. On his own showing, if the clause is allowed to stand, even with the proposed amendment, a less number of officers will beemployed and they will receive less pay in the aggre gate than formerly. Instead of an officer being able to have eight hours’ rest after four hours on duty, he will only have four hours’ rest. If Senator Kendall had more than an academic knowledge of shipping he would know of the terrific fight that the British seamen had to put up in the past to gain improved conditions. Although the Plimsoll line was introduced in the interests of safety, many overloaded ships continued to sail around Cape Horn. That shows how much the owner’s cared for the crews. It did not matter to the owners if the ships went down, because they’ Would collect a tremendous amount of money in insurance. Honorable senators opposite want a return to such conditions. If a ship is wrecked as a result of the operation of this measure, who will be held responsible? Will the Deputy Director of Navigation be immune from all responsibility? Is he to be the sole judge of where the responsibility lies? I take it that under the measure he is to have authority over the masters ofvessels. It is all very well to say that no decent captain would take his ship to sea manned below the safety margin, and so risk his own lifeand that of his crew and passengers. I am convinced that if, in the days of which I have spoken the same proposition that we now advance had been placed before the British House of Commons, the reply of the supporters of the shipping interests would have been the same reply as honorable senators opposite have made to-night, which is that no captain would take his ship to sea undermanned if he knew’ that the lives of the crew and passengers were being risked thereby. Senator Kendall has admitted that this provision will mean that the working conditions of seamen will be altered. The position would then return to what it was when Senator Kendall was a boy. If the honorable senator did not say that, then let him tell me what he did Say.

If there is anything that will play into the hands of Communists like Elliott and Bird in the Seamen’s Union of Australasia, this is it. The measure will produce conditions that will be an absolute godsend to the Communists. If the Government were planning to produce Communists it could not have done better than introduce this measure. Does the Government think that the seamen will stand for the provisions of the measure? Out of the mouth of Senator Kendall has come the admission that the measure will put the clock back. In fact, putting the clock back is of the essence of the Government’s programme in all matters. Such policies make Communists, and 1 hope that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) will call for a division on the clause, which I consider to be one of the most momentous clauses that has been contained in any bill that has ever been before this Senate.

Senator KENDALL (Queensland) 1 3.5S a.m.]. - I do not know whether the remarks of honorable senators opposite arise from a deliberate misunderstanding of my statements or from a complete lack of knowledge of the subject. There is absolutely no question of putting the clock back or of this provision being implemented except in cases of emergency. I direct the attention of Senator Grant and Senator Morrow to the fact that this very provision, in a slightly different form, has been in the principal act since 1921.

Senator Critchley:

– Then why is the amendment necessary?

Senator KENDALL:

– The amendment has been introduced to give to the Deputy Director of Navigation the power to decide whether or not the master of a ship may take it to sea with a shortage of crew. This provision is included in the measure in order to clarify the position. There is no question of it being used as a general rule.

Senator Morrow:

– It is not only a case of the master satisfying the director, but of the owner also satisfying the deputy director.

Senator KENDALL:

– It is now usual for owners to do all the office work for the masters of their vessels, but the master is the final authority on whether -he shall take his ship to sea or not. I referred to working four hours on and four hours off in an attempt to show that many ships in the past sailed with only two mates, whereas to-day they would have three or four mates, and not because I want to return to those days. God forbid that we should ever return to them! I wanted to show that ships can be safely navigated with two mates. Many thousands of ships have travelled many hundreds of thousands of miles with onlytwo mates.

I turn now to Senator’ Morrow’s remarks. I did not say that one-fifth was to be taken off the prescribed number of crew because extra crew were being carried. I said that if one-fifth were taken off the prescribed number, a perfectly safe margin would be left in order to_ take the ship to sea, but that there would be a shortage of crew to work the ship when it got to port. .

Senator Grant:

– Then they would be all “ scabs “, because the same amount of labour would be done by a smaller number of men.

Senator KENDALL:

– Not .at all. Members of the crew of a ship are paid overtime for extra work that they do at sea just as other workers are paid overtime.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– As Senator Kendall has said, this provision will be used only in cases of emergency. The provision has been included in the measure at the request of the trade unions themselves. Although the master may go to sea one-fifth of his crew short he has to obtain the permission of the deputy director of navigation to do so. The Seamen’s Union of Australasia asked us to include this provision in the measure. Where there is an agreement between the owner and the trade unions that the complement of a ship is in excess of the prescribed number, the measure still provides that not more than one-fifth of that greater number may be left ashore when the ship sails. If the Opposition votes against this provision it will be voting against something that has been included in the measure at the request of the unions concerned.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– I shall not be convinced by the remarks of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) nor by Senator Kendall’s explanation. The Minister has admitted that he can negotiate with the Communist leaders of the maritime unions. I still represent the members of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia, who are second to none as far as work is concerned. If the Minister is prepared to negotiate with the ‘ Com.” leaders and be satisfied with the result of the negotiations then I am not satisfied. If Elliott and Bird have agreed to this provision, then it is something with which I cannot agree.

Senator Kendall:

Mr. Monk has also agreed to it.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– The Minister said that it was included in the measure at the request of the leaders of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia. We consider that the amendment is an attempt to put back the clock.

Senator Kendall:

– No.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Yes, it is! I Save travelled on ships for many years as a passenger and have seen how seamen work. I saw how they worked 35 years ago.

Senator Kendall:

– How can the honorable senator contend that the implementation of the provision would put the clock back? I should not vote for anything that would put the clock back.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– The Minister has told this chamber, not once but hundreds of times, that the Communist leaders of the maritime unions have been responsible for the slow turnround of ships. Does Senator Kendall class all members of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia as “ Corns.” ?

Senator Kendall:

– No, about 2 per cent, of them.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– There are still people who believe that they have a right to fight for what they consider themselves to be entitled to. Senator Kendall says that a complement of four-fifths can take the ship safely to sea. Yet, under this measure, a seaman who absents himself from duty when his ship sails may be charged as a deserter. He may be branded a criminal of sorts, and have his opportunity of earning a livelihood at his trade taken away from him for the rest of his life. That is wrong. If Elliott and Bird wanted to do so they could take a man’s livelihood away from him by manoeuvring him into a position that would result in his receiving a number of bad discharges and so be prevented from taking up his trade again. He may be a member of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia who supports the Australian Labour party. We do not wish to . give any points to these Communist leaders. Whilst it is proper for the Government to consult the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey), or the president of the Australian Council of Trades Unions, Mr. Monk, in this matter, it is not in order for it to consult Elliott and Bird. This is a most contentious matter, but not even the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has had an opportunity to discuss these amendments. The Opposition is suspicious of this legislation, because ever since this Government came to office the Communists have fallen right into line. Probably they will remain dormant until the next general election because they have been given a little Liberal party and Australian Country party assistance. I contend that this measure should be withdrawn in order to allow honorable senators on this side of the chamber to consider it and the proposed amendments, and that the Senate should meet tomorrow or at some other time for further debate. I accept the opportunity that the Leader of the Opposition has given to honorable senators to protest. I shall vote against this clause unless an assurance is given by the Minister that the amendments will be withdrawn in order to give honorable senators an opportunity to consider them.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– It seems to me that the opposition to the amendments is based on a complete- misconception. This provision introduces no new principle to the act:-

Senator Morrow:

– Then why is it necessary ?

Senator SPICER:

– Because it is a much more convenient provision with which to deal with a particular matter-

Senator GRANT:

– Convenient for whom ?

Senator SPICER:

– For everybody concerned. The idea of a ship going to sea without one-fifth of its complement is already provided for in the Navigation Act. That provision has been in existence for years. Section 44, for which these clauses are being substituted, provides that the owner of a ship to which the last preceding section applies - that is, the section which prescribes the complement - shall not suffer her to go to sea, mid the master shall not take her to sea, without carrying the crew prescribed or specified. Sub-section (2.), which prescribes the existing law, reads -

If a ship proceeds to sea being short in he crew of not more than one-fifth of her engineroom staff, or one-fifth of her deck complement, the master or owner shall not be liable under this section if it is proved that the breach was not occasioned through any fault of his uwu.

It is, therefore, perfectly clear under the existing law that without consulting any deputy directors, without going along and trying to obtain a crew from the union, without any prescriptions of that kind, ii master may proceed to sea, without being liable for an offence, with a complement which is one-fifth short of the prescribed complement.

Senator Grant:

– Why is it necessary to refer to the deputy director at all, if that is so?

Senator SPICER:

– Because surely this is a much more convenient method of dealing with the problem.

Senator Grant:

– Is it necessary in order to stiffen the authority of the master?

Senator SPICER:

– Not at all. Instead of leaving the master in the position where he exercises his rights and is obliged to take some risk to establish that it was not due to his fault, the Government proposes to prescribe means by which his actions are controlled in advance by the deputy director. He cannot act without the approval of the deputy director, so that the crew and all concerned are safeguarded. The master, in turn, knows that he is acting in accordance with the law at the time that he takes the ship to sea. It is not proposed to alter any principle but merely to provide a much more convenient and workable method than the one contained in the act.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has stated that, under the new provision, the master will not be able to take the ship to sea unless he has the authority of the deputy director to do so. I refer the honorable senator to sub-section (11.) of clause 10, which states -

It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against this section if the defendant satisfies the Court that the ship went to sea with not less than four-fifths of the engine-room staff, and with not less than four-fifths of the deck complement, of the ship and that the failure to obtain the prescribed crew for the ship was not due to any default or neglect on his part.

That substantially maintains section 44 (2.) of the act. I agree with the Attorney-General that the provision contained in this clause is an improvement on the provision in the bill when it was last before the Senate, and it also provides an additional safeguard beyond that available in sections 43 and 44 of the act. I do not controvert that point at all. The matter of principle to which my colleagues are directing their arguments is the fact that a ship should be allowed to go to sea at all with less than the prescribed complement, which they treat as the minimum that is required for safety. I acknowledge that the provision has been in existence since 1921, or perhaps even earlier.

Senator Kendall posed the proposition that the prescribed complement always allows a very substantial margin for safety, and that it is quite safe for a ship to go to sea with four-fifths of the complement. I take it that that is the proposition which Opposition senators contest. If the law prescribes a minimum, that prescription should, in fact, be the minimum. That minimum should be fixed with due regard to safety, and there should not he any reduction below the minimum prescribed by law. It is obvious, from another clause to which the committee has just agreed, that it is usual, even in Senator Kendall’s wide experience, for ships normally to carry more than the prescribed complement. The prescribed limit should be the bare minimum. Then, as in the instances we have discussed, there should he a margin above that to allow for safety, but there should be no departure below it. The Opposition is not impressed with the argument that this provision has stood since 1921. I take it that my remarks voice the feelings of the Opposition in the matter.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I desire to discuss briefly the provision authorizing a master to take his ship to sea with only four-fifths of the normal complement. Let us deal with the matter arithmetically. Suppose the prescribed complement is 25 seamen and that, as Senator Kendall has stated, the ship - normally carries two seamen in excess of the complement. Should the master decide to put to sea with fourfifths of his complement, he could sail with seven fewer men. We know that sometimes one, two or three engineers work on a shift. Suppose the ship puts to sea with four-fifths of the normal complement of engineers. The remainder will be required to do the work that would have been performed by the other man.

