Senate
26 March 1953

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1953

The Deputy President (Senator George Rankin) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1502

TELEVISION BILL 1953

Assent reported.

page 1502

QUESTION

HOG CASINGS

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Trade and Customs any information as to when the Tariff Board will inquire into the manufacture ofhog casings in Australia? If any delay is expected in the inquiry into this matter, will the Minister take action to have the issue of import licences for hog casings expedited in order to enable the people who import this commodity to maintain supplies of sausages which are an important food?

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

– I regret that I cannot tell the honorable senator precisely when the Tariff Board will deal with this important matter. However, I have asked the board to deal with it without delay. With regard to the granting of import licences for hog casings, I assure the honorable senator that my department is keeping the position well and continuously under review in order to ensure that the supply of imports will cater adequately for the needs of the Australian people.

page 1502

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that two distinguished pilots were delayed for approximately three days on their flight from Japan to Australia, due to the fact that Japanese pearling specialists were being indentured into Australia to work in the pearling industry, will the Minister for Trade and Customs take action to ensure that in future members of the Australian fighting services are given preference over Japanese labour intended for the pearling industry?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am sure that the Senate shares the pride of Senator Scott in our Australian servicemen. I do not know exactly what the position is in relation to transport, butI should imagine that the Government would have control only over such planes as it has chartered. If the aircraft in question was a private transport it would be most unlikely in the scheme of things that the Government would interfere and direct the private transport company how to run its business. I am quite sure that any government-controlled or governmentoperated airline would see that our Australian fighting men in Korea are given second place to none.

page 1502

QUESTION

FRUIT

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture aware that special fruit inspectors are engaged inspecting fruit on the wharfs in Tasmania? I point out that some fruit growers in the Tamar River districts are very indignant about this activity, and claim that many cases of fruit have been condemned unnecessarily, thus causing great loss to them. Will the Minister cause imme- diate inclines to be made in order to ascertain whether there is any truth in that allegation. If it is found proved, will the Minister assure the Senate that appropriate action shall be taken to have the position corrected?

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– - I appreciate the importance of the honorable senator’s question, but we all realize how important it is that there shall be the strictest supervision over our exports. In the majority of instances that have been reported to the department it has been found that the inspectors were merely carrying out their duty. I shall refer .the question to my colleague, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, and request that inquiries be made promptly.

page 1503

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer by pointing out that the allowable deduction for income tax purposes, in relation to the funeral expenses of near relatives, lias remained stationary at £30 for many years. As that amount is totally inadequate to meet the costs involved, will the Minister confer with the Treasurer with a view to an appropriate increase being made when the next budget is being prepared ?

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

– I shall have pleasure in placing the honorable senator’s representations before the Treasurer.

page 1503

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform the Senate whether it is considered likely that the present negotiations to conclude a new international wheat agreement will break down? Is the Australian Government pressing for a price rise of 3s. Id. a bushel in the new agreement?

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

– The negotiations are at a very delicate stage. I assure the honorable senator that Australia’s representatives are watching the interests of the wheat-growers of this country. This matter is handled by my colleague, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, from whom I shall obtain the latest information for the honorable senator.

page 1503

QUESTION

CYCLONE DAMAGE AND RELIEF

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister direct the right honorable gentleman’s attention to the fact that the recent disastrous cyclone in Western Australia caused damage estimated at £300,000, practically obliterated the town of Onslow, and almost ruined the bananagrowers at Carnarvon? Will he request the Prime Minister to make financial assistance available for the rehabilitation of these two vital centres in the north of Western Australia?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am sure that we were all very much grieved to hear of the tragedy that had befallen the people of Western Australia. However, the question of affording relief in cases of damage by floods, droughts, bush fires, and cyclones is primarily and essentially a matter for the State concerned, but whenever a State has made representations to the Commonwealth on such occasions, the Commonwealth has always lent a very friendly and generous ear. I am sure that in this instance the Government will not depart from its practice of giving sympathetic consideration to requests of this kind.

page 1503

QUESTION

COAL

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Having regard to present unemployment on the northern coal-fields will the Minister for National Development assure the Senate that, in order to preserve the pits to the greatest degree possible, production will be curtailed in open-cut mines before similar action is taken in respect of underground mines ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I doubt very much whether there is unemployment on the northern coal-fields to the degree that the honorable senator has implied. I regret that I did not bring thi relevant figures with me this morning, but my recollection is that they indicate that there are aproximately 500 unfilled vacancies throughout the industry, of which 250 exist on the southern coal-fields. There is an appreciable number of vacancies on the northern coal-fields also. At the same time, I do not deny that men may be unemployed for a few days, or a week, while changing from one job to another. The honorable senator has asked whether I can give an assurance that in any reconstruction that may be effected in the industry production from open-cut mines will be curtailed before action is taken to reduce production from underground mines. That policy has always been pursued in relation to the industry, and it is being followed at present. In general terms, when it is necessary to curtail production the output of open-cut mines is reduced before action is taken in respect of underground mines. There may be some variation of that general principle. For instance, if it is found that an underground mine is producing coal of poorer quality or. at a higher cost than is the case in respect of an open-cut mine, we must look at the economics involved and deal with that position in a common-sense way. I do not think that anybody would approve of the closing down of an open-cut mine, that was producing first-class coal at an economic rate, before closing a small underground mine which was producing second-class coal at a higher cost and without, perhaps, good working conditions. The general principle is that production from open-cut mines must be curtailed before production from underground mines is reduced.

page 1504

OFFICIAL “WAK HISTORY

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 17th March Senator Vincent asked whether action could be taken to ensure that further and more adequate publicity is given in Western Australia to the fact that two volumes of the Australian Official War History have now been published and are on sale. The Minister acting for the Minister for the Interior has now advised me that the press in all States was notified of the recent publication of a second volume of the history. A review copy of the volume was sent to each of seven Western Australian newspapers. In compliance with the request of Senator Vincent, .the Minister has arranged for the Official War Historian to endeavour to secure further publicity in Western Australia. The sale of the volume is in the hands of a firm of retail booksellers, who will no doubt also advertise its availability.

page 1504

QUESTION

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– I preface a question that I address to the Minister for Trade and Customs by pointing out that recently a report was published in the press to the effect that the Government intended to reduce substantially the rate of excise duty on spirits owing to the reduced consumption of spirits which was ascribed to the severity of the duty. If that statement is correct, can the Minister say whether it is the intention of the Government to reduce the rate of excise on matches, as consumption of that commodity also is suffering a severe decline owing to its high cost which is due in large part to the imposition of excise duty and sales tax?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I did not see the report to which the honorable senator has referred, but I am sure that he will agree that it is entirely improper to speculate on what the attitude of the Government may or may not be in relation to excise duty, sales tax and such matters.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I agree with the Minister’s statement that it is highly improper that any information in relation to any proposed alteration of the incidence of taxation should be disclosed. However, as he has intimated that he has not seen the newspaper article to which I referred, which states that it is the intention of the Government to reduce excise taxation on spirits, will he make inquiries why the statement has not been brought to his notice, and take steps to ascertain whether the newspaper obtained its information from his department or elsewhere ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am not prepared to give the honorable senator such an assurance. It is impossible for governments to stop the press from speculating on matters of Government policy. The mere fact that a statement of the nature indicated by the honorable senator has appeared in the press is sufficient to lead me to believe that it is completely without foundation, because that is not the way that this Government conducts its business.

page 1505

QUESTION

POTATOES

Senator WORDSWORTH:
TASMANIA

– I preface a question to the Attorney-General by stating that I have noticed that the Commonwealth has intervened in an action which has been commenced before the High Court of Australia by the Tasmanian Potato Marketing Board. Will the Minister give the Senate an assurance that no contention will be submitted to the court by the Commonwealth that will place Tasmanian potatoes at a disadvantage from the point of view of either their entry into New South Wales or sale in that State?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I hesitate to answer a question in relation to an action which is at the moment pending before the High Court. I think, perhaps, all that I can say is that the action raises questions concerning the application of section 92 of the Constitution. As the honorable senator will appreciate, that section operates not only in relation to legislation of the States but also to that of the Commonwealth. A decision of the court in connexion with that section could have an operation which might possibly restrict Commonwealth powers, as well as those of the States, and restrict Commonwealth powers even in time of war. The reason why the Commonwealth intervenes in cases of this character is to ensure that aspects of the matter which may affect the operation of Commonwealth legislation are taken into account by the court.

page 1505

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH HOSTELS LIMITED

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs cause inquiries to be made concerning the exact position of former Commonwealth Public Service temporary clerks who, until the establishment of Commonwealth Hostels Limited, were employed under the Public Service Act and enjoyed conditions similar to those enjoyed by other Public Service officers? As the Minister is no doubt aware, those officers were taken over by Commonwealth Hostels Limited because of their experience in certain kinds of work and given an assurance that continuity of service would apply. Because there is a possibility that , Common. wealth Hostels Limited may not exist for very much longer, many of these officers may lose not only their jobs with that body but also their seniority in the Public Service.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I think that perhaps the best way of handling the matter raised by the honorable senator would be for him to write to me stating specifically what he has in mind. I shall then be happy to see that he receives an appropriate reply.

page 1505

QUESTION

CORONATION OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 11th March, Senator O’Byrne asked the following question : -

Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior aware that although Lieutenant Andrew Bens, of Caramut, Victoria, has been selected to attend the Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of the Australian service contingent, because of technicality regarding his residence obligation to the Soldier Settlement Commission of Victoria, lie has been refused permission to attend? In view of the unprecedented circumstances surrounding this case, will the Minister make representations to the Soldier Settlement Commission of Victoria, in order to have the case reconsidered, with a view to giving this worthy ex-serviceman the opportunity to join the contingent?

I have been supplied with the following information by the Minister acting for the Minister for the Interior: -

The Victorian Soldier Settlement Commission, in refusing Lieutenant Andrew Bens, of Caramut, permission to absent himself from his settlement farm to attend the Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, is an action taken by the State Settlement Commission. The Commonwealth-State Agreement with regard to War Service Land Settlement in Victoria provides that the form and conditions of tenure on which a holding is to be held by a settler shall be determined by the State. In these circumstances, the residential condition which the Victorian Soldier Settlement Commission is apparently not prepared lo relax in the case of Lieutenant Andrew Bens’ lease is outside the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. As all arms of the services and all sections of the community will be represented at the Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, will the Government arrange for a representative of the war widows to be included in the Commonwealth representation ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I shall refer the question that has been raised by the honorable senator to the Prime Minister.

page 1506

QUESTION

AMERICAN INVESTMENTS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Senate whether claims that have been made by the Menzies Government regarding overseas investment of capital in Australia are based upon a myth? Is it true that dollars have never been received by Australia but that instead the United States of America is borrowing Australian pounds ? Docs the Government claim that £50,000,000 of American capital has been invested in Australia since June 1951? Is it not a fact that that claim is inaccurate and that it would be closer to the truth to say that £50,000,000 of Australian capital has been invested in American industries in Australia in the same period? Is it not true that that is Marshall aid in reverse and that Australian banks, insurance companies and investment trusts have been lending money to American companies to increase their holdings in Australian industry? Is it not a fact that the Government’s claim that petrol companies have invested £38,000,000 in Australia does not mean that that sum in American dollars has been brought into Australia but that American oil companies have invested accumulated profits and have borrowed more money from Australian banks and other lending organizations ? Is it true that an American oil company which is claimed by the Government to be building a new refinery in Australia is using Australian materials and engaging Australian workers but is not using dollars, and that the profits that it will derive from its investment will go out of Australia in the form of dollars?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– If the honorable senator read his question from a printed pamphlet, I ask that it should be made available to me so that I can answer him. It is most unfair for an honorable senator to read a political harangue, such as that delivered by Senator Ashley, in lieu of a question.

Senator Ashley:

– I object to the Minister’s statement and nsk that it be withdrawn.

Senator SPOONER:

– A Minister is placed at a disadvantage when such information is not before him. Most of the statements that have been made by the honorable senator were not questions, and they were quite false. I should like to have a copy of that false statement in front of me.

Senator Ashley:

– Mr. Deputy President, I ask for a withdrawal of the Minister’s charge that the statement I have made was false. His statement is offensive to me personally.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order ! The honorable senator has asked a question and the Minister is quite in order in giving him an answer.

Senator Ashley:

– Is the Minister in order in insulting me by stating that the information contained in my question is false, whereas, in fact, it is correct in every detail ? I ask that the Minister i withdraw his allegation that my statements were false. The remark is offensive to me.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - I think the Minister should withdraw that remark.

Senator SPOONER:

– It seems extraordinary that an honorable senator can rise in his place and make a series of statements that are false-

Senator Ashley:

– They are factual.

Senator SPOONER:

– I am at a disadvantage in replying because I have not the honorable senator’s written question in front of me, but I realize that that is a matter of political tactics. However, if you ask me to withdraw my remark, Mr. Deputy President, I shall bow to your ruling and do so. I am not an expert on parliamentary procedure, but it seems extraordinary to me that an honorable senator should make a series of statements that are palpably incorrect and then, when their correctness is challenged, seek a withdrawal of that challenge. I claim that the honorable senator’s question was offensive to me, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Senator Ashley:

– I have certain rights in this chamber, and I want those rights to be protected. I challenge the Minister to show that the statements contained in my question are incorrect. The Minister may be able to “ bounce “ other members of this chamber, but I shall not allow him to “ bounce “ or insult me either inside this chamber or outside it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order ! Will the honorable senator hand a copy of his question to the Minister?