Senator Kendall:

– What about overtime?

Senator MORROW:

– A certain amount of work has to be done in a given time. Consequently, the matter of overtime does not arise. Ships have been help up in port because seamen absent themselves when they find that the full complement is not available. This provision will not prevent strikes and holdups.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– The longer this issue is debated, the greater is the doubt that is raised in my mind about the wisdom of it. The statement of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that this provision is contained in the original act is not an argument in support of its retention. We should not be bound by precedent. Most of the laws affecting seamen were accepted by the men under duress. Seamen have not been considered worthy of consultation on these matters. The Government adopted that attitude when it was drafting this bill. I am uncompromisingly opposed to any reduction of a ship’s com plement. The wording of the provision is doubtful. It is as follows: -

Where the prescribed crew for a ship has not been obtained and the master or owner of the ship satisfies the deputy director that the master or owner has made all reasonable efforts to obtain the prescribed crew for the ship (including the seeking of the assistance of the organization of which seamen of the description of seamen who have not been obtained are members) . . .

I draw particular attention to the words “ including the seeking of the assistance of the organization of which seamen of the description of seamen have not been obtained are members “. How does the owner or master propose to seek the assistance of the organization?

Senator Kendall:

– He will apply to the union.

Senator CAMERON:

– Yes, he will apply to the representatives of the union. I know that most of the sentences are elliptical, and leave something to be understood, but we should be perfectly certain about this matter. There are ships’ captains and ships’ captains. Some are decent nien and others are not so decent. Quite a number of men on the waterfront are known colloquially as standovermen, such as standover officers and standover overseers. They are the persons who cause most of the trouble. I am not prepared to take any responsibility for agreeing to a reduction of the prescribed crew for a ship, particularly as I know that the seamen have been forced to accept many of these laws. That is the reason why there are so many disputes and strikes

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– This is a most objectionable provision. The Government should have left the matter to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court for consideration. Unfortunately, when this legislation becomes law, a seaman will be compelled to accept the decision of the Deputy Director permitting a master to take his ship to sea with a crew of not less than fourfifths of the engine-room staff and fourfifths of the deck complement. The master will be absolved in relation to insurance claims and damages as the result of accidents, or any act that causes the ship to be damaged. But what will he the position of the seamen ? . The

Government claims that it desires to restore industrial peace to the maritime industries. Under this provision, a seaman will be compelled to sail on a ship which has less than its full complement. His welfare is apparently not the concern of the Government.

The Government claims that it has introduced the provision because 2 per cent. of the members of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia are Communists, and have it “ licked “. The Government is not prepared to deal with them. But that 2 per cent. is less than one-fifth, or 20 per cent. of the complement without whom the master is permitted to sail. The fact that he takes his ship to sea with only four-fifths of the engine-room staff or deck complement means that the dependable men who sail will be penalized. The result will be that they will not want to take the ship to sea, because they will run the risk of an accident and have to work badly rostered shifts. A railway train could be run without, say, an assistant guard, but if it were involved in an accident, strong measures would immediately be taken to prevent under-staffing in the future. When the running of trains was unsafe in Western Australia, the Arbitration Court met at midnight, and commended the men for going on strike. However, sailors will be compelled to go to sea when the deputy director authorizes the master to sail with four-fifths of the engine-room staff or of the deck complement. The men will not be able to protest effectively. If they absent themselves from the ship, they will be classed as deserters. This provision is bad. It will not promote industrial peace. If the Communist leaders of the Seamen’s Union of. Australasia have agreed to this provision, as the Minister has said, the Government has more influence with them than I have suspected. So far as I am aware, no union would agree to such a provision.

Senator Kendall:

– It is included in the Navigation Act.

Senator COOKE:

– Perhaps so. It may have been retained in the act to meet an emergency, should one arise.

Senator Kendall:

– Yes, for the purposes of an emergency. That is the only reason.

Senator COOKE:

– This provision will authorize the master to take a ship to sea. We know perfectly well that under certain administrations, the minimum immediately becomes the maximum in the application of the law in the interests of those in authority, whilst the employees have no voice in the matter. Seamen will be penalized by this provision. A seaman should be free to say, “ I do not wish to go to sea without the full ship’s complement. I have a wife and children. The master may be satisfied regarding the safety of the ship, but I am not satisfied about my personal safety and reserve the right to walk ashore if the vessel is not properly manned “. If a man were to prove to the satisfaction of a judge in an arbitration court that he could not have safely carried out certain duties he would not be penalized for having failed to perform those duties.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

.- Did the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) state that the officials of the Seamen’s Union of Australasia agreed to this amendment?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– The Seamen’s Union of Australasia was represented at a conference at which Mr. Monk was present. This amendment was accepted on that occasion as an improvement to the existing act. Mr. Elliott and Mr. Bird represented the Seamen’s Union of Australasia.

Question put -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. - At the end of the clause, add the following section : - “‘44. Where -

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition opposes this proposal. The fact that they will not call for a division should not be taken as an indication that they do not oppose the provision.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 -

After Division 7 of Fart 2 of the principal act the following division is inserted: - “ Division 7a. - Approval of Engagements of Seamen. “45a. - (1.) Except as provided by Section 48 of this act . . . where the approval of a superintendent of the engagement of a seaman is sought and -

the conduct or character of that seaman has, in three or more reports furnished under Section sixty-seven of this act within the period of five years immediately preceding the date on which the approval is sought been shown as “ bad “ ; and (b)

the approval is sought within six months after the date of delivery of the most recent of these reports, the superintendent shall refuse to approve the engagement of that seaman. “ (5.) A superintendent shall refuse . . . “ 45b. - ( 1 . ) Where a superintendent has refused to approve an engagement of a person under the last preceding section, that person may, within fourteen days after the refusal, make application to the . . . “

House of Representatives Amendment No. 10. - In sub-section (1.) of proposed section 45a, omit “ shall “, insert “ may “.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– It was previously provided that if a seaman had three bad discharges the superintendent must refuse to allow him to be engaged. As a result of the proposed amendment the superintendent will not be compelled to refuse to allow the seaman to be engaged.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition agrees to this amendment, which was suggested by the Opposition when the bill was previously before the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 11. - Omit sub-section (4.) of proposed section 45a, insert the following sub-sections: - (4.) Where a seaman deserts a ship, or, while he is bound by an agreement to serve in a ship, refuses or fails, without reasonable cause, to join that ship, to go to sea in that ship or to take that ship to sea, the master shall report the fact to a superintendent. (4a.) Such a report shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to bea report under section sixty-seven of this Act showing the conduct or character of the seaman as “ bad “. (4b.) Where a seaman refuses or fails as specified in sub-section (4.) of this section, and, before the ship is taken to sea after that refusal or failure, again so refuses or fails ( whether once or more than once ) , that subsection operates as if the last report delivered by the master under that sub-section in respect of any of those refusals or failures were the only report so delivered by him in respect of those refusals or failures.”.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 12 - In sub-section (5.) of proposed section 45a, omit “ shall “, insert “ may “.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 13. - Omit sub-section (6.) of proposed section 45a.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– 1 presume that this is a liberalizing provision to which the union representatives have agreed?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

. - It has been proposed at the request of the union.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 14. - Omit sub-section (8.) of proposed section 45a, insert the following sub-sections: - “ ‘ (8.) Where the Marine Council or a Committee appointed under section four hundred and twenty -four of this Act (or a majority of the members of that Council or of such a Committee) has advised the Minister that the character of a person is such, or the conduct of a person has been such, that that person is, during a period specified in the advice, unsuitable for engagement as a seaman, a superintendent shall, during that period, refuse to approve the engagement of that person as a seaman. (8a.) Where the character of a seaman is such, or the conduct of a seaman has been such, that the seaman is, in the opinion of a master, unsuitable for engagement as a seaman, the master shall report the circumstances to a superintendent.”.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 15. - In sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 45b, after “section”, insert “ (otherwise than under sub-section (8.))”.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– Honorable senators have not. been given enough time to consider these very important amendments. The bill has been carelessly drawn up and all these amendments are vital to the stevedoring industry and the unions allied with navigation. The Government is trying to bull-doze these amendments through the committee and there has been a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction on the back benches of the Government side, and, indeed, fights have occurred between the Minister who is piloting this bill through the Senate and his counterpart in another place.

Senator McLEAY:

– The representatives of the unions asked the Government to have this matter considered by the Marine Council set up under the old Navigation Act. That matter was dealt with in amendment 12 and this is consequential to it.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I ask the Minister if he will give an assurance to the Senate that when anomalies crop up. which are inevitable under such a drastic change as this bill contemplates, the Government will give the unions concerned access to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration? Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do that by regulation if necessary ?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives’ AmendmentNo. 16. - Omit paragraph (c) of sub-section (5.) of proposed section 45b.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 (Running agreements).

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 17. - Omit the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30-

Division 15 of Part 2 of the principal act is repealed and the following division inserted in its stead: -

Bouse of Representatives’ Amendment No. 18. - That after sub-section (1.) of proposed section 138, insert the following sub-sections : - “(1a.) The Committee shall consist of a Chairman and such other members as the Minister determines. (1b.) The Chairman and the members shall be appointed by the Minister. (lc. ) The Minister shall, in appointing the members of the Committee other than the Chairman, appoint not legs than two members to represent the owners of ships and the same number of members to represent masters, officers and seamen of whom not less than one shall represent seamen.”.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This amendment has been inserted in consequence of the representations of the unions concerned.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I understand that this amendment imposes a severe penalty upon any one who interferes with the master.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator is out of order because the amendment is designed to remove that penalty.

Senator McLEAY:

– I point out that in setting up the accommodation committee, the union asked that there be equal representation of owners and unions. “We proposed to provide for that by regulation, but the unions asked us to do it by legislation. We did so.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I congratulate the Government upon bringing forward this amendment. This is the result of a recommendation made by the Senate when the matter was last before it. There are some words written in on my copy of the amendments which apparently are to be incorporated. The clause reads -

The Minister shall, in appointing the members of the Committee other than the Chairman, appoint not less than two members to represent the owners of ships and the same number of members to represent masters, officers, and seamen, of whom not less than one shall represent seamen.

Are the last few words to be incorporated?

Senator McLeay:

– Yes, the clause will be as the honorable senator has read.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35 -

House of Representatives’ Amendment No. 19. - Omit clause 35 and insert the following: clause: - “ 35. Section three hundred and eightyseven of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - 387. A person who -

by violence, threat or intimidation, hinders or interferes with the master or an officer of a ship in the performance of his duty in relation to the maintenance of discipline on board the ship; or

resists or wilfully obstructs, assaults, molests or endeavours to intimidate a person performing a duty or function imposed on him, or exercising a right or power conferred on him, by this Act, is guilty of an indictable offence. 387a. A person shall not persuade or incite a master, seaman or apprentice to commit a breach of his agreement.

Penalty: One hundred pounds. 387b. A person shall not wilfully harbour or secrete a seaman or apprentice -

who has deserted his ship;

who has wilfully failed to join his ship ; or

who has absented himself from his ship in wilful disobedience of a lawful command of the master or of an officer of the ship.

Penalty: Twenty pounds.’.”.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The clause to be omitted deals with obstructing or interfering with officials or officers. It seems that the offence eliminated from proposed section 387 is inciting a seaman to commit a breach of his agreement. That was an indictable offence in the original bill but has now been altered to an offence punishable by a fine of £100. Also the word “wilfully “ is included. Will the Minister inform the Senate at whose instance these changes were made?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– The representatives of the Australian Council of Trades Unions, the Seamen’s Union of Australasia, and other unions associated with the maritime industry, were all present at conferences with the Government. The Australian Council of Trades Unions particularly took strong objections to certain offences being made indictable offences.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37-

After Part X.’of the principal act the following part is inserted: - “ Part Xa. - Industrial MATTERS “405a. - In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears - industrial matters ‘ means all matters in relation to the salaries, wages, rates of pay or other terms and conditions of service or employment ‘ of seamen ; “. “ 405f. The Court has power to give an interpretation of . . .

the order or award of the Court or of a Conciliation Commissioner under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1004 or under that Act as amended, applicable to seamen “.

Bouse of Representatives’ Amendment No. 20. - In the definition of “ industrial matters “, after the ‘ word “ of “, last occurring, insert masters, pilots or “.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move. -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Masters and pilots are in the same industrial organization as deck officers of ships and it is agreed- that they should have the same arbitration conditions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives? Amendment No. 21. - In paragraph (6) of section 405f, after to “ insert “ masters, pilots or “.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The proposal is to omit proposed new section 405m and to insert another new section. The effect will be to invest the court, which will consist of a single judge, not only with the powers of the court, but also of a conciliation commissioner. Is that the only change?

Senator McLeay:

– Yes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mouse of Representatives’ Amendment No. 28. - After clause 38, add the following new clause : - “39. - (1.) Where, immediately before the commencement of this section, an industrial dispute was pending, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952, before a Conciliation Commissioner, that industrial dispute shall, subject to this section, be heard and determined in accordance with Part Xa. of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, and the Judge exercising the powers of the Court under that Part in relation to that industrial dispute shall have regard to the evidence given and arguments adduced before the Conciliation Commissioner. “ (2.) The Chief Judge may, if he is of opinion that it is desirable to do so, direct that an industrial dispute the hearing of which has been commenced before a Conciliation Commissioner before the date of commencement of this section shall be continued as if this Act had not been passed and, where such a direction has been given, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952 applies in relation to that industrial dispute as if the Principal Act had not been amended by this Act. “ (3.) Where, before the date of commence ment of this section, an order or award has been made by a Conciliation Commissioner and the time within which an application for leave to appeal against the order or award under section thirty-one a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1952 has not expired, that section continues to apply to that order or award as if the Principal Act had not been amended by this Act. “ (4.) -Expressions used in this section have the same respective meanings as they have in Part Xa. of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.”.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping, and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The new clause is inserted to enable part heard matter before a conciliation commissioner to be continued by a judge unless the chief judge directs the conciliation commissioner to complete the hearing.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I congratulate the Government upon the inclusion of these provisions. The need for them was apparent to the Opposition, and I think that the Minister’s attention was directed to that need by the Opposition.When matters such as this are overlooked in the drafting of a bill, the danger of rushing measures through the Parliament is clearly shown. Had some adequate provision of this kind not been made, serious industrial troubles might have resulted in the event of hearings being suddenly disrupted. I hope that the Minister will take to heart what the Opposition has said in regard to rushing legislation through this chamber. The Senate looks to him to provide the fullest opportunity to examine the relatively few measures that originate in this cham- ber. Whilst on this occasion we have confined our actions to very strong protests, we might have to do something very drastic should the Minister again behave as he has behaved over this bill.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I have noted the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and I appreciate his generosity. It is expected that the Navigation Act will be further amended when the Parliament re-assembles in February next year by the inclusion of certain provisions that have been agreed to at an international conference. These relate to the safety of lives at sea and to fishing outside the three mile limit. I believe also that the 1949 act is to be repealed. I understand that this bill will be proclaimed on the 1st January, and I wish to make it clear to the ‘Senate as I did to the union representatives, that the main object of the measure is to transfer the general powers of the Maritime Industry Commission to a judge of the Arbitration Court. If, in the operation of the act as amended by this measure, further amendments appear to be necessary, I can assure the Senate that the fullest consideration will be given to the matters involved. I promise also that, on the next occasion, the Opposition will have more time to debate the proposals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 4250

DEFENCE TRANSITION (RESIDUAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4184).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is a hardy annual in another form. It picks up the residue of the National Security Regulations that have not been translated into formal and permanent legislation. The Ministers explanation of the bill was comprehensive and clear, and it is obvious that the residual content is not great. The Opposition is not offering any objection to the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4250

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spicer read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Australian Stevedoring Industry Board derives its income for the carrying out of its functions, including the payment of attendance money to waterside workers, from a charge imposed under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947- 1951 on the employers of waterside workers. The income from the charge is credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and equivalent amounts are paid to the board under the authority of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949. In 1947, the charge was fixed at 4½d. a man-hour of employment, but was reduced- to 2½d. in October, 1949. It was increased to 4d. in December, 1951. Notwithstanding measures taken to effect economies, a combination of circumstances which have arisen in recent months now makes it necessary to increase the charge.

First, there has been, for the first time for years an ample supply of labour in most of the major ports. The decline in inward cargoes has resulted in less congestion on the wharfs and a much quicker turn-round of ships. This is to the great benefit of our economy generally. Amongst other things, greater regularity of sailings has become possible. There have already been instances of reduction in freight rates with some revival of competitive conditions. It is reasonable to assume that some more general reductions in f freight rates will be made. Secondly, the Arbitration Court has recently increased the amount of attendance money from 12s. to 16s. as from the 1st October. These factors have had a two-fold effect on the board’s finances. There has been a substantial reduction in revenue from the charges because of the lesser number of man-hours worked, and also a heavy increase, not only in the numbers receiving attendance money, but also in the amountpaid out. This has resulted in a deficit in the board’s account, which will continue to increase during the next two months, owing to the lag in collection of the charge and payment to the board.

It is proposed to increase the charge to lid. a man-hour of employment on and from the 28th October, 1952. This is expected to provide sufficient revenue to cover the board’s commitments at the current rate, and to eliminate the deficit in its account within a reasonable period. When this is achieved, consideration will be given to a reduction of the rate of charge. During the second half of the financial year 1951-52, revenue from the charge was at the rate of £675,000 per annum. “For the financial year 1952-53, at the current rate of 4d., the estimated revenue would be £583,000. By increasing the rate to Hd. a man-hour on and from the 28th October, 1952, it is estimated that the additional yield during the balance of this financial year will be £600,000, making a total of £1,183,000 for the full year.

At first glance, an increase from 4d. to Hd. seems large and likely to add new burdens to the community. In fact, when regard is paid to freight and handling charges, any net increase due to the charge would be quite small. An example will show this. The present freight and handling charge for general cargo from Sydney to Melbourne is 135s. 6d. a ton. If the increased charge provided for under this bill had to be passed on, the increase in the cost of handling the cargo mentioned would be roughly ls. 2d. a ton. The additional cost on bulk cargoes will be considerably less, for example about J of a penny a ton for wheat to the United Kingdom. It is hoped, however, that shipowners will take stock of the new situation, which permits speedier turnround of shipping, to review their freight charges. Overseas shipping interests have already made some reduction. It will make some contribution to the general efforts of the Government in the economic field if both interstate and overseas shipowners not only prove themselves able to absorb the new stevedoring charge, but. also find it possible to reduce their freight rates generally.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) was quite right when he said -

At first glance an increase from 4d. to lid. seems large and likely to add new burdens to the community.

It seems startling that there should be an increase from 4d. to Hd. a man-hour. The history of this matter, as the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) pointed out, is that in 1947 the charge was fixed at 4£d. a man-hour. In October, 194’9, it was reduced to 2½d. a man-hour because funds had been accumulated which the government of the day deemed to be adequate to meet the charges in sight. In December, 1951, the charge was again increased, on that occasion to 4d. a man-hour; and now, only twelve months later, the Government proposes to increase the charge to Hd. The proposed increase is practically an increase of 200 per cent. The seriousness of the increase is accentuated when one has regard to the limited period within which the increase has been rendered necessary.

The proposed increase is due to more factors than those the Attorney-General indicated. Whilst the factors that he mentioned, such as a fewer number of ships and an increase in the attendance money payment, would, unquestionably, play a part, I should say that other factors that have also rendered the increase necessary have been the Government’s general failure to halt inflation, its decision to impose import restrictions, which was rendered necessary because of its failure to act in time in that sphere, and its credit policy that operated until recently. Those elements have played an important part in forcing prices up. I was interested to hear the Attorney-General say -

First, there has been for the first time for years an ample supply of labour in most of the major ports. The decline in inward cargoes lias resulted in less congestion on the wharfs and in a much quicker turn-round of ships. This is to the great benefit to our economy generally.

I agree with those remarks, but I point out that they confirm the fact, which many members of the Opposition have indicated, that all the blame for the slow turn-round of ships is not to be laid at the door of waterside workers, but that a great deal of responsibility in this matter must be accepted by the shipowners and others who are directly associated with the clearance of goods from the wharfs. I approve, of course, of the Attorney-General’s remarks in which he indicated that the shipping companies would be asked to lower freight charges. However, the Government may find it more difficult to meet with success in that direction than it imagines. I direct the attention of the Senate to the following report which was published in a Perth newspaper a few days after the Government announced its intention to make this increase: -

The Australian Stevedoring Industry Board is top heavy with administration, which accounts for a substantial amount of its expenditure. This was said to-day by the general manager of the Fremantle Harbour Trust, Mr. F. W. Tydeman, who strongly criticized the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board for bringing about an increase from 4d. to Hd. a man-hour in the stevedoring industry charge. The increase will cost the trust an extra £30,000 a year.