Senator Ashley:

– Yes. I shall write it out and hand it to him. Will the Minister withdraw his allegation that my statements were false?

Tho DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The Minister has withdrawn in compliance with my direction to him.

Senator Ashley:

– I did not hear him withdraw.

Senator SPOONER:

– I press my request that the honorable senator be asked to withdraw his question because it it offensive to me.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT .- Order !

Senator ASHLEY:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been directed to the fact that General Motors Acceptance Corporation is currently raising £3,250,000 in registered unsecured notes on the Australian money market? Is it a fact that that corporation is offering Australian investors interest of from 3-£ per cent, to 4 per cent, for short-dated accommodation? Is it also a fact that the money will come from the Australian investment pool, and as a result there will be less money available for Australian companies which seek more capital, and that any profit that General Motors Acceptance Corporation will make on this new money will be converted into dollars? Is it not a fact that fourteen directors of the corporation are American citizens, whose address is 1775 Broadway, New York, and that the shareholders are all Americans? Apparently this corporation will borrow the money at less than 4 per cent, interest, and then pay a dividend of 20 per cent, to its American shareholders. As that dividend will be collected in dollars, the investment will constitute a further drain on our dollar pool. There will be less plant unci machinery-

Senator Spooner:

– I rise to order, Mr. Deputy President. I should like to be permitted to reply to the question insofar as it has already been put by the honorable senator. Obviously, he intends to repeat his previous performance and to put his question at such length as to render it unintelligible and, therefore, incapable of being answered.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- I ask Senator Ashley to complete his question.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Is it not a fact that this is typical of what is happening with the £50,000,000 which the Government claims Americans have invested here, and that Americans borrow in Australia to make profits to be converted into dollars?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.Order! The honorable senator is not in order in giving information when he is asking a question.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Is it not a fact that this position involves a drain on our own money market and that less Australian money is available for government loans because investors get better interest rates from American companies than from government loans? They have also resulted in a poor response to semigovernment loans.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.Order ! The honorable senator ‘ will resume his seat.

Senator SPOONER:

– I believe that honorable senators will agree that it would be impossible for me to retain in my mind the details of the questions that the honorable senator has asked. I shall reply in general terms to the matters that he has raised. Judging by the general tenor of his remarks, he appears to think that there is something wrong in General Motors-Holden’s Limited establishing an industry in Australia to produce, amongst other things, Holden motor cars.

Senator Ashley:

– Not at all.

Senator SPOONER:

– If the honorable senator takes objection to that interpretation of his remarks, all I can say is that we must agree to disagree. I have devoted a considerable proportion of my time to endeavours to persuade other American companies to do exactly as

General Motors-Holden’s Limited has done. The honorable senator has implied that an American company does something wrong when it supplements its American capital investment with Australian ku pi tul investment. I fail to see bow such a contention can be substantiated. It is the best of all worlds to get the foundation of overseas capital and to add to that the investment of local capital. If ray recollection is correct, that is what has happened in respect of investments in this country by General Motors-Holden’s Limited, Caltex Oil Proprietary (Australia.) Limited and a number of other American companies. In my view, that is a good development so far as both our economy and our relations with the United States of America are concerned. The honorable senator appears to argue that it is wrong for an American company to invest capital in Australia for the purpose of making profits and then to re-invest those profits here.

Senator Ashley:

– I have never made a suggestion of that kind.

Senator SPOONER:

– I trust that the honorable senator really knows what he did suggest because most honorable senators experience .difficulty in understanding many of the questions that he asks. He suggests that there is something wrong in a company re-investing its profits in Australia. I believe that that is thu best possible thing that could happen from the standpoint of our economy. “When a company invests its capital in this country and then has sufficient confidence to re-invest its profits here, that is the best possible form of development. The honorable senator concluded his question by making the sweeping statement that the various statements that I have made about the growth of overseas investments in Australia are incorrect. All I can say on that point at this juncture is that on a previous occasion, in response to a question that the honorable senator asked, and which is recorded in Hansard. I gave detailed information in support of my statements. I am not in the habit of making public statements which I cannot substantiate. The figures that I supplied with respect to overseas investments in Australia can be substantiated chapter and verse by departmental records.

page 1508

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services say when the agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom for reciprocal pension payments will be ratified, and when it will conic into operation ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– My recollection is that agreement has been reached and that its operation awaits only the completion of formalities. I ask the honorable senator to put his question on the noticepaper.

page 1508

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– On the 11th Marali, Senator Tanguey asked the following question, upon notice: -

Is it :i tact that agc and invalid pensioners in Western Australia aru receiving large accounts for hospital treatment which are beyond their capacity to pay; if so, will the Minister consider giving some financial help to such persons, this assistance to bc in addition to the .1 2s. a day already granted by the Commonwealth which covers little more than onethird of the cost, of in-patient treatment in public hospital wards, which is 35s. a day ?

Supplementing the answer given by the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Health has now supplied the following answer to that portion of the question which deals with Commonwealth assistance to help pensioners meet their hospital expenses : -

As I have repeatedly stated, each State determines its own hospital policy. The Commonwealth provides financial assistance by way nf hospital benefits but it exercises no control over charges made for hospital treatment in the States. Hospital charges are determined by the hospital authorities in each State and tho extent to which those charges are met by Commonwealth hospital benefits depends, of course, upon the amount of hospital fees charged.

The hospital benefit of 12s. a day referred to by the honorable senator is the special rate payable under the Hospital Benefits Agreement with the State of Western Australia in the case of uninsured pensioners who are enrolled in the Pensioner Medical Service and who are patients in public hospitals other than State benevolent institutions.

Although entirely a matter for the State hospital authorities, I feel sure that in any case where payment of the full charges would involve hardship, thu hospital authorities would be prepared to make an appropriate reduction. 1 would advise thu honorable senator to address her question to the Western Australian Suite Government.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

In the event of an aged or invalid pensioner being unable to obtain or to afford treatment in a public hospital, and being compelled to use the. services of the district nursing service at Ha. (id. a visit, will the Minister consider subsidizing such service, to avoid causing worry and embarrassment to those called upon to face this position*

Senator COOPER:

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

The Commonwealth has no legislative power by which district nursing services provided by the States may be subsidized. Medical fees for general practitioner services and the payment for drugs ami medicines used by aged and invalid pensioners are paid under the Commonwealth’s pensioner medical service. I. would advise the honorable senator to address her question to the Western Australian State Government.

page 1509

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 12th March. Senator Morrow asked the following question : - 1 am informed that a 20 years old exserviceman trainee employed by a master painter at Hobart received only his weekly allowance of £S 10s. from the Repatriation Department, although the Wages Board in Tasmania has prescribed a rate of £16 12s. a week for all adult workers in the painting trade. When this employee asked for additional payment, he was informed that the rate was fixed by the Repatriation Department under the Repatriation Act. Can the Minister for Repatriation inform me whether regulations governing the payment of trainees prescribe a rate of only £8 10s. a week, and whether such regulations override determinations of the State Wages Board, thereby relieving the master painter, to whom I have referred, of his obligation to pay wages to the trainee?

I have now obtained the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s question : The trainee in question is a disabled ex-serviceman who is in receipt of a war pension in addition to his Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme allowance of £8 7s. 6d. a week, and that his weekly income from my department substantially exceeds the prescribed wage for painters in Tasmania.

As far as my department is aware, the trainee has never expressed dissatisfaction with the allowances he is receiving. On the contrary, he has always been ‘ most appreciative of the assistance he has been given and the prospect that his training under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme will fit him to take his place in the community as a fully qualified tradesman. It is the usual practice under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme to place vocational trainees in a technical college class and provide them with allowances until they reach 40 per cent, proficiency. This stage of training usually occupies approximately six months, following which they are placed in subsidized employment at full award wages. However, where a suitable class is not available, a trainee may, with the concurrence of the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme Industrial Committee, on which there are representatives of both employers and employees’ organizations, receive the initial period of training in an approved industrial establishment - that of a private employer or of a Commonwealth or State government department. The approved industrial establishment, such as the master painter with whom the above trainee has been placed, takes the place of a technical school. There is no employeremployee relationship involved, and the establishment adheres to a training programme approved by the Industrial Committee. The Operative Painters and Decorators Union has participated actively in the supervision of training in painting and decorating under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme, and its co-operation has been a major factor in re-establishing approximately 2,500 ex-servicemen in this field. Earlier this year a misunderstanding occurred regarding training in Tasmania, but responsible officials of the union have since indicated that they are satisfied with the conditions under which training is provided in that State.

Senator COOPER:

– On the 25th February Senator Tangney asked me the following question : -

Can the Minister for Repatriation say whether it is a fact that, during the recent

State election campaign in Western Australia, une of the Liberal party candidates for the Nedlands electorate was allowed to address employees at the Hollywood Repatriation Hospital, whilst other candidates, including the Australian Labour party candidate, were not permitted to do so? If this is so, does it represent a change of policy in the administration of repatriation hospitals, and will the Minister ensure that, as in the past, a common policy is applied to candidates of all political parties at all times?

At the time I stated - 1 am not aware of the occurrence that the honorable senator has mentioned, but I assure her that I shall make inquiries and ascertain what actually happened.

I have made inquiries, and I am now able to advise her that a Liberal Country League candidate called on the assistant supervisor at the Repatriation General Hospital, Hollywood, with whom he was acquainted, and was invited by her to have morning tea in the hospital assistants’ mess. The supervisor permitted the candidate to address the hospital assistants present. The supervisor had no power or authority to permit such a thing, and her action was contrary to the instructions issued by the Repatriation Commission. Subsequently, the candidate approached the orderlies’ supervisor and requested that he be permitted to address the male staff. The request was refused. Later the candidate was brought to the office of the secretary to the hospital, and was informed that it was not the policy of the Repatriation Commission to permit political meetings within the hospital boundaries. The secretary was not advised of the address which already had been made in the hospital assistants’ mess. The Repatriation Commission has taken action with a view to preventing any repetition of such an incident.

page 1510

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator SCOTT:

– I desire to preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture with a few remarks concerning the profits that were made out of wool held by the Joint Organization during the war. Owing to the delay in the hearing of the Poulton case, many farmers who sold their wool to private buyers have not received any part of the profits that were distributed by the Joint Organization. During the war a firm by the name of Wilcox

Mofflin Limited signed contracts stating that it would be prepared to distribute to the growers any profits made out of the wool for which they had paid the appraised value. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture ascertain whether it would be possible to enable Wilcox Mofflin Limited to distribute profits made on wool to pay the growers in accordance with its contracts ?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I shall place this matter before the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and obtain a reply for the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 1510

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 12th March Senator Cole asked the following question : -

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Air able to say whether it is true that national service trainees are receiving very little suitable instruction in the Royal Australian Air Force? Is it a fact that their training consists mostly of cleaning out hangars and a little rifle drill? As these boys are, in many instances, chosen because of their academic attainments, will the Minister ensure that their capabilities shall be fully availed of in the Air Force and suitable training provided for them? Will the Minister obtain for me a copy of the training syllabus?

The Minister for Air has now furnished the following reply: -

It is not true that National Service trainees receive very little suitable instruction in the Royal Australian Air Force. Trainees with the Royal Australian Air Force serve a total of 25 weeks’ continuous training which is divided into three periods. The first, which is of three weeks’ duration, comprises initial general service training. The second, of one or two weeks, is specialized training which introduces the trainee to the particular type of training he will undertake. The third, of 20 or 21 weeks, comprises “ on the job “ training in the mustering for which a trainee has been chosen. In addition throughout the second and third periods the trainee continues his general service training. The syllabus covers drill, physical training, lectures, technical trade training or training in the appropriate mustering. The full syllabus is a voluminous document and covers the majority of the 90 trades in the Air Force, with the exception of domestic musterings. Full consideration is given to the trade and other qualifications of trainees and every effort is made to group them in musterings to which their qualifications suit them. Excluding a small number who undergo flying training, trainees are grouped under three headings.

The chief of these is the technical group which absorbs 59 per cent, of Royal Australian Air Force trainees in radio, engine and airframe maintenance wood, metal and miscellaneous trades. Another 23 per cent, is grouped as clerical or equipment and the trainees are employed in orderly rooms, equipment stores and similar administrative duties. Those who cannot be absorbed in a Royal Australian Air Force trade’ or are unskilled in any suitable trade arc employed as general hands. Duties of this group would include assisting the mechanics when servicing planes and equipment and it is incorrect to say that their training consists ‘ mostly of cleaning out hangars. The training scheme has been in operation over 20 months and has been under constant review. Changes are made as and when it is considered desirable so to do.

page 1511

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– “Will the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs draw the attention of the Minister for External Affairs to an article headed “ Antarctic Town Seen “ which appeared in the Adelaide Mail of the 21st March, and in which Mr. John Rymill, a distinguished South Australian pastoralist and former Antarctic explorer, stated that great mineral wealth was awaiting development in Antarctica ? Mr. Rymill also made other important comments relating to the possibility of establishing settlements in this vast area which belongs to Australia. Would it be possible for the Minister to contact Mr. Rymill on this subject now that Government policy is directed towards the development of Australian Antarctica?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I shall be happy to invite the attention of the Minister for External Affairs to the matter to which the honorable senator has referred. I am sure that if he has any useful comments to make he will convey them to the honorable senator.

page 1511

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– On Thursday last, I asked the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he would consult with his colleague about the raising of a loan for the building of an Olympic village in Victoria. On the following day representations were made along similar lines by Mr. A. “W. Coles, and on Tuesday last the Prime Minister announced that the Commonwealth would make available to Victoria, on very generous terms, a loan of £2,000,000 for that purpose. “Will the Minister inform me whether the Commonwealth action flowed from my suggestion ? I should also like to convey to the Prime Minister and the Government my congratulations in the matter.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I confess that the logic of the honorable senator’s question rather baffles me. If I remember correctly, the honorable senator suggested the raising of a public loan, on which interest would be paid, for the purpose of building an Olympic village, and that it should be redeemed from gate receipts at the Olympic Games.

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

– That is not right.

Senator SPOONER:

– With all due respect to the honorable senator, I did not place that proposal before the Treasurer, in view of my experience of his mirth and ridicule of such proposals. What has been done is that the Government has offered to advance by twelve months the payment of an amount that would become payable under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. This is a sensible solution of the difficulty, as opposed to the honorable senator’s proposal which, with all respects, I label as not being a sensible one.

page 1511

QUESTION

RAIL TRANSPORT

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 17th March Senator Critchley asked a question, without notice, concerning the TransAustralia Railway. In reply, I state that tenders have been invited for plant and materials required for the welding in situ of rails on that part of the TransAustralia Railway which lies between Port Pirie Junction and Port Augusta, a distance of 56 miles. The method under consideration for this work is the alumino thermic fusion process, which permits, existing rails to be welded into long lengths without the use of electricity and without removing the rails from the track. The advantages of such a system over the method of electrical welding will suggest themselves to honorable senators. If satisfactory tenders be received, the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner inr tends to make an early start with the welding of rails between Port Pirie Junction and Port Augusta. The economics of extending this improvement westward from Port Augusta will be considered after experience has been gained on that section of the railway.

page 1512

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 20th March, Senator Benn asked the following question : -

Does the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral know that because of unsatisfactory working arrangements in the mail sorting section of the General Post Office, at Brisbane, electors in some of the State electoral districts in the Brisbane metropolitan area were unable to vote in the election held on Saturday, the 7th March, because they did not receive postal votes which were posted to them by returning officers on Friday, the6th March? Will the Minister investigate the existing working arrangements so that all electors will be enabled to exercise their democratic rights at future elections?

The Postmaster-General has furnished the following information : -

It is true that owing to extraordinary heavy postings being received late on Friday, the6th March, some carry over of traffic occurred at the Brisbane office on Saturday morning, the 7th March, and seven postal votes bearing the postmark 11 p.m., Friday, the6th March, missed connexion with the early morning despatch to suburban post offices. However, special measures were taken to ensure delivery of these articles and the postal votes were conveyed to all addressees by express delivery service on Saturday afternoon. As far as is known, every postal vote addressed to any Brisbane elector, was delivered in time for the elector to record his vote. The senator may be assured that the delay in delivery of the postal votes in question was due solely to the unusual circumstances I have outlined.

page 1512

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 19th March Senator Aylett asked the following question: -

I desire to preface a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General by saying that I have read a little book in which the Government has claimed to have ended short ages. As there is no shortage of man-power, because there are a considerable number of unemployed, could the Minister speed up the installation of telephones on which deposits have been paid for up to nine months? As there are now no shortages, according to the Government, and as there is ample man-power, what is delaying the installation of telephones?

The Postmaster-General has furnished the following information : -

  1. Within the capacity of the resources which can be allotted, the department is doing every thing practicable to speed up the installation of telephones on which deposits have been paid.
  2. It is necessary to apportion the available resources carefully over the various Commonwealth activities. The needs of the communication services have been given special attention by the Government and very substantial progress has been made in overtaking thelag in the connexion of telephone services and reducing the number of waiting applicants.

page 1512

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. What is the cost to the Commonwealth per annum for the carriage of wheat to Tasmania?
  2. What subsidies have been paid during the past three years in connexion with the Tasmanian passenger ship Taroona?
  3. What profit or loss is being made by the Commonwealth ships trading with Tasmania?
  4. What is the difference in freight rates in Tasmania forgeneral cargo for the years 1939-1953?
  5. What increase has taken place in freight rates on the mainland coast?
  6. What are the main causes for the increase in freight rates ?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The following answers are now supplied: -

  1. Present cost is 3s. 3d. a bushel on approximately 2,000,000 bushels, i.e., approximately £325,000.
  1. It is estimated that the loss on Commonwealth ships trading with Tasmania during the last twelve months would be £100,000.
  2. –
  1. –
  1. In 1939, the basic wage was 79s., and in 1953 it is 231s. Hours worked by seamen in 1939 were 56; in 1953, 40. Overtime is paid to the extent of 70 per cent, of actual wages. The actual increase of seamen’s wages and overtime between 1939 and 1953 is 400 per cent. Waterside workers’ wages in 1939 were 2s.10d. an hour, and in 1953, 8s. 2d. an hour. In 1939 the rate handled per gang hour was 24 tons; in 1953 the rate is 10 to 12 tons an hour. In 1939, the gang strength was fifteen men; in 1953, the gang strength varies from 19 to 25 men. It is estimated that stevedoring costs are at least 500 per cent, more in 1953 than in 1939. Survey and repairs have risen from 4s.6d. an hour in 1939 to 14s.6d. an hour in 1953. In 1939, minor repairs were carried out by ships’ engineers and staff during working hours at no additional cost, but owing to reduction of working hours from 56 to 40, very little minor repairs are now performed on ships, with the result that work is done by shore labour.

page 1513

QUESTION

PEARLING

Senator TANGNEY:

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

  1. Under what terms and conditions will 25 Japanese pearl-diversbe admitted to Aus- tralia?
  2. Are the services of these divers to be made available to all pearling firms operating at Broome or elsewhere?
  3. If not, will the Minister indicate the names of the firms for whose benefit these Japanese divers are being admitted?
  4. What security measures are being taken to see that these men do not imperil the safety of Australia as before World War II.?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Cabinet’s approval was for the admission of 35 Japanese (not 25. as stated by the honorable senator) for employment at Broome. In addition to the conditions which normally apply to all labour introduced for service in the pearling industry, it was laid down that - (a) the Japanese will be employed only as divers, tenders and engine drivers on new or repaired vessels not in commission in 1951 or to replace on other vessels men in the classi- fications mentioned whose proficiency was below the 1951 average;(b) Japanese will not exceed 50 per cent of the total of all nationalities in each of the classifications mentioned; (c) each Japanese introduced beforebeing granted a vise for Australia is to bo subjected to investigation by the Australian Mission, Tokyo. 2 and 3. The following Broome pearlers applied for and had Japanese allocated to them : - A. S. Male and Company, M. and W. Scott, A. C. Morgan, and D. McDaniel.
  2. Each Japanese, before being granted a vise for Australia, is the subject of investigation by the Australian Mission, Tokyo, to ensure that his admission would not constitute a security risk. In addition, the Australian security authorities will ensure that proper precautions are taken.

page 1513

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Senator WORDSWORTH:

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

  1. How many men under establishment was the AustralianRegular Army as at the 1st March, 1953?
  2. Were the Royal Australian Navy and theRoyal Australian Air Force in the same predicament: if so, what were the numbers in each of these services?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answers : -

The actual strengths of the three services at 1st March, 1953, were -

Regarding the services’ establishments, the Government decided towards the end oflast year, that ponding an overall review of the defence programme, the strengths of the regular forces should be stabilized at approximately their present level.

page 1513

QUESTION

FOOD PRODUCTION

Senator WEDGWOOD:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Governmenthas power to fix export food standards only?
  2. Is it a fact that the only control at the present time over goods produced and consumed in Australia is by regulations made in the various States under the health acts, and that these are only concerned in ensuring that labels are correct and the goods packed are not deleterious to health, but make no provision for grade or quality?
  3. If so, will the Prime Minister bring this matter before the Conference of State Premiers at its next meeting, and request them to pass suitable uniform legislation in each State, so that the Australian public may buy with full knowledge of the quality and standard of the goods they are purchasing?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

  1. In so far as foods produced in Australia are concerned, the Commonwealthhas power to fix export standards only. The Commonwealth also has power to fix standards for foods imported for consumption in Australia.
  2. In general, control over foods produced and consumed in Australia is exercised by the State governments, and requirements vary from State to State. Control over goods subject to excise duties (e.g. alcoholic liquors) is exercised by the Commonwealth.
  3. The National Health and Medical Research Council, which advises the Commonwealth and State Governments on, among other things, matters of public health, has recently had under consideration the question of uniformity of food and drug regulations. The Council is taking action to examine anomalies and inconsistencies in existing regulations and standards and to exchange information on proposals to amend legislation with a view to securing general agreement.

The Commonwealth Departmentof Health has also established a secretariat for the exchange of information between the Commonwealth, the States and trade organizations. The question of discussion of uniform legislation at the next Premiers’ conference will be given consideration when the agenda for the conference is being prepared.

page 1514

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the sixth report of the Printing Committee.

Report read, and - by leave - adopted.

page 1514

TAXATION OFFICE BUILDING, BRISBANE

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I present the report of the Public Works Committee on the following subject : -

Proposed erection of a Taxation Office building at Brisbane, Queensland.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1514

TRANSFERS UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE AUDIT ACT 1901-1952

Report of Public Accounts Committee

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

– I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee : -

Second report, for year 1952-53- Variations in annual appropriations under Section 37 of the Audit Act 1901-1952.

page 1514

BANKING BILL 1953

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 1514

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1953

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.

This is a bill to amend the National Service Acts 1951. Under those acts, persons who hold conscientious beliefs which do not permit them to engage in any form of naval, military or air force service are exempt from service. Persons claiming exemption on this ground are required to establish their claimsbefore a police, stipendiary, or special magistrate. Provision is also made for relief from combatant duties and, in lieu thereof, for the performance of non-combatant duties on the ground of conscientious belief, and claims of this kind are decided in the same way.The acts do not at present provide for any appeal from, or review of, a magistrate’s decision.

When the legislation was framed the Government was aware that during the war there was a right of appeal under the National Security (Conscientious Objectors) Regulations. It was considered however, that a scheme of national training limited to176 days in Australia in time of peace was so different from an obligation of compulsory service of indefinite duration in time of war involving liability for active service outside Australia, that different, considerations applied. In the United Kingdom there is a right of appeal but there the liability is for two years involving service abroad.

Though the decisions of magistrates in this difficult field of conscientious belief have, in general, been accepted without question for the last two years, there have been a few cases in which the question of a right of review might have allayed doubts in the minds of parents and registrants, and of organizations and associations having a particular concern with freedom of conscience. Representations seeking a right of review have been made by a number of such bodies and also by members of this Parliament. The number of young men who have sought exemption or partial exemption on the ground of conscientious objection is relatively small. Only 61 in every 10,000 registrants have made application. Fourteen of these have been exempted and 25 registered for non-combatant duties.

Under this bill, there will be a right to apply to a district, county of local court or, in the States where there are no such courts, to a supreme court judge, for a review of a magistrate’s decision upon a claim to exemption or partial exemption on the ground of conscientious belief. The right will be available to those who have already unsuccessfully applied to a magistrate and have not yet commenced their service or have been committed to service custody under the provisions of the act which received the unanimous endorsement of this Parliament in 1951. One or two matters affecting the jurisdiction of courts under the acts are also dealt with by the bill but they relate only to technicalities and I do not think it necessary to make reference to them.

Debate (on motion by Senator MCKENNA) adjourned.

page 1515

APPLE AND PEAR ORGANIZATION BILL 1953

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment.

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

New clause 9.

House of Representalines’ amendment. - After clause S insert the following new clause : - “’ 9. Section twenty oE the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘ Commonwealth Bank,’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ Commonwealth Bank of Australia, or with any other prescribed bank,’.”.

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

– I move-

That the amendment be agreed to.

Section 20 of the principal act permits the Australian Apple and Pear Board to bank only with the Commonwealth Bank. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the board to bank with any other bank that may be prescribed by regulation, after approval by the Minister, as well as the Commonwealth Bank. The amendment has been necessitated by, and is consequential to, the amendments currently being proposed to the Commonwealth Bank Act. A similar provision that the board concerned may bank with the Commonwealth Bank or any other prescribed bank has been contained in some other marketing legislation, over many years - for example the Dried Fruits Export Control Act since 1924 and the Canned Fruits Export Control Act since 1926. In addition, the Whaling Industry A.ct 1949, introduced by the

Labour Government, authorizes the Australian Whaling Commission to bank with the Commonwealth Bank or such other banks- as the Treasurer approves. In another place the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture gave the Opposition an assurance that the Commonwealth statutory marketing, boards would as a general rule be allowed to bank with banks other than the Commonwealth Bank only in cases where Commonwealth Bank facilities did not exist at some location where it was necessary for the board concerned to have such facilities. The Minister said that it would not be the general policy to allow the boards to bank with the private banks.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– But for the assurance given by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) in the House of Representatives, and, I take it, reaffirmed by his representative in this chamber, the Opposition would have been concerned about this proposed amendment. However, we realize that occasions may arise on which Commonwealth Bank facilities will not be immediately available, and we offer no objection to the proposal that facilities of another bank should be used. However, I have a mild interest to know why another bank has to be “ prescribed “. After all, with the exception of the banks which operate as State instrumentalities, all banks in the Commonwealth are under licence from the Commonwealth Government, and I wonder why it is necessary that another bank should be prescribed.