Mr. Tydeman contended that the board was not needed at Fremantle. I point out to the Minister that the employers have not received with enthusiasm this proposal to increase the charge. However, I realize that the operations of the board have to be financed and, accordingly, the Opposition offers no objection to the passage of the bill.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– When a bill similar to the measure now before us was discussed in this chamber last year, I strongly opposed it. I oppose the present measure even more strongly. I base my opposition to it upon the grounds, first, that the board is of no use and should be abolished, and secondly, that the proposed increased charge is out of all reason. I realize that I should not be in order in discussing the first ground of my objection to the bill because the continuance of the board does not come within the ambit of the measure. My opposition has no relation to the proposal to increase attendance money paid to waterside workers. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court, after examinination, determined that the men should receive an additional 4s., increasing the rate to 16s. a day. I go further and say that I think that waterside workers should be permanently employed. Vessels do not come into port every day and we cannot expect men to stand off for two or three days at a time, and when a vessel arrives, to be available to load or unload it. The payment of attendance money would be unnecessary if the waterside workers were employed on a permanent basis.

I direct the .attention of the Senate particularly to the financial aspects of the operations of. the board. I j>oint out that if the stevedoring industry charge were not increased this year the board would still be able to pay the waterside workers attendance money at the rate of 16s. a day. In 1947-48, a charge of 4d. a man-hour was imposed and the revenue raised amounted to £260,472, of which attendance money accounted for £105,180, or 40 per cent. In the following year the charge remained unaltered and the revenue raised amounted to £670,138, of which attendance money accounted for £220,502, or 32 per cent. In 1949-50, the charge remained at 4½d. until the 11th October, 1949, when it was reduced to 2id., and the , revenue amounted to £499,229, of which attendance money accounted for £262,861, or 52 per cent.

In 1950-51 the charge remained at 2½d. and the revenue raised amounted to £420,409, of which £203,629, or 48 per cent, was paid in attendance money. In 1951-52, the charge remained at 2½d. until the 4th December, 1951, when it was increased to 4d., and the revenue raised amounted to £550,816, of which £267,086 or 48 per cent, was paid in attendance money. Between 1947 and 1952, the revenue increased by 111 per cent, and the attendance money by 154 per cent. I am most concerned about the manner in which the remainder of the board’s revenue was expended. The balance is used to meet administrative and other expenses covering salaries and’ wages, remuneration of members’ travelling allowances, printing, stationery, medical services, electric light and items of that kind. In 1947-48, when the revenue amounted to £260,472 of which 40 per cent was expended on attendance money, £S7,004, or 33 per cent, was expended on administrative and other expenses. In 1948-49, when the revenue amounted to £670,138, of which £220,502, or 32 per cent, was expended on attendance money, administrative and other expenses increased to £205,342, or 30 per cent, of the revenue. In 1949-50, when the revenue amounted to £499,229, of which £262,861, or 52 per cent, was expended o’n attendance money, other expenses amounted to £232,139, or 47 per cent, of the revenue. In 1950-51, when the revenue amounted to £420,409, of which £203,629, or 48 per cent., was expended on attendance money, other expenditure amounted to £326,011, or 76 per cent, of the revenue. In 1951-52, when the revenue amounted to £550,816, of which £267,086, or 48 per cent, was expended on attendance money, other expenditure accounted for £431,501, or 78 per cent, of the revenue. Thus, during the period from 1947 to 1952 other expenditure was increased by 395 per cent. From these figures honorable senators will realize how administrative costs are eating up revenue to an alarming extent. At no time has attendance money represented more than 52 per cent, of the board’s revenue. On the basis of a total revenue yield for 1951-52 the increase of the charge to Hd. a man-hour will bring in additional revenue which will amount to £1,500,000. It is all very well for the Minister to say that it is only a minor matter and that, in any event, the increased charge will be passed on by the shipowners by an appropriate slight increase in handling charges of cargo. The shipowners do not object to the payment of the increased levy, because they are able to pass it on ; but the added cost must be borne by the community. Accordingly, we should take steps to ensure that the board shall make proper use of the funds made available to it. Section 13o of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1949 states that the functions of the commission shall be -

To provide first aid equipment, medical attendance, ambulance facilities, rest rooms, sanitary and washing facilities, canteens, cafeteria, dining rooms and other amenities for waterside workers.’

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Fremantle Harbour Trust is very seriously concerned about the operations of the” board and has continuously protested against the levy. The general manager of the trust wrote to me a few days ago and informed me that an officer from the board’s Sydney office had visited Fremantle recently and made an inspection of the wharfs, after which he criticized the amenities provided almost entirely by the trust at a cost of approximately £35,000. He was asked whether the_ board proposed to do anything in the way of providing amenities at Fremantle. His reply was that the board was simply drawing attention to the deficiencies in amenities, and did not provide amenities. The board took the view that it did not own property or employ labour, and that the responsibility for providing amenities rested upon those who did. The board, obviously, is not carrying out one of its obligations at Fremantle, and probably is neglecting the same obligation at other ports. Therefore, although it expends a huge amount of money, it is not carrying out its proper functions. For example, it sustained a loss in the year that I have mentioned of £31,000 in its cafeterias, and expended £142,000 for wages, £10,000 for rent, £7,000 for telephones, and £5,000 for travelling expenses. That is where the money goes. Therefore, I oppose the proposed increase. I am tempted to move that the new charge he 6d. an hour instead of Hd. That would he sufficient if the board curtailed its administrative expenses, I do not want to deprive the workers of the benefit of the attendance fee of 16s. a day, but the Minister has indicated that the cost of paying attendance fees will be high because there will be little traffic in our ports and there are many men on the waterfront.

Senator Spicer:

– That is a fact. That is the situation at present.

Senator SEWARD:

– But the situation may change. The revenue last year, with the charge at the rate of 4d.,” was £550,000. If the rate were increased to 6d. an hour, the revenue would be £700,000. There would thus be ample funds to pay attendance money. Therefore, I oppose the bill. It is time that we had a showdown with this organization. It should be abolished. It is a useless instrumentality. It comes between the waterside workers and the stevedoring companies, and it does not do the work that it is supposed to do- It is not giving value for the money that is expended on it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It will be one of my enduring disappointments that a bill of this piercing importance should have come before the Senate at 5.15 a.m., when, due to the exertions of honorable senators since early yesterday . afternoon, few of us are disposed to give to it the consideration that it deserves. This measure warrants the utmost concern and anxiety on the part of every member of this Parliament. That emphatic assertion is based upon the remarks of ‘Chief Judge Kelly in the judgment that he issued last June, in which he increased the attendance money payable to waterside workers. Anybody who attempts to justify the bill on the basis of that judgment obviously has neither read it nor understood it. The genesis of this organization now known as the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, was the acute confusion and congestion of shipping in our port3 during the perilous days of 1942. As one may learn from a perusal of Mr. Justice Poster’s report in 1946. a special report was produced and delivered to the Government of that year in three days, at the request of the then Prime Minister, by Sir Owen Dixon, who is now the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Thomas Gordon, and Mr. Jim Healy. That report should be written in letters of gold. The cardinal feature of it was that after the war-time exigencies had been satisfied, ail the interests that had been concerned in the unification of stevedoring operations should return to their peacetime systems of control. Mr. Justice Foster was then asked to make a report on the subject. I invite every honorable senator to study that document. Its outcome was the present legislation, which was introduced in this Parliament in 194.7. The debate on that occasion was commenced on behalf of the Opposition by the present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt), who said - This hill is had in principle and contains many bad administrative practices. It seeks to perpetuate so much that is repugnant t.” honorable members that those of us who clamour for a free democracy should mil tolerate it. The House should reject it.

It is now history that the bill took from the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration the control that it had over waterfront operations and committed adjudication over disputes in the industry to a commission to which the Waterside Workers Federation had the right to nominate two appointees. Those persons, who wore appointed by the Government were both avowed Communists, and they persisted in a line of disruption that forced the Government of the day, in May, 1949, to reconstitute the commission and remove them from the organization.

The result was that Mr. Dedman introduced a -new measure in June, 1949. He referred to this legislation as “a bold legislative experiment “. Mr. Holt, who again led the debate for the Opposition, referred to the twofold functions of the commission, which were arbitration a.n<l management. The bill provided that the arbitration function should be recommitted to the court and that the com mission should be financed by a tax so that it could exist as a screen between employer and employee. The people are taxed to maintain it. Mr. Holt said -

This measure, on the face of it, bears the stamp of failure.

That was the situation after two years of experience in the conduct of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board. Mr. Holt went on to refer to the high average rate of wages paid t.o waterside workers for a comparatively short working week. He said that the bill contained a provision, unprecedented in Australia, whereby a particular union, the “Waterside “Workers Federation, had conferred upon it by legislation a monopoly of the provision of waterside work. The bill contained no effective disciplinary provisions. That legislation has not been altered from that day to this. Various reports have been made upon its operations, including particularly the report of Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop’s report, which is very valuable, was published towards the end of 1951 and was submitted to the South Austraiian Government, which referred it immediately to the Australian Government. Mr. Bishop revealed the inefficiency and impotence of this board, which he proved to his complete satisfaction. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the record contained in that report is that the board’s experience has been one of impotence and failure. I go further and say that its record has been one of mischief with regard to the promotion of peace on the waterfront. I shall conLent myself with a few brief quotations from the report. On page 7 Mr. Bishop referred to the fact that the average quantity of cargo handled each day of 24 hours while a ship was in Port Adelaide had declined from 659 tons a day in 1937-38 to 292 tons in 1950-51. lie went on to state that the time taken for the movement of cargo in stevedoring operations in 1950-51 had increased by 2.3 times compared with the handling time for the same quantity of cargo in pre-war days. On page 8 of the’ report he directed attention to the responsibility of the board in those matters. Ee listed various conclusions and made the following arresting statement: -

But in my opinion the board did not make any significant references to its own shortcomings in not attempting to carry out its full statutory duties and responsibilities with regard to the existing waterfront problem.

Mr. Bishop stated that increased wastage time of ships in port had inevitably been one of the greatest contributory factors to the huge increase of local freight charges. Honorable senators have expressed the pious hope that the people concerned upon whom we are imposing this tax will see fit to reduce their freight rates. Such suggestions are usual in a somewhat somnolent legislature. The particular suggestion in this case is that organizations should buy ships, or build them and keep them running, and then despite all these taxes, should earn enough to enable freight rates to be decreased. On page 20 of the report, Mr. Bishop, in discussing the board’s administration, showed clearly his opinion of its retention as an aid to or a disadvantage in industry. He stated -

The board has not achieved to any extent the maim purpose of the Act. On the contrary, by adopting a negative and impotent policy, it has not taken the necessary steps to supply . sufficient labour to improve an unduly slow daily rate of discharge and or loading of ships at Port Adelaide, but has permitted that State to continue and therefore created the basic cause of the slow turnround of ships at that port.

I have never read a more candid and condemning indictment of a government instrumentality by a responsible officer. On page 21 of the report, Mr. Bishop stated -

As previously mentioned, the task of the Board is onerous and difficult, but there is no doubt, judged by its standard of administration to date, the Board as constituted, has neither the qualities nor the will to properly carry out its functions in the proper manner.

Mr. Bishop, it will be seen, held the view that if the board was to be continued it should be immediately reconstituted. I content myself with this brief reference to that report and remind honorable senators that Mr. Basten was specially summoned by the present Australian Government to undertake an investigation of port conditions in this country. He concluded those investigations in January, 1952. Honorable senators have had an opportunity of studying his report in detail. Mr. Basten found Mr. Bishop’s report to be most accurate and referred to it by way of confirmation. That was 10 months ago. On request, I was favoured with the courtesy of perusal of the judgment of Chief Judge Kelly made in Sydney on the 1st of September 1952. Two copies of the judgment were delivered to me to-day and I have reason to believe that they are the only two copies in Canberra. That i3 why I venture to think that this bill by simply proposing an increase of the existing charge indicates a misunderstanding of the basic reasons of his Honour the Chief J udge for giving his judgment. Out of my inherent respect for the careful and painstaking way in which most judges do their work, and particularly for the way in which Chief Judge Kelly gave this judgment, I have been at considerable pains to note a few of its passages for the benefit of the Senate. Chief Judge Kelly made it quite clear that the jurisdiction that was accorded him when this assignment was given to him to adjust the dispute over attendance money was simply to determine the terms and conditions upon which attendance money was to be paid, and that he was faced with the situation created by the existing legislation, which laid down the purpose, upon which the policy of paying attendance money was based. Those who heard His Honour deliver his judgment can imagine the emphasis with which he stated the following views : -

Power to determine the terms and conditions in accordance with which it is to be paid, and determine the rate at which it is to be paid by the Board is reposed in the Court. But there is no power given to abrogate the policy or principle of paying it.

I venture to assert that it is not without significance that His Honour uttered that last sentence, and placed on record the fact that it was not within his jurisdiction to abrogate the principle upon which attendance money was paid.

Senator Cameron:

– Would Senator Wright do so?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I should alter it radically.

Senator Cameron:

– Would the honorable senator abolish attendance money?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I should ardently support the suggestion of Senator Seward that waterside workers be given permanent employment. I should try to establish between employers and employees, uninterfered with by a government organization, the relationship recommended by Mr. Bastin, which is the only relationship that would promote such a degree of confidence . between master and man, between the payor and the recipient of wages, as to make work in this field most effective. The Chief Judge said also -

An examination of the minutes of the Commission led one conclusively to a finding that attendance money was introduced as a compensation for compulsory attendance.

Senator Spicer:

Senator Spicer interjecting,

Senator WRIGHT:

– I say to the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that His Honour had just reviewed in great detail the history of the payment of attendance money. Let me pause to explain what he said, because it is not without interest. At that time, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Commission was composed of two Communist members of the Waterside Workers Federation, two representatives of the employers, and an independent chairman. The question arose as to whether the commission should sanction the payment of attendance money. The Communists voted for it, and the employers voted against it. Upon the casting vote of the chairman, it was decided to do so. The next question was, “ From whose pocket will the necessary funds come ? “ The employers said, “Well, gentlemen, what about it ? We pay wages “. So the commission hied to Canberra. Mr. Chifley was the Treasurer of the day. The proposal of the commission was that attendance money should be paid at a rate equivalent to wages for four hours’ work, which at that time represented a sum of about 16s., but Mr. Chifley said that his limit was 12s.

That principle has been adopted by the hoard, which was substituted for the commission in 1949. It forms the basis of the principle upon which the Chief Judge decided that the payment should be increased - that is, that it is paid as a compensation for compulsory attendance. His Honour commented, “ Such was the principle, and such the purpose and policy of its introduction “. Later, he said -

As I have indicated, it is not for the Court to question the principle of paying attendance money adopted by the Commission, and since and now recognized and accepted by the legislature.

The reason why I obtrude those remarks upon the attention of the Senate is that the Chief Judge has made it abundantly clear that the responsibility for financing this arrangement is, from first to last, the responsibility of the legislature. I shall not be satisfied unless the legislature gives to it the attention that was repeatedly invited in the judgment. “Who pays the tax that we impose?

Senator Cameron:

– The workers.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– I agree. It is based upon a super pay-roll, imposed upon the pay-rolls of employers of waterside workers. It is in that form. But let me direct the attention of honorable senators to the Chief Judge’s statement on that matter. His Honour is experienced in industrial matters, and he administers a jurisdiction in which we expressly require him and his colleagues to have regard to the public interest. He said -

It is, of course, the community in general which ultimately bears the burden of the levy.

I expect that Senator Cameron will agree with that statement. I understood that to be the sense of his interjection. I am not here to decry this section of the Australian workers. Mr. Justice Foster’s report referred to the appalling conditions on the waterfront under the casual labour arrangements of olden days. There is no more ardent advocate than myself of a policy of devoting the proceeds of this levy to the improvement of amenities and working conditions on the waterfront. I am asking only for the elimination of a, government organization which, in my opinion, is mischievously impotent and ineffective, as Mr. Bishop reported.

The Senate has been asked to agree to increase the levy from 4d. to Hd. to enable attendance money payments to be increased. The Chief Judge cited, in tabulated form, figures that agreed in every detail with those that Senator Seward has cited to the Senate. His Honour indicated the degree to which attendance money payments rose between the 1st January, 1952, and the 30th July, 1952. The first week of that period was New Year week, and perhaps the sum paid in respect of attendance money then was less than usual. It was only £2,200. During the next three or four weeks, the average weekly expenditure for this pur- pose was about £5,500. In the last three weeks of July, it ranged from £13,300 to £15,900. His Honour, having considered the state of the finances of the board, said -

It is apparent that the board will need more revenue to meet the expenditure.

He showed that, of the last year’s revenue of £550,816, no less than £431,501 was expended for purposes other than the payment of attendance money. Therefore, the argument that an increase of attendance money by 4s. a day justifies this proposed increase of the levy is as impotent as is the board itself. It has been argued that, because there has been a falling off of trade, we should budget to take care of the leeway. I consider that the board is destructive of real efficiency on the waterfront. It should not be continued. I shall certainly vote against any proposal to increase the amount to be made available to continue its existence.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I shall endeavour to outline to the Senate the conditions that existed at Port Adelaide at the time that Mr. Bishop furnished his report. About that time the press reported that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Mcleay) visited Port Adelaide frequently, although I did not see him there. Senator Nicholls and I took observations of waterfront conditions at Port Adelaide over a lengthy period, and it was obvious to us that the wharf facilities were incapable of handling the cargo of all the boats in the port. Senator Pearson, who was for many years a member of the South Australian Parliament, has an intimate knowledge of the wharf facilities of Port Adelaide. As the Minister knows, at times as many as twenty vessels have had to remain at the anchorage for weeks at a time because of inadequate berthing facilities. The parts of Mr. Bishop’s report that Senator “Wright has read to the Senate correctly describe the state of affairs that existed at the port during the greater part of last year. At no other port in Australia_ has there been more spasmodic employment. According to the press, Port Adelaide is experiencing its slackest time for more than ten years. More than 1,000 men are out of work there.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Conditions are similar at almost all Australian ports at present.

Senator CRITCHLEY:

– In the main, the slow turn-round of ships at Port Adelaide has been due, not to any fault of the waterside workers, but to the shortage of berths. The South Australian Liberal “ socialist “ Government is doing all that it possibly can with the finance available to it to improve the accessibility of the wharfs. The owners of both Australian coastal vessels and overseas ships have announced that, because of the outmoded facilities on the wharfs at Port Adelaide, they intend to discontinue sending their ships to that port. I assure the Senate that Mr. Bishop’s statements in relation to the wharf facilities at Port Adelaide do not exaggerate the position, and I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of the facts.

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

– Although I intend to support the bill, I shall do so with .no enthusiasm whatever because I believe that the time has arrived when the Government should abolish the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board. I have been fortified in that opinion by the Bishop report, parts of which Senator Wright has read to the Senate.

Senator Benn:

– What is the honorable senator’s opinion of the system of payment of attendance money?

Senator PEARSON:

– I support the view that has been expressed by other honorable senators on this side of the chamber, that the sooner we revert to the system of direct employer-employee relationships in connexion with attendance money, the better it will be for all concerned.

Senator Benn:

– What about the casual workers ?

Senator PEARSON:

– I should like to decasualize work on the waterfront. I have been greatly impressed by the figures that were cited by Senator Seward. It is time that the Government looked into this matter very seriously, because the maintenance of the board has been very expensive. I shall support the bill only because I consider that at this time we have no option but to increase the rate of charge in respect of the employment of waterside workers.

Senator Ashley:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of the payment of appearance money?

Senator PEARSON:

– We have no option but to pay the amount of appearance money that has been awarded to the waterside workers, and we must also take steps to overtake the leeway in the board funds. I urge the Government seriously to consider abolishing the board and all charges associated with it.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– I am convinced that some supporters of the Government do not believe in the payment of attendance money to waterside workers. The bill proposes to increase the rate of charge in relation to their employment from 4d. to Hd. The proceeds of the charge provide a fund from which attendance money is paid. Anybody who has been associated with the waterfront industry knows that, no matter how busy a port may be, at times wharf labourers are faced with unemployment. In effect, attendance money is a payment for unemployment. When the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act was placed on the statute-book, conditions of employment on the wharfs were vastly different from those that now obtain. There was ample work for all on the wharfs when that measure was first introduced, and payments from the fund were not heavy. All that has been changed within recent months, due, to a great degree, to the Government’s policy. Some Government supporters do not know where they stand on the question of attendance money. Whenever they are questioned about their attitude to it they say that they approve of it, but when they are asked from what fund they consider the money necessary to make the payments should be obtained, they shift their ground. We must have some fund from which the money can be drawn. Unemployed workers in other industries are paid an unemployment benefit from the second week of their unemployment at the rate of £4 10s. a week for a married man. That amount comes to 18s. a day for a five-day week, whereas a wharf labourer, who received attendance money for five days a week at 16s. a day would receive only £4 a week, and he would have to attend the pick-up centres each day in order to qualify for payment of that amount. The amounts paid to. wharf labourers must be paid either from a special fund or from the National Welfare Fund. I know something about this matter because for years an act, called the Unemployed Workers Insurance Act, was in force in Queensland. Whilst it operated efficiently in regard to workers generally, it was impossible to apply it to wharf labourers because they worked broken time, and were never out of work sufficiently long to entitle them to unemployment insurance. It was, therefore, found necessary to calculate the entitlement of wharf labourers to unemployment insurance on a monthly basis. The payment of attendance money to wharf labourers is most essential. If the increased rate of contribution to the fund from 4d. to Hd. is the proper economic charge - and I have no doubt that it is, because the matter would be fully investigated - then the measure deserves support.