Senator McLeay:

– That provision has been included on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Draftsman in view of the amendment of the Commonwealth Bank Act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1515

WINE OVERSEAS MARKETING BILL 1953

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment.

In committee (Consideration of House, of Representatives’ amendment) :

New clauses 11 and 12.

House of Representatives’ amendment. - After clause 10 insert the following new clauses : - “11. Section twenty-three of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘ Commonwealth Bank,’ and inserting in treir stead the words ‘ Commonwealth Bank of Australia, or with any other prescribed bank,’. “ 12. Section twenty-four of the Principal. Act is amended by omitting the words ‘ Commonwealth Bank ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ Commonwealth Bank of Australia, or in any other prescribed bank ‘.”.

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

.- I move-

That the amendment be agreed to.

The proposed amendments are similar to that made by the House of Representatives in the Apple and Pear Organization Bill. These are purely drafting amendments, and the assurance given by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) that the facilities of banks other than the Commonwealth Bank will be used only when the facilities of the Commonwealth Bank are not available, applies also to this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1516

WOOL USE PROMOTION BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 17 th March, (vide page 10S1), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- All political parties are agreed upon the importance of the wool industry to the Australian economy, and are concerned about the threat to that industry constituted by synthetic textiles now gaining favour in other parts of the world. Therefore, the need to take steps to promote the use of wool and to increase its production is not disputed. The fact that the Labour party, too, is concerned about the future of the wool industry is shown by the fact that, in 3945, the Chifley Government introduced fresh legislation which repealed the 1936 act and, for the first time, committed the Commonwealth to a £l-for-£l contribution to a fund to promote the use of wool and to foster research into the wool industry. The other contributor was, of course, the wool industry itself. At the request of the wool industry in 1945 the wool levy for this purpose was increased from 6d. a bale to 2s. a bale and a similar liability was undertaken by the Commonwealth. Two funds were set up, the Wool Use Promotion Fund and the Wool Research Fund. Contributions were separately allocated to each fund, and the Wool Use Promotion Fund was called upon, where necessary, to supplement the research fund. Thi? legislation, again at the request of wool producers, will increase the contribution by growers to 4s. a bale. That certainly shows the industry’s appreciation of the threat to wool, and of the need for the wool-growers themselves to do their utmost to meet that threat. The woolgrowers are to be congratulated upon their alertness to the danger not only to their own interests in that connexion, but also to national interests. The Government is not increasing its contribution, which will remain at 2s. a bale. The amending legislation provides, I understand, for pro rata contributions in respect of units of less than one bale. The Opposition, accordingly, gives quite general support to this measure but there are a number of aspects upon which, on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to voice some criticism, and on one matter I should like some information.

My first criticism of this measure will be directed tq the abolition of the Wool Consultative Council which was set up in 1945 under section 14 of the principal act. It comprised nine persons, the Commonwealth Wool Adviser, two members of the Australian Wool Board, and six other members, appointed by the then Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who represented various sections of the industry. They included a representative of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, wool manufacturers, textile distributors, authorities concerned with technical education,- the Australian Workers Union, and the Australian Textile Workers Union. Under this bill the Wool ‘ Consultative Council will be abolished. It was set up to advise the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture on the promotion of the industry, and in setting up that body the government of the clay recognized the fact that the woolgrowers were not alone concerned in the development of the wool industry in Australia which has also manufacturing, wholesale and retail aspects. It recognized that the wool industry had to be helped from the time the wool was grown until it was fabricated and passed on to the consumer. In the bill before the Senate the Government proposes the abolition of the Wool Consultative Council. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) in his second-reading speech, indicated that the council had not operated successfully but he gave no reason for that view. I should like the Minister to indicate what grounds he had for his statement. One would expect that a body of that kind would have served a useful purpose in advising the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. I should like to know how often the body was called together. It did not meet of its own volition but had to be convened by the Minister. It was intended to serve the purposes of the Minister. If the Government’s complaint is that the council did not tender very much advice then the Minister for Shipping and Transport should indicate how often the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture allowed it to meet. After all is said and done, those on the council were willing to render service and I should like to know whether the Government gave them a full opportunity to function.

My second criticism of this bill is directed at the. proposed representation on the Australian Wool Bureau. Under this bill the board will consist of the Commonwealth Wool Adviser and six other members, three from each of two organizations representing wool-growers. No exception can be taken to that representation. But I contend that it would he wise to include on the board representatives of other sections of the industry including representatives of the Australian Workers Union, the Australian Textile Workers Union and manufacturers. It may be argued by the Government that the function of the board is to devise means to promote the use of wool and that that is a function for specialists in business transactions. But this hoard has a two-fold function. Its object is not merely to promote the use of wool in

Australia and abroad but also to conduct research into all matters connected with the production and use of wool. I suggest that the board could be strengthened if it included in its personnel representatives of all phases of the wool industry. The Minister may reply that the board has power to set up consultative committees of various types. But the bill before the Senate provides no indication of how those bodies may be constituted. Clause 17 of the bill provides that the Australian Wool Bureau may constitute consultative committees for the purpose of assisting the bureau to exercise its powers and perform its functions and that it may appoint persons to be members of those committees during the pleasure of the bureau. Does the Government propose to make full use of the bodies provided for in clause 17? If so, has the Government in mind the nature of those bodies? For instance, will the manufacturers and the worker* in the field and the factory, be given some representation on the consultative committees? Under the clause that is a matter for the bureau, not the Government, to decide. For that reason I ask the Minister to state what the Government has in mind regarding the composition of the committees.

According to the Minister the Government has proposed to change the name of the Australian Wool Board to the Australian Wool Bureau at the request of the hoard itself. That circumstance rather surprises me, but it surprises me more that the Government should have agreed to the change. Not many years ago, when the present Government parties were in opposition, they made loud protests against bureaucrats and expressed a horror of them. I should have expected that their horror would extend to bureaux because if there is a bureau there must be bureaucrats. I should like the Minister to reconcile the Government’s relish of the suggestion that the board should become a bureau with the zest with which the Government parties condemned bureaucrats a few years ago. I should like to hear the Minister’s justification for the change of name from the viewpoint of either the board or the Government. The truth may well be that having departed from the comparative irresponsiblity of opposition the Government has realized what a magnificent job the people whom they called bureaucrats do in serving the country and Ministers.

Clause 6 of the bill authorizes the Commonwealth Wool Adviser, if he is to take over the work of compiling statistical information in the industry, to employ staff. The Minister explained that the Statistical Section of the Australian Wool Realization Commission might pass to the control of the Commonwealth Wool Adviser or be taken over by the Australian Wool Bureau, or find some other destination. I suggest that the Government has legislated untidily in inserting clause 6 in this bill for a purpose which might never be realized. The Government might decide that the Australian Wool Bureau and not the Commonwealth Wool Adviser should eventually take over the Statistical Section. I suggest that the Government should have made up its mind on that relatively minor detail. In using the word “ minor “ I do not underrate the importance of statistical work. It is of the utmost importance that accurate data should be provided about the industry if it is to fight its way in the world and serve the best interests of everybody connected with it. I understand that the Statistical Section may be eliminated altogether and that the preparation of data may be left to wool brokers. I doubt that such a course of action would be satisfactory. I doubt that the figures that would be supplied by the wool brokers would be accepted as readily as figures supplied by _ an independent body such as the Statistical Section. The Opposition completely favours the retention of the statistical staff and we deplore the fact that the Government did not make up its mind where it would be located before introducing this bill. I should like the Minister to explain why that problem could not have been resolved and clause 6 either omitted or worded differently.

A further criticism of the bill by the Opposition is directed at the proposed abdication of ministerial power to control the operations of the Australian Wool Bureau in its wool promotion activities. Power to exercise ministerial supervision will still be exercised over the research fund. Sub-clause (4.) of clause 21 of the bill reads as follows: - (4.) Moneys standing to the credit ot the Research Account may he applied in a manner approved by the Ministers for the purposes of this Act, including the following purposes : -

  1. scientific, economic and cost research in connexion with the production and use of wool and goods made wholly or partly from wool; and

    1. the co-ordination of, and the application of the results of, any such research.

Clause 19, dealing with the Wool Use Promotion Fund, on the contrary, allows the money to be expended by the bureau in the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions under the bill. The clause gives the Minister no general power of direction or control. It may be argued that the money in the fund has been contributed by wool-growers by way of a tax imposed at their own request and that they should be allowed to do as they wish with it. I agree generally with the proposition that they have the very first and a quick interest in the matter, but the qualities that let them win an election to the bureau may not be called to their use afterwards. That is one reason why I say that there should be a general overriding power, rather than an immediate responsibility, in the Minister.

Senator Cormack:

– Are the representatives to be elected?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, they are to be chosen from two Australian woolgrowers’ organizations. Sub-clause (2.) of clause 9 reads -

Three of the members representative of Australian wool-growers shall be appointed upon the nomination of the organization known as the Australian Wool Growers’ Council, and three of those members shall be appointed upon the nomination of the organization known as the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation.

I am merely making the point that although each of those organizations will select three representatives, there is nothing to say that they will produce the ablest men or the men with the greatest wisdom and power to promote the interests of the wool-growers. I think that the Government has a duty to the 90,000 wool-growers who are paying the tax to at least exercise some general supervision over the distribution of the fund. I do not think for a moment that the Minister should be looking at and vetoing everything that the bureau does. But whatever control he exercises - and Ite may exercise none; I think it highly likely that he will not - we object to an abdication of ministerial responsibility, which leads to the abdication of Cabinet responsibility and ultimately to au abdication of parliamentary responsibility. It is not a satisfactory answer to that proposition to say that the wool-growers have themselves provided the funds. I repeat that the Government has a duty to the great mass of the wool-growers, and the Government must recognize that the whole Australian community, apart from, the wool-growers, has a very real interest in the best use being made of these moneys for the promotion of the use of wool.

I recall that the former Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, the present honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), complained on one occasion that the Australian Wool Board had provided an annuity for an individual, and.

On his death, for his wife. He was a private individual, not connected with the board, who in his private capacity had done very excellent work to promote the use of wool. One can agree that that was a very human gesture by the board, but was it a proper use of the funds by the ‘board? Would that be a proper use by the bureau of the funds subscribed by the wool-growers? How would that either prospectively or objectively promote the use of wool? It was a reward for an activity in a perfectly private capacity. It is to guard against that kind of thing that the Minister should be given at least an overriding supervision in the matter. Let us carry that one incident - I believe- it is only one - to the point where the Australian Wool Bureau decided that it should provide pensions for its members. If it were right in the one case, it would be right that they should do it for themselves, if they feel that they have merited it by reason of their own efforts in the promotion of the use of wool. It is to guard against that, and against other contingencies about which I do not even think at this moment, that there should be a residual power in the. Minister.

Senator Wright:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition think that the Minister’s control would be necessary to stop that?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I think it should be there to veto such a proposal.

Senator WRIGHT:

– How could the members of the bureau possibly provide for their own benefit out of funds for which they were agent?

Senator McKENNA:

– The board provided for the benefit of somebody who was not on its staff, and after services had been rendered voluntarily in the field. Unquestionably, the Opposition thinks that, in relation to these boards, the Government should not abdicate its responsibility to supervise and to intervene where necessary. I think the occasions on which it would be called upon to intervene would be very rare indeed. 1 come now to the income of the board. The Minister stated in his second-reading speech -

In addition to thus ensuring an adequate annual income for the board - approximately £080,000 in 1952-59- the Government decided to transfer to the board the unspent balance in the Wool (Reserve Prices) Fund, and that portion of the balance in the Wool Contributory Charge Trust Account which will remain after the purchase of the wool stores owned in Australia by the Joint Organization. It should perhaps be mentioned that these funds were, in the first instance, contributed by growers or represented income from the investment on moneys contributed by growers. The resources of the board will thus be increased by about £2,750,000 and, in addition, the Government has decided that the Australian Wool Board should receive a portion of the annual income derived from the rental of the stores.

I have no criticism to make about the provision of further funds for the work of the bureau in both its wool promotion activities and its research, but I should like the Minister to tell me whether legislation will be introduced to effect the transfer of the £2,750,000. If so, when is it expected that that legislation will be brought down ? I should also like to know to which of the two funds the amount will go. Will it go to the Wool Use Promotion Fund only, or to the research fund only, or will it be divided between the two funds? If so, in what proportion? As the amount was contributed by the growers, and added to by income earned on the contributions, has the Government given consideration to repayment to the growers? Gould they be identified, or would that be too difficult? I am not objecting to the amount being paid over, if there is no objection from the woolgrowers involved, but I would like the Minister to tell me whether the individual wool-growers have made any claim to benefit from the amount of’ £2,750,000 that it is proposed to transfer. I conclude with the comment that the Opposition gives complete approval to the general purposes of the bill. I do not want what I have said in criticism of the measure to be taken in any way in derogation of that broad statement.

Senator ROBINSON:
Western Australia

– I, too, welcome the introduction of this measure. It will continue to keep in operation an organization which is designed specifically, in terms of the bill, to promote and increase the use of wool. The bureau will be financed by contributions of the woolgrowers themselves and a subsidy from the Australian Government. The achievements of the Australian Wool Board in the past - which I feel quite confident, will be matched by the attainments of the Australian Wool Bureau in the future - fully justify the contribution by the Government. We must realize that the advantages that accrue from increased use of wool benefit not only those associated directly with the wool industry, but also the whole community. The wool industry has a vast impact on all members of the community, and by and large its success or failure has a very serious effect on the economy of Australia generally. At present there is a very satisfactory demand for wool at quite satisfactory prices, but we must not let that happy position lead us to complacency. For very many years there have been strong efforts by other communities to produce synthetic fibres, at prices comparable with those of wool, and which will be equally attractive to the consuming public. Up to date their efforts have failed dismally, but we must not lose sight of the fact that other countries are pressing their endeavours enthusiastically. They are backed by immense financial resources. It is estimated that more than £100,000,000 is spent annually in the United States of America in the endeavour to produce fibres to replace wool. The objectives of those engaged in this endeavour are first, to try to evolve a material cheaper than wool; secondly, to produce something in the country of origin, in order to avoid importation; and thirdly, to overcome any apparent shortage of wool. These efforts are being pursued on the continent of Europe just as enthusiastically as they are in the United States of America, although probably not on such an elaborate scale. It would be very foolish for us to ignore this effort, and to the best of our ability, we should endeavour to combat it. That can best be done by an organization such as the Australian Wool Bureau, to be appointed under this measure. Its duty will be to examine and promote the use of wool, and to assist that commodity to retain its popularity with the consuming public. As a result of the degree of success of the bureau’s efforts, the production of synthetic fibres in this country -will be difficult. As there is a very active demand for wool in Australia, there will naturally be less demand for synthetic fibres. The Australian Wool Bureau will perform valuable services, not only to the wool-growers, but to the community generally.

I hope that the bureau will direct its active attention to the labelling of textiles. I understand that at present there is some hesitancy about doing this because of the difficulty of determining the percentage of new wool, old wool, and reconditioned wool in cloth or manufactured material. In my view, the determination of those three factors is not so important as it is generally believed to be. All that is required to be known is the percentage of wool contained in the manufactured article. Consequently, I am pleased to learn that the Government intends to take action under regulations to ensure that all imported textiles shall be labelled to indicate the percentage of their wool content. That will, of course, cover new wool, old wool and reconditioned wool. I realize that in this matter the Australian ‘Government’s powers are very limited, and that control over locally manufactured textiles is entirely in the hands of the State governments. I understand that difficulty has arisen because those governments have been unable to come to an agreement on the percentages of new wool, old wool and reconditioned wool that should be indicated by labelling, but I suggest that the industry itself will be satisfied if it is possible to determine the percentage of wool in manufactured materials. I know that in the past the Australian Wool Board endeavoured to ensure that all textiles, both imported and locally manufactured, should be branded to reveal their wool content. This problem is still exercising the mind of the industry, and I trust that success will attend its effort to have all textiles labelled in order to enable consumers to ascertain promptly and accurately the proportion of wool contained in textiles that they may purchase.

The Minister, in his second-reading speech, indicated the possibility that the broking houses will be relied upon to obtain the data from which statistics of the industry will be compiled. I viewthat possibility with alarm because such statistics will be of vital importance to the proposed Australian Wool Bureau. Whilst I have no doubt that the broking houses could supply and produce the statistical information required, no obligation will be placed upon thom in order to ensure continuity of such a service. Once- the organization which, at present, is charged with the duty of obtaining that information relaxes its efforts in that direction, considerable time will be involved in re-establishing that service, if it is required to assume that duty again. Therefore, I strongly suggest that any agreement that may be made with the broking houses to supply statistical information, should be concluded on a longterm basis in order to ensure that those houses shall not suddenly cease providing that service and thereby confront the bureau with the problem of obtaining that information from its own resources. I support the bill. It seeks to continue a service that has proved of great benefit to the industry in the past.

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

– in reply - I inform the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that the Australian Wool Board and the wool-growers’ organizations urged that the Australian Wool Consultative Council should be abolished. From 1946 to 1950, the council met on six occasions. Honorable senators will recognize that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture maintains the closest contact with tha organizations in the industry. Tha change of name of the Australian Wool Board to that of the Australian Wool Bureau is being made at the request of those organizations. Whilst I appreciate the point that the Leader of the Opposition made, I shall not be a party to criticism that implies generally that departmental officers are bureaucrats. Such criticism is cheap. Every Minister, who has had the opportunity to be associated with such officers, is aware of their calibre and realizes the necessity to give every encouragement to them. Of course, there are misfits in every calling and organization, including, even, the Parliament. I see no objection to the desire of the organizations in the wool industry that the name of the Australian Wool Board should be changed to that of the Australian Wool Bureau.

The Leader of the Opposition sought information about the sum of £2,750,000. It was felt that it would be impossible to ascertain the people to whom that money should be repaid and to determine the apportionment of such repayments. Previously, it was provided that the disposal of that money should be at the discretion of the Minister and, so far, no objection has been raised to his proposal that it should be transferred to the proposed new fund. Indeed, that proposal was supported by the representatives of the wool-growers. That fund consists of interest which accrued on the Wool (Reserve Prices) Fund, in which were temporarily held the moneys raised by the wool levy in anticipation of a reserve price plan for wool. The levy moneys were repaid, but the principal act provides that the interest may be used for the benefit of the industry. The money in the Wool Contributory Charge Trust Account was raised primarily in order to pay the industry’s share of the operating expenses of Joint Organization. In the first year of. Joint Organization a rate of 5 per cent, was fixed as the contributory charge payable by wool-growers. The amount raised in that year is the principal reason why the sura still in the account is so bigh. That money will be used to purchase the Joint Organization’s stores and the balance will be made available to the Australian “Wool Bureau. At the committee stage I shall have an opportunity to supply details in respect of other matters that have been raised in the course of this debate-

Senator MCKENNA:

– Can the Minister indicate how the money will be apportioned between the two funds?

Senator McLEAY:

– I shall supply that information at the committee stage. With respect to the control that is vested in the Minister over these various bodies, I can only repeat what the Minister himself has said on that point. Honorable senators . will recognize that I, as the representative of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in the Senate, am not so intimately informed about the details of the organizations in the industry. Basically, Ministers are answerable to the people, and it is appropriate that they should accept responsibilities of this kind. However, I should not support the proposition that what might be termed a blank cheque should be given to any organization that might be set up under a measure of this kind. In my second-reading speech I said -

The Government also decided that, ro far as its promotional and publicity functions are concerned, the Australian Wool Bureau should be entirely free from Ministerial control or direction. The Government is satisfied that its own views will be adequately represented on the Australian Wool Bureau by the Commonwealth Wool Adviser.

The Government has also agreed that the Australian Wool Bureau may, as one of its functions, take steps for the improvement of the production of wool in Australia and for the encouragement of research. However, in respect of these functions the Government felt it should not deprive itself of authority, through the Minister, of ensuring that the Wool Bureau does not duplicate similar activities undertaken by other authorities in these fields. It is for this reason that the Bill provides that the Minister should have a reserve power of direction over the Board in its exercise of those functions.

I believe that the Minister himself is of the opinion that he has been given the fullest power requisite in the circumstances.

Senator Robinson referred to the labelling of textiles in order to indicate their wool content. That matter has been under active consideration for some time. Conferences have been held with State Ministers on the subject and I understand that an agreement has been reached. Appropriate regulations have been drafted and they are now being reviewed by the Parliamentary Draftsman. They deal with problems that must be settled in consultation between the States and the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5. (Commonwealth Wool Adviser and Deputy.)

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– This clause provides for the appointment of a Commonwealth Wool Adviser and a Deputy Commonwealth Wool Adviser; and sub-clause (2.) provides that they “ shall perform such duties and functions as the Minister from time to time determines “. I know that those exact terms and phrases appeared in the 1945 legislation, but from a drafting viewpoint I query the use of the terms “ Commonwealth Wool Adviser “. After all, he is the Commonwealth adviser on wool ; but, literally, the title as it stands, means that he would be an adviser to wool. I mention that in order to direct attention to the fact that under sub-clause (2.) he is to perform “ such duties and functions as the Minister from time to time determines “. So far as that is expressed, the Minister could determine that the wool adviser’s functions and duties related to a matter which was not connected with wool at all. The clause does not indicate that the wool adviser’s duties and functions are to be tied down to wool. As the clause is drawn, they could relate to metals. That is an impeachment of the 1945 act, as well as the bill now before the committee. It seems to me that there should be some delimitation of the functions in relation to wool itself. I raise that matter for the considerationof the Minister. Nowhere in the bill, as far as I can see, are his duties and functions determined, other than the reference to the fact that he must act on the Australian Wool Bureau. I concede that the criticism I am making of the drafting provisions in this respect is equally applicable to the 1945 Labour legislation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Employment of staff).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- At another stage of the debate I referred to the fact that this clause should not he in the bill and that the Government should have made up its mind what is to happen to the Wool Statistical Service, the ultimate destination of which has not yet been determined. I said that the first question to be decided is whether it should be retained - and I have already urged that it should be retained as a body independent of wool-brokers. The second point I made was that the Government should make up its mind in order to avoid including in this bill a clause which may not be necessary. If it had made up its mind, this clause would not be required. I wish to know whether the Government has decided where that body is to go. If it has not done so, how long will it take to decide?

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

.- I hope that the Leader of the the Opposition (Senator McKenna) will not think that I was being discourteous in not replying to the points raised by him in connexion with clause 5. I shall refer those matters to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen). I am sure that the honorable senator does not expect me to disagree with the methods adopted by the Parliamentary Draftsman, who drafted this legislation’. In connexion with the other matters referred to by the honorable senator, it should be remembered that the bill has received very careful attention from my able colleague, and I can only repeat what he has said, that appraisals will be made only if it is demonstrated that they are satisfactory. The Government will decide shortly whether they are satisfactory. Recently, a test was made, the results of which will be considered by the Government. In answer to the specific questions asked by the honorable senator, I inform him that the Government has not yet made up its mind, largely on the advice of the Minister himself.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Remuneration and allowances).

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to make a brief comment on this clause, in view of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) during the second-reading debate. The clause provides that -

The remuneration and allowances of -

the Commonwealth Wool Adviser;

the Deputy Commonwealth Wool Adviser; and

persons employed by the Commonwealth Wool Adviser in pursuance of this Act, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament or out of moneys otherwise made available by law for the purpose.

I point out that this clause must be bracketed with clause 14, which provides that, in relation to the other members of the bureau, the allowances payable will be such as the Governor-General from time to time determines. Surely it is obvious that when the Parliament provides money for the payment of allowances and remunerations to the Commonwealth Wool Adviser, it will stipulate the purposes for which that money is being paid. Having regard to that safeguard, and remembering that the Commonwealth Wool Adviser will be appointment solely to discharge the functions enumerated in this bill, it can be seen that there is ample guarantee that the directions of the Commonwealth Wool Adviser, which he has received from the Minister in accordance with clause 5, will be addressed solely to the fulfilment of the purposes of this bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Membership of bureau, &c).

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

– I have read carefully this clause, and subsequent clauses which deal with the membership of the bureau, in order to ascertain who will constitute the bureau. In two or three instances reference is made to the term of office of the members, but nowhere in the bill is the actual term of office specifically stated. All that is apparent is that the members are to be nominated by two bodies, the Australian Wool-growers Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation. I wish to know whether the Government has in mind any actual term of office, or is it proposed that a member shall not be discharged unless he commits a misdemeanour?

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

– I refer the honorable senator to sub-clause (l.)(b) which provides that -

The Bureau shall consist of -

six members representative of Australian wool-growers, who shall, subject to this section, be appointed by the Governor-General for a period of three years.

Senator McKENNA (TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition [12.21]. - I direct the attention of the Minister to some observations which I made a short while ago, when I argued that the bureau should include representatives of wool manufacturers, the Australian Textile Workers Union and the Australian Workers Union. The preceding Labour Government considered that representation of this kind was appropriate on a. consultative council. I do not wish to develop the matter further at this stage, but I do suggest that representatives of those bodies would have a real contribution to make, particularly on the research side. I can imagine, for instance, that representatives of the Australian Workers Union in the wool industry would be capable of making a very valuable contribution regarding the handling of wool. The Minister will no doubt agree that in the course of research it would be proper to determine the cheapest and most effective methods of wool handling. Many of the phases of the wool industry take place on the ground and in the sheds, and research into activities at that stage is desirable in order to ensure that those activities shall be effective, efficient and economical.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

– I understand that the bureau may appoint sub-committees. I take it that the honorable senator does not expect me to attempt to alter the provisions of the bill at this stage. However, I shall draw the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to this matter.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– I rather agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that the representation on the bureau should be widened. In my opinion, on far too many boards and bureaux the interests of the consumers are completely unrepresented. It seems to me that the housewives of Australia would be able to make a very valuable contribution to the functions of this bureau by supplying information regarding the actual use of wool and synthetic materials. If the representation on the bureau is to be widened, I suggest that the consumers of wool should be represented.

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

.- The suggestion made by the honorable senator has been noted.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– Sub-clause (5.) of clause 9 provides that -

The appointment of a member of the Bureau is not invalidated and shall not be called in question by reason of a defect or irregularity in or in connexion with his nomination.

That appears to me to be an unusual provision and I shall be interested to hear from the Minister the reason for its insertion. I am of the opinion that its operation could cause a great deal of confusion.

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

– All that I am able to promise the honorable senator is that I shall bring this matter to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen).

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Fees, allowances and expenses).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Sub-clause (2.) of this clause provides for payment of out-of-pocket expenses if a member or a deputy member of the bureau happens to be also a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State. Can the Minister say whether any members of the Federal or State parliaments are members of the Australian Wool Board?