Senator Laught:

– Does the honorable senator consider that the administration expenses of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board are too high?

Senator BENN:

– I am not prepared to go into that matter at this hour, although the honorable senator himself may have something to say about it later. The administrative costs of the board may be too high.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I am interested in this bill because I worked on the Fremantle wharfs many years ago and am in a position to speak on the subject from practical experience. I agree entirely with Senator Wright that although the bill deals with the conditions of living and the employment of workers it is treated by the Government as a matter of minor importance since it is being rushed through the Parliament as was the bill that we have just passed. The Government has not given the attention to this important matter that it deserves. I support the bill only in the absence of a better proposition.

I was interested to hear Senator Seward say that he favoured a system of permanent employment for waterside workers. As far back as 1910. when I was working on the Fremantle waterfront, at ls. 3d. an hour, carrying wheat and coal and such commodities, we submitted a case time and time again, not only to employers but also to the public and to the Parliament, for the adoption of a system of permanent employment. In those days a call for labour would be made, which would be attended by 500 or 600 men. The overseer would draft the men he wanted just as if they were cattle. The result was that 50 per cent, of these men did not earn a decent living. Some men were favoured more than others and earned wages that were regarded as good in those days, whilst others practically starved. We held meetings and advocated the introduction of a system of permanent employment on the waterfront, but we were told, as we have been told since, and will be told in the future, that such a system was financially impossible. No attempt was made by shipowners, stevedores, parliaments or any other authority to improve the conditions under which wharf labourers worked and the result was that the men had to rely on strike action to gain improved wages and conditions, because they had no other alternatives. The men who prepare such reports as those to which Senator Wright has referred are mostly men who have no practical working experience on the wharfs. I do not doubt their sincerity for one moment. Experience without theory is blind, and theory without experience is futile, and when men with purely academic qualifications are given the task of deciding what shall or shall not be done in relation to the men actually doing the job, the result is not the best possible result. Such inexperienced men take far too much for granted. I put Senator Seward in that category. He implied that the increase in the hourly rate from 4d. to Hd. will mean an increase of the rate of attendance money. Any increase of the attendance money that may be granted will not be a real increase, in view of the increases of the cost of living that have occurred since the rate was last fixed. There are two closed books in every school from the kindergarten to the university - the book of economics and the book of politics. Economics deals with the science of the production and distribution of wealth, but honorable senators who consider how currency can be manipulated would possibly come to the same conclusion as 1 have come to, which is that any increase of the rate of attendance money will not be an actual increase. For the most part, any increase will merely represent the maintenance of a certain amount of purchasing power, in the same way as does an adjustment of the basic wage. Until an approach is made in the direction that I have indicated, all the assumptions about enormous costs will remain merely assumptions.

I admit that conditions on the waterfront could be improved almost beyond recognition by a more intelligent and sympathetic approach to the problems involved. Until such an approach is made, there will always be the kind of trouble of which the Government, and particularly the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), complains so bitterly. Any one who disagrees with the Minister on matters affecting waterfront employment is re1garded as a Communist. Such an attitude indicates pure bias and prejudice. A man in the responsible position of a Minister of the Crown should try to understand the position rather than approach it with a prejudiced mind.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator should return to a discussion of the bill before the Senate. He has stated an excellent precept and he should now follow it.

Senator CAMERON:

– We should accept this bill because it represents an advance on the system that is at present in existence. If honorable senators opposite, such as Senator Seward and Senator Wright, wish to see an even better proposition presented to the Parliament, they should bring pressure to bear on the Government. If they really wish to see waterside workers working under reasonably decent conditions and enjoying a certain degree of economic security, they should approach the problems of the industry in a different way.

It seems to me that most honorable senators opposite who have spoken during this debate have had no practical experience of working on the wharfs. If they had had such experience they would know that to take a forthright attitude in these matters means that they run the risk of being referred to as Communists by the Minister.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– There is an accepted theory that in the early hours of the morning the minds of men are clear. However, as this debate proceeds, it becomes increasingly evident that there is a deal of misapprehension in regard to the subject under discussion. I wish to deal briefly with attendance money. It has been suggested that the amount of attendance money should bear some relationship to the rate of unemployment benefit. As Senator Wright has already stated, judges and other authorities have already investigated the problem of the decasualization of the waterfront industry. The only alternative to the payment of attendance money on the waterfront, if justice is to be done to waterside workers, is the appointment of permanent waterfront employees. Attendance money was first provided because it is necessary for men to leave home at an early hour of the morning and to travel 10, 20 or perhaps 30 miles in order to be available for work on the waterfront.

Senator Cormack:

– But Healy will not accept decasualization.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I am not speaking about Healy. I am merely endeavouring to clear up a matter to which reference has been made during this debate. It is necessary for men to travel to the waterfront to be available for the call at 7 o’clock in the morning. If they are not wanted for work, they return home. Does any honorable senator suggest that they are not entitled to be paid attendance money?

Senator Kendall:

– Nobody has suggested that it should not be paid.

Senator ASHLEY:

Senator Pearson said that he accepted with reluctance the fact that it must be paid.

Senator Pearson:

– I did not say anything of the kind.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The honorable senator left doubt in my mind whether he is in favour of the payment of attendance money, because he said he accepted with reluctance the necessity to pay it. The only alternative to the payment of attendance money is to appoint permanent waterside workers. However, that does not appear to be practicable, because it is not possible to arrange for ships to arrive at the time that the Government or anybody else wishes them to arrive. All the investigations of this matter have resulted in ample support for the payment of attendance money.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to comment on the remarks that have been made concerning attendance money. The Australian system in that respect is markedly different from that which operates in the United Kingdom, where attendance money is payable only in order to bring the average weekly wage up to a guaranteed minimum and on a basis which ensures that the worker has at least eleven appearances a week. It is not an absolute payment which is made irrespective of the work opportunities which the worker has had in the current period, say, of a week. There is another feature of the present system which is completely insupportable. A ship leaves half a cargo rotting on the wharfs to-day because labour is not offering. To-morrow waterside workers appear at the wharfs, and there is no vessel for them to load. They are entitled to collect attendance money irrespective of the utilization they have made of their work opportunities.

Senator Ashley:

– That is a matter of mechanics.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It is an important suggestion for weaving even into this system some element which will give efficiency.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– I cannot allow Senator Ashley to misrepresent me. I did not suggest that the workers should not be paid attendance money.

Senator Ashley:

– I did not’ say that the honorable senator made that statement.

Senator SEWARD:

– I am sure that Senator Ashley said so. I endeavoured to point out that, even if this bill was not passed, the current charge of ‘4d. a manhour would be sufficient to enable attendance money to be paid at the rate of 16s. a day for the current year. The payment of attendance money at the rate of 12s. a day involved a total payment of £250,000 last year. Even if the amount were doubled, there would still be sufficient money to meet the demands on the fund.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The general complaint is. about the amount of money expended in administration. There is sufficient to cover the amount of attendance money,, but honorable senators object to the added cost of administration.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– I believe that it is necessary to make this levy of Hd. a man-hour for several reasons. Senator Seward said th:. t had we retained the charge of 4d. a man-hour, we would still have sufficient money for the purpose. He has not taken into consideration the economic recession, which will become worse as time passes. Last Monday week, I was at one place in Sydney where attendance money totalling £2,000 was paid, and at another place where attendance money totalling £1,000 was paid that day. The reason is that fewer ships are coming to, and going from Australia. That means less earning, and less earning means more attendance money.

Attendance money is granted to waterside workers because they have offered for employment. Some of the men informed me that they travelled from Port Kembla to Sydney in search of work, and had to wait round the docks until 10 a.m. or 11 a.m. before they could go home. Those men are entitled to be paid attendance money. In my opinion, the rate of 16s. a day is not sufficient. At least 30s. a day should be paid. Even if the rate were 18s. a day, a waterside worker with a family would receive only the equivalent of the unemployment benefit payable to a married man. The payment of attendance money relieves the Government of the obligation to pay the unemployment benefit, and, in fact, saves it a considerable amount of money each year. The stevedoring industry charge of11d. a man-hour may not be sufficient, because the economic recession has arrived and will develop into a depression early next year.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4262

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4176).

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania Leader of the Opposition

– The second-reading speech delivered by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) amply describes the bill and its purposes. The Opposition does not support the measure. At any time, the Labour party is not well disposed to the system of postal voting. It has had experience and information concerning abuses of that system, and of occasions when electors have been subject to duress.

Senator Kendall:

– In Queensland ?

Senator McKENNA:

– In more places than Queensland, according to the information that has reached the Labour party and me. In 1949, when we liberalized the provision regarding authorized witnesses, we seriously contemplated abolishing the system. However, that was not done, and there is naturally a democratic objection to depriving anybody of a vote. Those who will be abroad when the forthcoming election of the Senate is held would certainly not be deprived of a vote if this measure were not passed, provided they made application under the present system in time, and were able to comply with the machinery provisions of the act. However, we are inclined to the opinion that there will be an even greater possibility of fraud and difficulty in identifying voters when they are abroad in the circumstances of, say, the Coronation, when many Australians may be expected to be in London. For that general reason, we. do not favour the extension of the system. With those comments, I shall allow the bill to pass.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4262

SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4176).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– In this case, too, the second-reading speech delivered by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) amply explains the purpose of the bill. That purpose, as I understand it, is to authorize the deduction from the unemployment benefit payable to immigrants who reside in government hostels an amount as a contribution towards their board and accommodation. It is unfortunate that there are immigrants who are in need of the unemployment benefit. We urge the Government to do all that it can to rectify whatever unemployment exists in this sphere. I should like the Minister for Repatriation to say whether the amount deducted is applied in full satisfaction of the hostel charges to these immigrants or whether a balance will accumulate and will have to be met at a future date. Could the Minister supply particulars of the amount of the charge as well as of the amount of deduction?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I understand that there will be a cumulative charge in regard to these deductions. The allocation of the benefit between the beneficiary and the hostel has not been finally determined, but I know that certain figures have been discussed. In respect of unmarried persons of sixteen and seventeen years of age it is proposed that 15s. a week shall be paid to the Department of Immigration and 15s. a week to the beneficiary. In respect of unmarried persons from eighteen to twenty years of age 25s. a week will be paid to the department and 15s. a week to the beneficiary. In respect of unmarried persons of 21 years and over 35s. a week will be paid to the department and 15s. a week to the beneficiary. In respect of a married man with a dependent wife 60s. a week will be paid to the department and 30s. a week to the beneficiary. In respect of a married man with a dependent wife and child 62s. 6d. a week will be paid to the department and 32s. 6d. a week to the beneficiary. In respect of a person with a dependent child 37s. 6d. a week will be paid to the department and 17s. 6d. a week to the beneficiary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4263

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4168).

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– As the Opposition made its position very clear in relation to the proposed agreement between the Government and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, and as this is one of the bills that must be passed in order to enable the Government to give effect to that agreement the Opposition’s attitude to this bill is the same as its attitude to the previous measure. The Opposition will oppose the measure and will call for a division in relation to it. This legislation is inherently bad. Whilst there may be virtue in some bills there is no virtue in the agreement between the Government and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and the Opposition will not attempt to amend it. We oppose every aspect of this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– During the debate on the second reading of the Aviation Agreement Bill 1952 I asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) a question regarding the refunding of certain landing charges which had been paid to Australian National Airways Proprietary” Limited. He did not answer my question.. However, I observe that the schedule attached to this bill contains information relating to landing charges which will be reduced by 50 per cent. Certain people have reported to me that they have chartered Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited aeroplanes to carry their goods and had to pay to that company the full amount of landing charges in force at the time. In 1947-48 landing charges were increased by £12 10s. to £100. As the Government proposes to waive two-thirds of the landing charge will it take action to have Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited refund the amount paid to that company over and above the amended landing charges ?

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– The matter to which Senator Morrow has referred concerns only Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and the charterers. Have I made that clear?

Senator Armstrong:

– The Government’s position is clear, but it is not right.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the report be adopted.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 4264

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4170).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill is one of three intended to implement the proposals of the Government relating to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines. For the reasons advanced by Senator Armstrong in the debate on the previous measure, namely, that this is a part of the total proposal to which the Opposition is completely opposed, we shall record our vote against the second reading of the measure to indicate our opposition to the whole proposal.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4264

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT (AIR NAVIGATION CHARGES) BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4171).

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– The Opposition will oppose this measure also. This is the last of the three bills that will make possible the working of the agreement that the Government has entered into with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. This bill sets out the eductions in the air navigation charges that we discussed at great length when the main legislation was before the Senate. It is interesting to note that at least the Government has recognized the legality of air-route charges. A reduction of 663 per cent. is to be allowed in air-route charges incurred by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited since 1947, and for the next fifteen years, the charges will be levied at the rate of 50 per cent. of the figure originally specified. There is nothing that the Opposition can do about this proposal except to vote against it. It is merely another way of giving substantial aid to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Over the years, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has refused to pay the charges even although its competitor, Trans-Australia Airlines has paid them. In other words, this is a straight-out gift to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited of nearly £666,000, and the company should be very grateful indeed to the Government, even though in future it will have to pay half of the rate originally prescribed. I point out also that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will meet its back payments of air navigation charges with the present inflated currency. In other words the public purse is being drawn upon to pay a subsidy to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I have listened - for some hours to the reiteration by the Opposition of the charge that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is endeavouring to bilk the Commonwealth Government and, therefore the people of Australia, of landing ground charges. In blatant dishonesty, honorable senators opposite have deliberately refrained from stating the origin of those charges. Both Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited have refused to pay the charges on the ground that they are unconstitutional and unreason- -i bie. The Department of Civil Aviation has tacitly admitted that those companies are exempt from a proportion of the charges because they hold leases from :ho Commonwealth Government of the main landing grounds in Australia. Those leases, which give them landing rights, were valid until the end of 1951. I wish to make clear therefore that the allegation that has been made by the Opposition in this chamber in the last 24 hours is baseless.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

a.m.].– 1 oppose the bill. In reply to Senator Cormack, I should like to state that whatever allegations have been made by the Opposition in regard to the action of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in depriving the Commonwealth Government, and therefore the Australian community, of certain large sums of money in landing charges, can be easily substantiated.

Senator McLeay:

– I rise to order. The honorable senator is apparently confusing this measure with the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1952. The measure now before the Senate deals only with income tax adjustments necessitated by refunds of air-route charges due, or paid, up to the 30th June, 1952. The measure to which Senator Sheehan i3 referring has already been passed by the Senate.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I was merely replying to Senator Cormack.

Senator CORMACK:

– I rise to order.. I- spoke in reply to Senator Armstrong., who raised the question of airroute.charges.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I submit that if it was in order for Senator Cormack to reply to Senator Armstrong, it is in order for me to reply to Senator Cormack.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Edward Mattner:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I am afraid that I mistook the bill that was before the Senate, otherwise I should not have allowed Senator Cormack to continue. I cannot allow Senator Sheehan to pursue his present line of argument.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– In view of the confusion that has occurred. in the Senate due to the manner in which the business has been conducted-

Senator Gorton:

– I rise to order. Senator Sheehan has referred to what he described as the “ the confusion that has occurred in the Senate due to the mannerin which the business has been conducted “. I submit that that is a reflection on the Chair.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is a matter for me to, decide. I shall give Senator Sheehan the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he was not reflecting upon the Chair. At the same time, his choice of words was rather unfortunate. I ask the honorable member to confine hi* remarks to the bill before the Chair.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I assure you, Mr. President, that I did not intend in any way whatsoever to reflect upon the Chair. My lapse may be taken as evidence of the difficulty of considering measures at so early an hour in the morning. As I have been ruled out of order, I ask for leave to make a statement in reply to the remarks that Senator Cormack has made.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator McLeay:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I direct the attention of’ the Senate to sub-clause (2.) of clause 4 and also to clauses 5 and 6 of the bill. By a series of measures the Government is proposing to release Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited of liability to pay air-route charges amounting to oyer £600,000, in respect of which litigation has been withdrawn, and thi3 measure deals with the assessability of tax in respect of that sum. Under this measure, the, principal act is being amended to provide that for the purposes of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act, in relation to a taxpayer, being a person to whom this act applies -

An amount received by, or credited to, a taxpayer by way of refund or rebate of air navigation charges, or an amount of air navigation charges from the payment of which he is released, is not assessable income.

I do not think that even at this early hour of the morning and in the dying hours of the .sessional period, the Senate should bn quiescent in discriminating between one taxpayer and the great body of taxpayers. “What is the intention of the Government, when it uses the expression, “ an amount of air navigation charges from the payment of which he is released “. My understanding of the dispute that arose between the Government and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited related to the legality of air-route charges, that the company paid certain sums in respect of such charges to a special appropriation account and refused to pay the money to the Government pending settlement of the litigation that was then proceeding. Is it a fact that those amounts which the company paid to a special reserve account were not brought into the income tax field? If such amounts were permitted as deductions in respect of income in the years in which they were made, is it intended that when these amounts are credited to the general revenue account of the company this year they shall not be assessable for tax? Clause 5 of the bill reads -

For the purposes of this Act, an amount recovered by the Commonwealth from a person by execution of a judgment shall he deemed to have been paid to the Common wealth by the person.

I should think that that was a very good piece of “deeming”. What, is this “judgment”? And what is this “execution”? Who has paid money, and how much has he paid? Clause 6 authorizes the Commissioner of Taxation at any time to amend the assessment of the people concerned in respect of this special account. I should like an assurance from the Minister that that principle will be applied generally, because I direct his attention to incidents in which the provisions of section 170 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act, which limits the power of the Commissioner of Taxation to amend assessments, is being used tyrannically. I am motivated, even at this early hour of the morning, by murmurings that I have heard about the degree of severity to which fines will be imposed by the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of the late lodgment of income tax returns. In justice to taxpayers as a whole, I seek an explanation of this provision.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I point out, Mr. President, that when you ruled me out of order earlier, I was at fault in referring to landing charges when it was my intention to deal with the taxation of the refund of arroute charges. I had intended to raise the same point that Senator Wright has raised.

Senator Kendall:

– I rise to order. 1 direct your attention, Mr. President, to the fact that Senator Sheehan has already spoken in this debate.

Senator Sheehan:

– I was ruled out of order, and I resumed my seat when 1 was ordered to do so by the President.

The PRESIDENT:

– I rule that Senator Sheehan has the right to continue his remarks at this stage.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– As I have said, my earlier reference to landing charges instead of to air-route charges was made inadvertently. In answer to a question that I asked recently, I was informed that the amount owing by airline operators in respect of air-route charges totals £1,346,469 and that of that sum three operators owed £1,254,847. The Government has declined to inform the Senate of the amount that is owing by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited under that heading. The Parliament has just passed a measure which provides for the retrospective imposition of income tax in certain circumstances, and the Government introduced that measure in order that it might be enabled to collect certain sums of tax which the High Court ruled it could not hitherto collect legally. The Government has repeatedly reminded us of the fact that the validity of air-route charges was to be contested in the High Court. However, I have noticed that in normal circumstances a taxpayer is obliged to pay the tax assessed and to argue about the matter afterwards. Therefore, it is clear that the Government is showing preference to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in this matter. We know that TransAustralia Airlines has regularly paid air route charges, but we have never been informed of the amount that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited owes to the Government under this heading. Therefore, the charge that the Government is showing undue preference to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited in this matter is well founded. Right along the line, the Government has shown special preference to that company. When we recall that that has happened over the years, we can understand why this Government should be so ready to help the company in so many directions. The more we inquire into this matter, the more shameful is the arrangement between the Government and the company.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner.

AYES: 28

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I remind the Minister that I made a request forcertain information. I should be obliged if the Minister would furnish it.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I can express it in the terms of a layman-

Senator Armstrong:

– In the four words, “ I do not know “.

Senator McLEAY:

– Despite the propaganda that has been indulged in by Opposition senators, the plain fact is that the Government decided that airroute charges at the end of June, 1952, should be at a rate equal to one-third of that originally fixed.

Senator Ashley:

– On what ground was such a decision made?

Senator McLEAY:

– All that this bill proposes is to give to the Commissioner of Taxation power to make income tax assessments over the period in question. I am not able to furnish the honorable senator with any further information.

Senator Wright:

– What is the judgment to which reference is made in clause 5?