Senator McLeay:

– No.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Powers and functions of bureau).

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to point out that so far from this bill abrogating the functions of the Minister, sub-clause (2.) of this clause provides that the functions and powers of the bureau shall be subject to the directions of the Minister. I submit that that is an answer to the argument of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) during the secondreading debate.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– On that point I think that the honorable senator is in error. He will notice that paragraph (a) of sub-clause (1.) provides that the bureau may do such things as it thinks fit for the purpose of promoting, by publicity or other means, not being research or the encouragement of research, the use of wool in Australia or in other countries. So far no ministerial control has been provided, nor is it provided by paragraph (b) which provides that the bureau may - make arrangements, with persons, authorities or associations in Australia or in other countries, likely to bo conducive to that purpose.

Senator Wright:

– That is, to promote the use of wool.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, promotion of the use of wool. Sub-clause (2.), to which the honorable senator has referred, provides that -

Subject to any directions of the Minister, the Bureau may - (a.) do such things as it thinks fit for the purpose of -

improving the production of wool in Australia; or

encouraging research. . . .

That is an item which was exempted from sub-clause (1.) (a). The matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-clause (1.) may be done by the board without any directions from the Minister and without any control by the Minister.

Senator Wright:

– That is, for the purpose of promoting the use of wool.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes; that is the major function of the bureau. There are two functions and two funds. One function is the promotion of the use of wool as against synthetics, cotton and other textiles, and the second function is research. There are two separate funds; there is the Wool Use Promotion Fund and the Wool Research Trust Account. The funds are supplied differently for the two purposes. The main function of the bureau, which is the promotion of the use of wool, is not in any way subject to the directions of the Minister. I remind the honorable senator that section 13 of the 1945 act provides that-

Subject to any directions of the Minister, the Board shall have power to make arrangements with persons-, authorities and organizations in Australia and in other countries for joint measures of publicity or other means for the promotion of the use of wool.

The words “ subject to any directions of the Minister “ have been deliberately omitted in incorporating that provision in sub-section (l.)(a) and (b) of clause 16 of the bill.

Senator Wright:

– They have been included in sub-sections (2.) and (3.).

Senator McKENNA:

– Under subsections (2.) and (3.) the board is subject to the approval and direction of the Minister. There are two separate functions of the board with two separate funds. One of the main functions is the promotion of the use of wool and it is beyond the control of the Minister. As the Minister indicated quite recently, the Government has reserved power of direction in relation to research only to ensure that there shall not be duplication of effort by the various bodies in the field, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and others.I believe that the Department of National Development has an associated activity. I suggest to the honorable senator that I am simply confirming what I said originally about this matter. The Government will have no power of direction with regard to the main function of the board, because it has been abdicated by the Government in this bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (Consultation committees).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has referred to this clause. It relates to the Australian Wool Bureau being authorized to appoint consultative committees. Will the Minister inform me how many of those bodies are to be appointed? Will they be appointed in States? Will they be area boards or will their composition be decided by the different phases of the wool industry?

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

– I am not able at present to give the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) the information that he has requested. I understand that three committees have already been appointed, or are contemplated. I am not able to interpret what the bureau will do in that connexion.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 25 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1526

EGG EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 17th March (vide page 1082), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill bc now read a second time. .

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– Apparently this bill has been introduced in conformity with the ideas of the Government that it should give something away and bring existing measures “into line”. The Opposition has no objection to the proposal to place the staff of the Australian Egg Board under Public Service conditions, but it does object to the provision in this bill for the removal of ministerial oversight of the operation of the Australian Egg Board, as it did in the case of a previous measure. In the first place, the board was set up to arrange for the marketing and sale of eggs overseas, and particularly to meet the needs of Great Britain and our allies during World War II. The Australian Egg Board is now using its power to squeeze a little more out of thu consumers of eggs in Australia. Instead of sending away the surplus supply of eggs, the board is exporting more than the actual surplus, and is maintaining the supply of eggs to the Australian consumers on a hand-to-mouth level so that it can obtain a higher price for eggs on the Australian market. This Government has not used ministerial control to any great degree since it came into office, but honorable senators will note that when boards are set up and they are not under the direction of a Minister, they expand until they become what the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) himself has called bureaucrats. I am afraid that that will happen in the case of the Australian Egg Board. Some time ago a previous Minister had occasion to , use the power of veto against the board. It had made arrangement to send eggs from Australia overseas on consignment. Actually the board is supposed to sell eggs, but in this case it proposed to export them on consignment with all the consequent risks. The board was handling the property of eggproducers, and the Minister used his powers of control to veto the proposal. There was some objection at the time, but the board was over-stepping its authority in the marketing of eggs. Government funds have been supplied to encourage and assist the marketing of eggs, and government guarantees have been given for the purpose of paying for the eggs as they are supplied to the depots. All those provisions are necessary for the marketing of eggs and the stabilization of the market and they should come under the general oversight of the Minister. I believe that the people who are responsible for the production of eggs should be told plainly that the removal of ministerial control, as conceived by the Government, is a sham. The Minister stated in his second-reading’ speech -

The hill also provides that the . Minister’s power to veto or alter decisions of the. board, as contained in section S of the 1947 act, be deleted. The, egg industry considers that this provision constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the board. The Government is in agreement with the industry on this point and considers that there is ample protection of government and industry interests in the remaining sections of the act in that the major powers of the board are still subject to the direction of the Minister.

Although that statement is contained in the speech of the Minister, it is not strictly correct. The powers would probably be subject to some other Minister but not to the Minister administering the law at that particular time. To get over a situation similar to that in which the previous Minister used the power of veto in the case of eggs sent away on consignment, the original act has been varied slightly in the bill. Proposed new section 15 (3.) states -

A Collector of Customs or other officer of Customs may require a person who seeks to export eggs from the Commonwealth, on making entry of tho eggs under the Customs Act 1901 -.1952 and before tho entry has been passed, to satisfy him that the contract for the carriage of eggs is in conformity with conditions approved by the Board, and the Collector or other officer may decline to pass the entry until that person has so satisfied him.

In such a case, the Minister for Trade and Customs would be involved and not the Minister who is supposed to control the marketing of eggs. So the statement that was made by the Minister in this regard is only partly correct. The control of a particular consignment of eggs as referred to in the bill would apply to some other Minister and the Opposition objects to such a proposal. We believe that it should not be possible to make the consignment under the direction of some other department without the relevant Minister knowing anything about it. Another proposal with which the Opposition disagrees is that applying to the opening of accounts in a bank other than the Commonwealth Bank as contained in clause 8.

Sitting suspended from 12.^5 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– To sum up, we have no objection to the transference of the employees to the control of the Public Service Board, but we do object to the lack of ministerial control over the Australian Egg Board and to the provision in the measure which will enable that board to bank with institutions other than the Commonwealth Bank.. Therefore, we shall oppose the second reading of the bill.

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

– in reply - This is one of three kindred measures upon which apparently there is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition. We are satisfied that the concession that the industry itself has sought should be granted and that, under the act, the Government and Minister will have all the power that is necessary to regulate this industry.

Question put -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President1 - Senator George Rankin.)

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 1528

MEAT EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 18th March (vide page 1198), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill is similar to the Egg Export Control Bill which the Senate has just passed. The Opposition again objects to the substantial abrogation of ministerial power proposed in this bill.We do not object to the provisions which will confer upon the Public Service Board some authority to settle the terms and conditions of the employees of the Meat Export Control Board; but, for the reasons advanced by Senator O’Flaherty in his speech on the previous measure, we shall oppose this bill also. We believe that, in the interest of the community, there should be a full measure of ministerial control over the activities of exporting boards. I shall not elaborate the Opposition’s arguments. Senator O’Flaherty has already stated them clearly. The Opposition will vote against the second reading of this measure.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator George Rankin.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1528

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 19th March (vide page 1317), on motion by Senator McLEAY -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– Like other bills with which the Senate has just dealt, this bill, if passed, will allow the Public ServiceBoard to control the conditions of employment of the staff of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. The bill will eliminate ministerial direction of the board. It will also permit the board to bank with banks other than the Commonwealth Bank. The Opposition objects to the last-mentioned two provisions. In addition, the bill provides for the election to the board of representatives of the dairying industry. I wish to bring to the notice of honorable senators the magnificent work that was done by Mr. G. C. Howey on behalf of butter and cheese producers as chairman of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. Mr. Howey practically sacrificed his life in the service of producers. Although Mr. Howey represented the butter and cheese industry as president of the Victorian Dairy Farmers Association he was appointed to the chairmanship of the board by the Australian Government and acted in accordance with its policy. Under the Government’s proposal, the members ofthe board will not be obliged to consult the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. Whilst the Australian Labour party believes that producer representation is necessary on boards of this type it also believes it necessary for the Minister to be represented on such boards. The absence from this board of a ministerial representative will make it all the more necessary to provide for ministerial direction of the board. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has claimed that the Government will have as much control over the board as it requires, the Opposition contends that provision should he made for direct ministerial control. In addition, the board should be permitted to bank only with the Commonwealth Bank. Consequently, the Opposition opposes this bill.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– The Opposition has reiterated its contention that the action of “the Government in curbing the powers of Ministers to control boards is bad. I believe that the Opposition has not complained simply because the Minister’s power has been restricted. When the Labour Government was in office from 1941 to 1949 it saddled this country with ministerial control of the elements of production, distribution and exchange and this Government has proceeded to remove some of the interfering characteristics of the Labour Administration. Not only has the present Government restricted the powers of Ministers, but it has restricted the power of elements within the Public Service to control industries. This bill will return to primary producers the control of their industry and it is a good bill. The hypocritical attitude of the Opposition to the legislation should be exposed.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Georgerankin.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In, committee:

The bill.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– When recent legislation was before this chamber Opposition senators contended that there should be no discrimination in the treatment of banks. In the second-reading stage of this bill Senator O’Flaherty announced that the Opposition considered that only the Commonwealth Bank should be used by the board for banking purposes. The bill provides that the board may choose its bank for itself. The Opposition’s attitude to the bill reveals the shape of things to come. No doubt if the Opposition again forms a government it will discriminate against the private trading banks and provide in legislation that boards such as this may bank only with the Commonwealth Bank. The bank officers and all persons interested in the private banks should watch carefully to see that that will not be allowed to happen.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– Senator Henty is going the right way to develop a lengthy argument on this matter. I point out that it is normal banking practice for a bank to open an account for a person to whom it makes an advance. In no instance does a bank permit a person to whom it has made an advance to open an account in another bank with that advance. It is for that reason that the Opposition contends that all government and government-sponsored instrumentalities which are guaranteed by the Australian Government through the Commonwealth Bank should be allowed to open accounts only in accordance with ordinary banking practice. We support the principle that there should be a guarantee for such instrumentalities through one account. Boards are established by the Australian Government for specific purposes, and 99 per cent of the existing boards commenced to function with funds that were made available by the Australian Government. During the debate in this chamber recently on the Commonwealth Bank Bill, supporters of the Government claimed that the separation of the trading activities would benefit the Commonwealth Bank, but honorable senators on this side of the chamber believe that, by the separation, the Government has restricted the Commonwealth Bank. The measure now before us contains further proof of the Government’s intention to take from the Commonwealth Bank some of its business.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1530

TRACTOR BOUNTY BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 18th March (vide page 1,199), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

.- On the 3rd March, 1952, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) referred to the Tariff Board, for inquiry and report, the subject -

The necessity for continuing to assist the production of tractors in Australia, and, if so found, the manner and extent of such assistance.

At that time it was obvious to the Minister that the tractor bounty, which had been introduced for the purpose of developing secondary industries, particularly heavy industries, was due for revision as a result of the accentuation of the inflationary trend in this country since the present Government came to office. The Tariff Board reported that the estimated annual requirement of tractors in Australia was 20,000. I assume that the board meant that that would be the normal requirement after the lag of war production had been overtaken. The report stated that in 1951-52, 30,949 tractors were imported, and 4,419 were produced in Australia. Therefore, the total number of tractors that were sold to the Australian people in that year was 35,368. The Opposition considers that the maximum encouragement should be provided by the Australian Government for the development of the tractor manufacturing industry in this country. When the previous Labour Government offered encouragement to people to invest large sums of money in the tractor manufacturing industry, it closely related that industry to the defence requirements of this country. We considered that, in order to develop Australia’s potential to produce tractors and tanks, we should provide every encouragement for the maintenance and extension of plant and research. The factory of Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited in Western Australia was readily convertible for that purpose. Since Labour relinquished office there has been a reduction of persons employed in that industry from 2,500 to 2,000, due largely to the proficiency that has been attained in the industry. I should say that the majority of the 500 persons who have left the industry were formerly employed in the tractor manufacturing section of Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited. The Opposition takes a very serious view of this reduction of the number of tradesmen employed in the manufacture of tractors in this country because, during the period of World War II., when the previous Labour Government was charged with the responsibility of “ revving up “ secondary industry in Australia, there was a grave shortage of skilled tradesmen such as fitters, turners, and metal workers. The then Government had to ask the trade unions to accept dilutee labour, semitrained labour, and untrained labour into highly skilled trades. The skilled tradesmen taught the dilutees and shepherded them during the early periods of their employment in war industries. Later those men were accepted to perform repetitive work in industry. That was necessary in order to bring our war effort to the degree of efficiency that was required. I appeal to the Government to encourage further development of the tractor industry of this country, even if that should entail a charge against Consolidated Revenue. The Tariff Board reported that -

Witnesses on behalf of Howard AutoCultivators Limited, and Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, admitted that at the lime they were introduced bounty rates provided in the 1950 Bounty Act were adequate. Since 1950 the position of the Australian industry in regard to competition with tractors manufactured overseas has worsened considerably, on account of the steeper rise in costs in Australia than in overseas competing countries.