Senator McLEAY:

– The amount collected by the Commonwealth under the court judgment will be treated in the same manner as payments.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4268

EXPLOSIVES BILL 1952

Message received from the House of

Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this bill.

page 4268

PEKING PEACE CONFERENCE

Debate resumed from the 11th September (vide page 1240), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the following paper be printed: -

First report of the Joint Committee on foreign Affairs relating to the Peking Peace Conference.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4268

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

  1. Has an inquiry been held yet, or will it be held, into the cause of the recent aircraft accident at Mascot airport, involving an Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited Skymaster carrying 40 passengers?
  2. If such an inquiry has been held, will the

Acting Minister make the report available?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– Investigations are being carried out by the Department of Civil Aviation. When I have received its report, I shall decide what further action, if any, is necessary.

page 4268

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator BENN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

Will the Minister consider eliminating the seven-day period for which no payment is made to applicants for unemployment benefits, and thus make the benefit payable at the termination of one week from the date of application.

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following information : -

An unemployment benefit is payable from and including the seventh day after the day on which the claimant becomes unemployed or lodges his claim, whichever is the later. There is nothing to prevent a person lodging a claim for benefit on the day on which he becomes unemployed. He would then become entitled to payment of benefit from the seventh day after the termination of his employment. A waiting period prior to the commencement of unemployment benefit is a universal feature of all national schemes of this nature. In some countries the waiting period is fourteen days, and in all such schemes no payment is made for the waiting period. It is reasonable to expect persons in regular employment to be able to provide for themselves for a period of seven days without unemployment benefit, particularly in view of the fact that on termination of work they receive their wages. This has been the view taken by successive Commonwealth governments since unemployment benefits were commenced in 1945.

page 4268

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 15th October, Senator Henty asked a question concerning a request from the Government of Tasmania that the Australian Government should purchase the one-fifth shareholding of the Tasmanian Government in the aluminium industry on condition that the money paid for that shareholding shall be expended by the Tasmanian Government on the provision of a road and railway to the port of Bell Bay. The Minister for Supply has furnished the following reply: -

The Government has not received any request from the Government of Tasmania that the Commonwealth Government should purchase the one-fifth shareholding of the Tasmanian Government in the aluminium industry.

Senator AYLETT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that some of the vital machinery purchased by the Australian Aluminium Commission for the Bell Bay aluminium project was obsolete for at least two years before it was purchased?
  2. Is it a fact that some of the machinery had been used by the major aluminium companies in England and discarded by them in favour of more modern equipment and methods of aluminium production before the Aluminium Commission purchased it?
  3. Is there any truth in the current rumours that there have been negotiations with the British Aluminium Company, or any other company of the world’s aluminium combine, for the sale of the Tasmanian aluminium project, or its abandonment in favour of the establishment of aluminium production in New Guinea?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has supplied the following information : -

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.

page 4268

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator MORROW:

asked the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that over a year ago the Australian Broadcasting Control Board commenced an investigation into the use by Australian broadcasting stations of imported radio transcriptions, and that such investigation was completed over six months ago?
  2. If so, has the Broadcasting Control Board made its report based on its investigations, and when will it he presented to Parliament?
  3. If the report has not been concluded, will the Minister inquire into the reason for the delay ?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister acting for the Postmaster-General has furnished me with the following information : -

  1. . Various aspects of the use of imported transcriptions by the broadcasting stations have been under consideration for some time, but the board’s investigations were prolonged by the continued introduction of much wider and conflicting issues by a number of organizations.
  2. The board has made a report to the Postmaster-General.
  3. See answer to 2.

page 4269

VALEDICTORY

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

by leave - As it is unlikely that the Senate will meet again before the Christinas and New Year season, I extend to you, Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate, our best wishes for a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. I also extend our appreciation and thanks to our guide, philosopher, and friend, the Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Edwards. Included in our good wishes, also, are Mr. Loof, Mr. Emerton, and Mr. Odgers, the officials without whose help it would be most difficult for us to conduct the business of the Senate. To the members of the Hansard staff, who, in their wisdom, can make even the dullest speeches appear intelligible, we also extend our warmest good wishes. I am sure that most of us have been proud of ourselves when we have seen the grammatical exactitude and correctness with which we have apparently expressed our views. We are all deeply indebted to the genius of Hansard. We have, on the other hand, our friends of the press. Sometimes we are amazed by what we have said when we read their reports of our remarks, but they, in their time and place and circumstance, play their part, though certainly it is not our part. At any rate, although we complain sometimes when we are mentioned in their reports, we complain more bitterly when we are not mentioned. We thank them for helping to inform the people of the work that we do here. I hope that the members of the press gallery will continue to serve, not only the Parliament, hut also the people of Australia, well, and, I hope, better. To my colleagues I extend my. thanks and appreciation for their loyalty and support during what has been a very arduous year. To our friends of the Opposition I extend the best wishes of my colleagues and myself. I hope that they enjoy during the recess the vacation to which they are entitled. We have had a very strenuous year, but, like good footballers, although we have become tired, we have played the ball, not the man. We have disagreed without losing any of our affection and respect for each other. It is only by such means that democracy and our parliamentary institutions can survive. No matter how hotly we may dispute the opinions expressed by members of the Opposition, we have a very high opinion and a very warm regard for them. I hope that it will always be so.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

. - by leave - On behalf of every member of the Opposition, I join with the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) in conveying to you, Mr. President, our very cordial good wishes for a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. Most of us, I know, have strained your patience even when we have acted within the Standing Orders. We have been more troublesome, of course, when we have contravened the rules of this chamber. On behalf of the Opposition, I express our appreciation of your tolerance and your invariable courtesy. To the Minister for Trade and Customs and his colleagues in the Ministry. I extend thanks for their co-operation on those occasions when conflict of duty has not forbidden co-operation. We represent opposing viewpoints, and it is inevitable that conflict shall arise. Nevertheless, I have found in the members of the Government that greatness that one expects of honorable opponents, and our disagreements are not survived by hard feelings. To the supporters of the Government I extend the cordial good wishes of the Opposition . for the approaching festive season. “We shall look forward to renewing hostilities with them in due course. I am deeply appreciative of the support that has been afforded to me by Senator Armstrong as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and by other members of the Opposition. I offer my warmest good wishes and thanks to all of them. The Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Edwards, the Clerk Assistant, the Second Clerk Assistant, and the Usher of the Black Bod, are highly efficient officers who make our path easy in this chamber. Every honorable senator owes them a deep debt of gratitude. We are very sensible of the great assistance that they give to us. They save us repeatedly from falling into pitfalls. I include every Senate attendant in my good wishes. I am sure that all honorable senators have a warm spot for them. I support most heartily the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs about the Hansard staff. I am convinced that every one of us should apologize to them and pay their costs. I extend greetings also to members of the press gallery. I think that they should apologize to us and pay our costs. I’ extend to them the cordial good wishes, greetings, and appreciation of the Opposition.

The PRESIDENT:

– I sincerely thank the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for their kind expressions of goodwill. I am delighted that they have included in their good wishes the members of the clerical staff, the attendants, the members of the Hansard staff, and the representatives of the press, all of whom are intimately associated with the conduct of the business of the Senate. I should not be human if I failed to express to all honorable senators my sincere thanks for their courtesy to me. I do not admit that honorable senators have subjected me to great strain. In fact, I may have imposed a strain upon the Senate. However, it has been a happy year for me. I wish a merry Christmas’ and a Happy New Year to all honorable senators and their families. I hope that honorable senators will be comforted by the fact that, through the generosity of members of this Parliament, members of the staffs and their families will enjoy an excellent Christmas party.

page 4270

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 4270

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 4270

ADJOURNMENT

Sittings of the Senate - National Service.

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator O’FLAHERTY South Australia) [7.25 a.m..]. - At this stage of the proceedings I intend to strike a discordant note. First, I wish to raise a strong objection to the procedure that has been followed since midnight at the behest of the Government. I object to sitting all night. It is time that the Government took into consideration the health of honorable senators and of those who attend to the work of the Senate. Further, the Government should consider the physical capabilities of its Ministers.

I have another complaint which will also strike at discordant note. On the 15th October, the Minister representing the Minister for the Army (Senator Spooner) went out of his way to use some nasty epithets in commenting upon some statements that I had made on the 30th September. On that day I referred to a young man who was detained in a correction camp at Holsworthy. In using the epithets, the Minister did not take into consideration all of my statement. He tore a portion of the statement from its context. I had asked that consideration be given to the right of appeal for men who are incarcerated in a correction camp by the military authorities. That suggestion was not answered. Then I was told that my statement was “ illconsidered, reckless, irresponsible, dangerous, incorrect and unworthy of an honorable senator”. The Minister said that I had stated -

Mason has been subjected to treatment of a kind that those who support the Government contend is meted out to certain persons in Russia, China, Korea and other countries.

The Minister forgot to add that at that point in my statement, there were interruptions from honorable senators on the Government side. When I continued I said -

The boy first appeared before the court and wag fined for having refused to comply with the law. I do not quarrel with that decision. Subsequently he was handed over to the military authorities and although he has not since been court-martialled, he has been fined and virtually isolated at the correction camp at Holsworthy.

In his reply, the Minister said that he had a report from the military authorities and they stated -

He appears to be as happy as possible under the circumstances.

Of course the boy appears to be as happy as possible in the circumstances. The report continued -

He hog the same rations as the staff and is accommodated in a room within the compound.

That is just what I alleged. The youth is virtually isolated in the correction camp. The report of the authorities added -

Apart from being confined to the compound, there are no restrictions placed upon his movements or activities.

The youth has military authorities all around him simply because he would not wear the uniform and I was called names because of a statement that I had made and because of my suggestion that there should be the right of appeal for such youths. I ask the Government to consider giving the right of appeal to any conscientious objector who appears before a court and is taken into a military camp so that he will notbe subject to confinement in a correction camp similar to those of Russia and other countries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4271

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Conciliation and Arbitration Act -

Fifth Annual Report by the Chief Judge, for year ended the 30th September, 1952.

Annual Report by the Chief Conciliation Commissioner, for year ended the 7th October, 1952.

Ordered to be printed.

Special Report of the Auditor-General, relating to the accounts of the Parliament.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations - Order - Inventions and designs.

International Monetary Agreements Act - Annual Report by the Treasurer regarding the operations, insofar as they relate to Australia, of the International Monetary Fund Agreement and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement, for year 1951-52.

Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of National Development -E. M. Bennett, J. B. Firman, R. E. Searl.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determina- tions by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1952 -

No.69 - Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 70 - Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia.

Senate adjourned at 7.31 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 November 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1952/19521105_senate_20_220/>.