I have before me information to the effect that, although the bounty was adequate at the time that it was introduced, it was totally inadequate at the time of the Tariff Board’s inquiry. The witness for Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited pointed out to the board that the cost of producing a tractor in Australia was £320 higher than in England. That evidence was backed by thoroughly reliable statistics. That means that the cost of production in Australia has risen by £230 between the time that the bounty was introduced and some time after the 3rd March, 1952. Clause 5 provides for the payment of the following bounties : -

The increase of costs which I have mentioned, refers to the cost of production of tractors exceeding 40-belt pulley horsepower but not exceeding 55, the bounty recommended in respect of which is £240. There is a difference of £80 between what is considered to be an adequate bounty and the actual determination of the board. I would not presume to say that the Board’s determination was not fair and well based, but

I consider, in view of the evidence of cost of production that was produced by the firms which are claiming the bounty, that the bounty is certainly not in excess of what it should be.

The firm of Howard Auto-Cultivators Limited requested that the bounty should be trebled, in order to make the position of the Australian manufacturing trade equitable. That firm considers that there has been at least a 200 per cent, rise of the cost of production. This shows that value has not been put back into the £1 as far as our secondary industries are concerned. The firm of A. H. McDonald and Company Proprietary Limited requested assistance in order to give the Australian tractor manufacturers a price advantage of at least £150. They consider that the present bounty for tractors exceeding 40 belt pulley horse-power should be increased from £96 to £250 or £270. The request by A. H. McDonald and Company Proprietary Limited is the closest to the determination of the Tariff Board. Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, requested -

That the existing bounty be replaced by import duties of 30 per cent. (British Preferential Tariff), and 42 i per cent, (otherwise) on wheel tractors of 30-70 maximum belt horse-power.

The inference that I draw is that the Government has been most considerate of the importers of tractors and other heavy equipment. It has shown a greater consideration for the importers than it has for our own struggling secondary industries which should be developed in order to strengthen our war potential. The Government has neglected to pay regard to that phase. Representatives of importing interests and users of tractors opposed the imposition of protective duties but did not express any opposition to assistance being given to the industry by way of bounty. Of course, a bounty would be payable from Consolidated Revenue and all the taxpayers would contribute towards that cost, whereas the imposition of a duty, although it would involve an increase of the cost of the product, would help the industry to reach an output that would enable the price to be reviewed and, ultimately, remove the necessity for the retention of protective duties. One witness, who gave evidence before the Tariff

Board on behalf of importing interests, expressed the opinion that if continuance of the bounty were necessary, it should not be at such rates as would enable the industry to attain such proportions as to give it a claim later for the substitution of duties for bounty. In other words, that witness contended that bounty should not bc provided at such a rate as would enable this important industry to develop to such a stage that, as a result of its additional output, it would be enabled to say that it was capable, with a reasonably small degree of protection, of supplying Australia’s requirements and that there was no further necessity for Australia to import tractors of certain classes. The Tariff Board paid the closest attention to flint view, but pointed out that, like other industries, the tractor industry, during the last two or three years, had been very severely hit by increases of labour costs of from 60 per cent, to 70 per cent, and by consequential increases of costs of raw materials. The board stated that whilst there had been increases of costs overseas during the same period, tho increase in Australia had been steeper. Tho Board, in its report, also said-

The Board realizes that payment of bounty at the rates recommended will necessitate an increase in the limit of annual bounty payable under the Tractor Bounty Act to cover all claims that might arise. The principal producer. International- Harvester Company of Aust. .Pty. Ltd., stated at the inquiry that it had> no intention of claiming bounty but it was concerned at the very sharp rise in Australian manufacturing costs, resulting primarily from increases in the basic wage. The Board considers that the limit of annual bounty payable under the Tractor Bounty Act should be increased to cover the increase in the rates of bounty now recommended by the Board. The Board also considers that the rates of bounty should operate for a period of three years, and that the industry should be again reviewed before the expiration nf that period.

The Board recognises that a considerable contribution from Consolidated Revenue will be necessary to meet the bounty payments and it gave, some consideration to the question of whether the assistance should’ be by bountycumduty. However, in view of the importance of tractors in primary production and the urgent necessity for making them available at the lowest possible prices, the Board considers that the imposition of any new duty would be undesirable.

T agree that it would not be good policy to increase the costs of tractors by the impo- sition of import duties without considering the impact of such increases upon the primary producers. However, I submit that this industry should be encouraged to develop to a stage at which it will be enabled to meet at least 50 per cent, of local requirements of particular classes of tractors

The principal act permits a firm in receipt of bounty to obtain a net profit of 10 per cent. The Tariff Board, in its report, docs not recommend that that provision should be altered, but under this measure the Government proposes to reduce that rate of net profit to 5 per cent. As I have said, the Australian industry produces 4,419 tractors of a total national annual requirement, of 35,368 tractors. During the period for which Australian tractor manufacturers awaited the Tariff Board’s inquiry, they lost considerably. I admit that the provisions of this measure are to he applied retrospectively to the 12th October last. However, that will not enable manufacturers to recoup losses that they incurred from the period when a bounty of £90 was considered to be reasonable until it was increased to £240. During that period, some companies made a net profit of 10 per cent., but investors in such companies did not receive a return at that rate because it was necessary to amortize losses that had been incurred during the period of establishment of the industry by those who were sufficiently courageous to undertake this important venture.

Senator Vincent:

– The honorable senator must have shares in some of these companies.

Senator COOKE:

– I have not any shares in any of these companies, but I have the interests of the nation at heart. Government supporters have much to say about the need to encourage free enterprise in industry. The tractor manufacturing industry has been soundly established in this country. I admit that it enjoys a bounty, which is payable from Consolidated Revenue, and that the Government has invested in it considerable capital, in respect of which the industry, ultimately, will have to pay some consideration. But, now, the Government says to this industry, in effect, “ You must limit your net profit to 5 per cent.” At the same time, the Government will expect these firms to tool up in order to improve their technique and machinery and maintain their plant in a state of efficiency which will make it readily convertible for purposes of war production. Having regard to those facts, I do not believe that the Government has carefully considered this matter. Australians who have invested the sum of £4,000.000 in this industry will be severely hit by this provision to reduce the permissible net profit from 10 per cent, to 5 per cent. Such treatment will dampen the desire of those people to retain their investments in heavy industries of this kind, which are of great potential value from a defence standpoint. Apparently, the object of the Government is to squeeze the Australian investor out of the industry and to permit it, ultimately, to fall completely under the control of some combine in which Australian shareholders will be in a minority and which is a part of the great international combine engaged in thu manufacture of tractors. Unless the Government is prepared to give more encouragement to this industry, it cannot expect the existing companies to progress and, at the same time, pay off losses that were incurred prior to the date on which the rate of bounty was adjusted. Such firms will be discouraged from engaging in necessary research and from doing their utmost to expand the industry. I earnestly appeal to the Government to make a careful assessment of the position of the industry and to give consideration to all of the factors that I have mentioned. If it does, I am confident that it will leave the permissible rate of net profit at 10 per cent, as is provided under the principal act. Indeed, I believe that even if that were done these companies would still be obliged to struggle for existence. As I have said, the shareholders have not received a return at the rate of 10 per cent, even in the case of companies which have actually made that rate of net profit. Having regard particularly to the report that the Tariff Board has furnished in respect of this industry, the Government should not do anything that would dampen the efforts of those who are now endeavouring to develop it. If the rate of net profit is reduced to 5 per cent., no company will have any possible chance of amortizing its losses over a period of twenty years. Indeed, that rate of return compares unfavorably with that now derivable from industrial investments generally.

A net profit limit of 5 per cent, might have been justifiable when the Labour Government kept interest rates at a low level and when the rate of interest in respect of Commonwealth loans was as low as 2 per cent. However, we find that to-day the rate of interest on giltedged securities lias risen practically to 5 per cent. It is astonishing that at a time when’ the best securities in the land are returning a rate of 5 per cent., and in some instances a greater rate, the Government should limit to 5 per cent, of net profit to be permitted in an industry of this kind in which so much effort and capital is involved. I can only conclude the Government, in taking such a step, is actuated by an ulterior motive. One could well understand such a proposal if the industry was well-established and was producing a substantial proportion of Australia’s requirements. Under present conditions, when the companies concerned should be enabled to make provision for a reasonable pay-off against losses of the kind that I have mentioned, and for improvements and extensions, I suggest that the Government, if it believes that its contribution to the industry represents too great a strain upon Consolidated Revenue, should do one of two things. It should either provide for a protective duty which, necessarily, would be low, or it should say to the industry, in effect, “ “We have a certain amount invested in your industry and, therefore, you cannot get more than a certain price. You are an established industry. You have recouped your losses, and your output is now so substantial that we must provide that your permissible net profit shall be less “. I emphasize that the industry was permitted to make a net profit of 10 per cent, at a time when the value of money was three times greater than it is now. However, the Government has caused inflation and has been responsible for forcing the industry into the invidious position in which it finds itself to-day. The Government is acting wrongly in trying to force an industry out of existence by limiting by statute the net profits that it is to be permitted to make. The application of special conditions to the tractor industry will have a tendency to discourage investors and will hinder development and extension at a- time when those interested in the industry are doing their best to develop it to a stage at which it can render full assistance not only to Australian agriculture but also to the nation from a defence stand-point.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Western Australia

– The tractormanufacturing industry is of great importance to Western Australia. .Senator’ Cooke has referred to Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited which commenced the manufacture of tractors in that State as recently as 1949 and is now producing no less than 62 per cent, of requirements of 30 horsepower tractors in Western Australia. That undertaking recently extended its activities to the manufacture of ploughs and scarifiers. In addition to the difficulties to which Senator Cooke referred, such as increasing costs, it has laboured under difficulties which are directly attributable to its location in Western Australia. I refer particularly to freight charges which fall particularly heavily on the company because of its distance from the spare parts and tyre markets, and also because the freight charge on completed tractors being transported from Western Australia to New South Wales is between £60 and £70. Not only has the company difficulties such as those, but it is also confronted with another one of great magnitude, in that its financial structure is unusual. Its capital is approximately £2,500,000, of which £2,000,000 has been supplied by overdraft against the guarantee of the State Government. Right from the inception of the company a heavy debt has been incurred, week by week and month by month, because of the interest charged thereon.

Senator Cooke:

– That is taken into account in the company’s costing, though.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Of course, but it has exercised an influence which does not usually operate against companies financed in more orthodox ways. All these difficulties, together with the1 common one of rising costs, prompted the company to make an advance to the Tariff Board for a rehearing of its case. Naturally, the increased bounty will be greatly appreciated by the company, and public acknowledgment of that fact has already been made by Mr. Chamberlain.

I wish now to refer to a part of the report of the Tariff Board, because it includes a note of warning to which all Western Australians should pay heed. Particularly does it affect those who arc interested in the survival of this industry, which, I suggest, is most desirable, because the industry forms a natural complement to the traditional primary production industries of Western Australia. The Tariff Board report stated -

It is the established practice of the Board, when dealing with requests for assistance to industries, either by duties or bounty, to recommend such assistance as may be found necessary, only when the industry is reasonably economic and efficient. Tractor manufacture as carried on in Western Australia by Chamberlain Industries Limited at the time of the inquiry did not, in the opinion of the Board, fully meet that requirement. It is clear that, because of the conditions under which the company was operating, the measure of assistance needed by it would be greater than that needed where manufacture is being undertaken under more favorable conditions. While appreciating tho difficulty in which Chamberlain Industries finds itself, the Board considers it would not be justified in determining the needs of the Australian tractor industry generally on the operations of that company. The Board understands that some reorganization of the company is under consideration. If such reorganization should be carried out and it should still be found that assistance beyond that now recommended by the Board on the basis of economic and efficient manufacture is needed by the company, then the question of providing additional assistance will be a matter for consideration by other authorities than the Board. Through assistance given to the company in the matter of finance and in other ways, the Government of Western Australia is concerned in the tractorproducing industry, which it evidently’ considers a desirable industry for that State. For this reason, it may- be that the Government of Western Australia would be prepared to assist Chamberlain Industries Limited further, in directions designed to alleviate some of the disability under which it operates by means of its location in Western Australia.

I suggest that that extract strikes a most serious note and indicates once again to all of us that, if industry is to be maintained in Australia, the battle against costs must proceed. The solution of the problem of costs will provide the answer to all our difficulties. I suggest also that that comment of the Tariff Board justifies the v policy which has been pursued by this Government and the success which it has achieved, and is now achieving, it its battle to reduce costs.

Senator Cooke cited various figures concerning the importation of tractors in recent years. The honorable senator stated that the industry, in its initial stages, was entitled to the maximum encouragement to develop by the application of import restrictions-

Senator Cooke:

– No; by the provision of a bounty rather than by the imposition of a protective duty, which might be imposed when local production was great enough to justify it.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The honorable senator referred to the number of tractors which have been imported. I remind him that, as far as import restrictions are concerned, the Chifley Government-

Senator Cooke:

– I rise to a point of order. Senator Paltridge is completely misquoting my remarks. I did not say what he has alleged I said.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Senator Paltridge may proceed.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I merely wish to remind Senator Cooke that the Chifley Government, which he supported, by virtue of its participation in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, committed this country to a policy which prevented the imposition of import restrictions, for the purpose of extending protection to local industry. As is well known, and as has been stated in this chamber on a number of occasions, because of Australia’s membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, import restrictions may only be imposed to protect our currency or exchange position.

Senator Cooke also referred to the permissible profit limit of 5 per cent. I suggest that this provision should be considered in relation to section 4 of the principal act, relating to the total bounty limit, which this bill seeks to repeal. Last year, bounty was paid in respect of 1,275 tractors produced in Australia, which cost the Treasury approximately £102,000. At the new rate of bounty that cost would be greatly exceeded and were it not for the fact that this bill will repeal section 4 of the principal act, which limits the total amount of bounty payable in any one year, the effect would be equivalent to diminishing the amount of bounty on every unit produced, so that the proposal to increase the rate of bounty to £240 in respect of each tractor produced would be defeated. The bounty would be reduced proportionately by the amount which the total bounty exceeded the annual limit. When we speak of this profit limitation of 5 per cent, it is well to remember that the 5 per cent, applies only to that portion of the capital of the industry which is employed in the production of bountiable goods. Chamberlains Industries Proprietary Limited is now making scarifiers and ploughs. Obviously, the capital employed in the production of those articles will not be subject to the 5 per cent, limitation.

Senator Cooke:

– We are talking about tractors only.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Yes. I am referring particularly to Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited because, as Senator Cooke has remarked, it has never shown anything like a 5 per cent, return on its tractor production, so that it cannot be fairly argued that it will be in any way adversely affected by the imposition of this limit.

Senator Cooke:

– The company still has to pick up losses amounting to a few thousand pounds. ‘

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I shall deal with that in a moment. I wish specially to deal with the methods which I say are proper for it to employ in picking up those losses. The Tariff Board has referred to the matter in the following terms : -

The increased rates of bounty now recommended by the board should enable an economic and efficient tractor manufacturing industry to return to reasonable profit under existing conditions. It is possible that the manufacturer in Western Australia may, because of the special circumstances mentioned in the preceding comments, be unable to operate at a profit even with the aid of the increased rates of bounty. However, those rates, if provided, will place that manufacturer in a much better position than he is at present, and it will be for the company to re-examine its position and decide its future course of action in the light of the altered conditions.

I suggest that that opinion, offered as a completely independent view, represents a fair and reasonable summary of what might be expected of the tractor indus.From time to time I have heard honorable senators opposite fulminate against the making of huge profits and the paying of what they describe as “ huge dividends “.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– The profit motive, even !

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Yes. Yet, here we have an argument presented by Senator Cooke which not only seeks to justify the making of a 10 per cent, profit, but also attempts to justify the making of such a profit at public expense. He is being completely inconsistent.

The recommendation of the Tariff Board does not include any reference to the amount of bounty which shall bc paid on a tractor of more than 55 horsepower. I have been interested to ascertain what the Tariff Board has to say about that matter, and I propose to read the following brief extract from its report : -

The engine for the proposed model COD is a proprietary one, obtained from outside sources. This powerful diesel tractor is for use on large farms where the power unit is required to pui! two implements. A pilot model has passed all field tests satisfactorily and work lias commenced on the manufacture of the first production batch. Tho horse-power of the (SOI) tractor places it outside the scope of the present Tractor Bounty Act.

I think that that really covers the position. At the time of the hearing in June last, the board said that a pilot model had been completed and that work had commenced on the first production batch. I do not doubt that when Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited gets properly into production it will submit another case, based on known costs, in which event the Tariff Board will probably feel inclined tn extend the bounty to that type of tractor 8.1SO. The necessity to introduce this bill stems from the cost structure in Australia which was rising sharply until a few months ago. It emphasizes tha battle that must be waged continuously to keep costs at such a point that we can manufacture goods and compete with the outside world. In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the Minister in charge of the bill for the consideration that he has shown to this company, particularly since it has been in difficulties. At all times he has been prepared to lend a sympathetic ear to its claims and in many instances apart from the granting of the tariff inquiry, he has shown it consideration. I support the bill.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

.- This bill interests Western Australia from two angles. In the first place there is a tractor industry in that State and it is situated in Perth. It is known as Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited. The bill increases the bounty in respect of tractors to an equivalent of 25 per cent, in dutiable terms. It will enable the company to continue to produce tractors. It is very doubtful whether the industry could continue to produce tractors if the bounty had not been granted. So much for Chamberlain’s tractors. We also have a lead-mining industry in Western Australia situated a long way from Perth. The largest of the mines is the Protheroe lead mine. That lead-mining industry has no bounty. It sells its lead at a fixed price which is considerably less than world parity. The largest mine was closed in the same week as the Government decided to increase the subsidy with respect to tractors. Some hundreds of men will be thrown out of employment. We on this side of the chamber and those in Opposition have done nothing to stop it from closing. Our complacency in regard to the Protheroe lead mine is equalled only by our indifference, but that mine is situated a long way from Perth. I. have no need to draw a moral from this hill. It is self-evident. I need say no more except that the moral makes me feel somewhat sick

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– This bill is of major importance so far as the Labour party is concerned and we could debate the measure at some length but for the fact that Ave understood that the Senate was eager to dispose of this measure. Therefore we were prepared, after making our criticism, to allow the measure to pass through the Senate. The whole purpose of the supporters of the Government is to ensure that measures brought forward by the Government are placed on the statute-book, and, therefore, they should be prepared to adhere to an arrangement that is made between the parties that will enable that to be done. Honorable senators on the Opposition side believe that this measure opens up a very wide field for argument. A number of points might well have been discussed, for the tractor manufacturing industry is of particular importance to Western Australia. We, as members of a National Parliament, should be eager to see Western Australia, develop industrially so that it will reach a level equal to that of the eastern States. This measure could have the effect of dampening the prospects of one of Western Australia’s most promising industries which is capable of providing employment for large numbers of workers and extending the technical knowledge of Western Australians. The Opposition could offer strong criticism of the Government’s treatment of this industry, but honorable senators on this side of the chamber have refrained deliberately from doing so, in order .that an arrangement that had been reached by all parties might be effective.

I do not propose to make a lengthy speech on the subject, but I say to supporters of the Government that if they want government measures adopted with expedition, they cannot expect honorable senators on this side to refrain from expressing our views as fully and as clearly as we desire unless they are prepared to stand by an arrangement. I criticize the bill because honorable senators on the Opposition side believe that it will restrict the profits of an industry that might otherwise have a beneficial effect on the industrial development of Western Australia. Having expressed that view on behalf of the Opposition, I hope that it will not be necessary for my colleagues to continue to rise to review the arguments that Government supporters may feel they have to put before the Parliament. If that is necessary, I say to the Government and its supporters that we will not hesitate to oppose the bill and explain our views to the fullest extent.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

. - in reply - I appreciate the manner in which this bill has been received and I commend to honorable senators for thoughtful consideration the words of Senator Arnold. They are well worthy of consideration. I am happy to acknowledge the words of encouragement that came from Senator Paltridge and thank him publicly for the assistance that he gave when this matter was being considered. He was of great help to the Government in bringing forward this legislation. I am sorry that circumstances do not permit me to offer congratulations to Senator Cooke. I appreciate the predicament in which he found himself. He stands for a party which does not believe in the profit motive, and I do not mean merely a profit of 10 per cent., but a profit motive as such. In a. matter such as this, there should be no room for party political considerations, yet Senator Cooke criticized the Government instead of congratulating it upon doing something that the Labour Government did not even look at during a period of eight years, although on two occasions, while it was in office, in 1944 and 1947, the principal act was amended. No help was given by the Labour Government along the lines that we are discussing. Now Senator Cooke accuses the Government of some ulterior motive. If Senator Cooke had read the evidence that was given before the Tariff Board, he would have noted that the particular organization to which he referred made a profit last year of much less than 5 per cent, even after being given a bounty. It would have been very happy if it could have obtained a profit of anything like 5 per cent, because that would be four or five times the rate of profit that it is making at present even with the bounty. So much for Senator Cooke’s profit motive and so much for his desire to help this institution to make over 10 per cent. Of course it would do so at the public expense. But the matter does not rest there entirely. It can he inferred from Senator Cooke’s remarks that we are proposing to limit the profit to 5 per cent. We are not. The organization may make a profit of 20 per cent, or 30 per cent, if the circumstances are favorable. There is no limitation on its profit. But the Government has declared that, so far as a contribution from Consolidated Revenue is concerned, help from the taxpayers of Australia will cease when the profit on the amount of capital employed in tractor production exceeds 5 per cent. I think that that is a fair proposition, and so far as I know there has been no complaint whatever from the chief beneficiary in the scheme. The only complaint has come from Senator Cooke, who abhors the profit motive–

Senator Cooke:

– A statement that misrepresents me, has been made, and I shall ask for leave to make a personal explanation.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I shall be glad if Senator Cooke will retract, and deny that he abhors the profit motive. He will be out of line with his party, but I am delighted to know that I have made a convert.

The suggestion has been made also that assistance should be given to the Australian tractor manufacturing industry through import duties. That is a very dangerous proposition, and I am happy to say that it has not been supported by any government up to date. The traditional practice in granting protection to Australian industries has been to give some consideration to the proportion of the Australian market that can be supplied by local producers. For instance, in this case, if our optimum production could meet only 20 per cent, of the market, it would be unfair to impose a duty on the other 80 per cent, merely to protect the local industry. That is always an important factor in determining whether protection should be granted by way of bounty or by way of duty. We believe - and the view has been shared by all governments so far - that if an industry to which protection is to be given produces only a comparatively small proportion of the local requirements of a commodity, protection should be given in the form of a bounty rather than by the imposition of import duties. .1. point out, too, that tractors are used mostly for primary production and that, the imposition of an import duty on tractors arriving here from overseaswould, penalize almost all our rural industries and would, in the long run, increasethe price of our primary products at a time when there is a real danger that, we shall cost ourselves not only out of our highly competitive external markets, but also out of our internal markets.

Senator Cooke also mentioned that the bounty is payable on tractors of up to- 55 horse-power. As the Tariff Board has indicated, at the time of its investigation there was no evidence before it of the cost of producing tractors of more than 55 horse-power. I understand that no such tractors are at present produced in Australia. The Tariff Board’s practice- - and I regard it as a highly commendable practice - is not to endeavour toassess the protection that may berequired at some future date. However, when an Australian tractor manufacturer is able to say that he is producing a vehicle in respect of which no bounty is payable, and that his costs are such and such, I shall be happy, as Minister for Trade and Customs - an office that I shall no doubt hold for many years - to submit the matter to the Tariff Board. Obviously it would he most difficult for the ‘ board, in theabsence of specific figures, to determine what measure of protection should be given to a product which is not yet in production. I thank the Senate for thereception it has given to this bill.

Senator Cooke:

– I rise to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented by both Senator Paltridge and the Minister for Trade and Customs(Senator O’sullivan) .Senator Paltridge said I had suggested that import restrictions should be used to protect theAustralian tractor manufacturing industry. What I said was that protection should not be given to the industry either through import restrictions or by means of customs duties until such time as local manufacturers could provide more than 50 per cent, of local requirements and’ that, in the meantime, the payment of a bounty was the best means of affording protection. The Minister for Trade- and Customs claimed that my statement, that certain tractor manufacturers in this country were not satisfied with the present bounty, was not true. He said that all manufacturers were quite satisfied with it. I wish to support my submission by quoting the letter that I have received from the governing director of Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I rise to order. Senator Cooke alleges that I misrepresented him. In order that I may make amends, I should like to know just how I misrepresented him. This is not the proper time for the honorable senator to make another speech on the bill. He is exercising his right to make a personal explanation, and I submit that he must confine himself to an explanation of the manner in which he has been misrepresented. If he can show me that I have misrepresented him, I shall be happy to make amends. If I did so, I did it unwittingly.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Senator Cooke must confine his remarks to his personal explanation.

Senator Cooke:

– The Minister, in effect, denied my claim that the main beneficiary under this legislation was not satisfied with it. He said I had no basis for advancing a case on behalf of Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, because that organization was fully satisfied with the bounty. Quite obviously, if what the Minister said were true, I should have been guilty of dishonesty, and I regard his remarks as a reflection upon my integrity. I have sample evidence to substantiate my case. The Minister, in his endeavour to discredit me, made certain statements which, to his own knowledge, were not true. The governing director of Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, in his letter to me dated the 20th March, said -

Yesterday I received from Senator O’Sullivan a wire reading as follows: -

Have received your telegram 17th. Re tractor bounty. Government has considered matter from all angles but has finally decided five per cent maximum profit clause must remain. - Neil O’Sullivan, which really means, as I mentioned in my previous note to you, that these boys have given us a concession on the one hand and arc making it pretty useless on the other.

I do not need to stress the fact to you that no business can under present conditions, successfully run on a profit margin of 5 per cent. I mean any manufacturing business. This profit margin may be feasible for an indent or commission business where it is a small matter of handling papers, but when it comes to right down manufacture and industry, it is really an impossibility to honestly do this.

I do not know, of course, what is in the minds of the present Government, but I am sure that by their action they are not a bit concerned with the success of any industrial project. It has occurred to me that this particular Bill will come to the Senate for ratification and I would ask you to please do anything you can in the way of referring it back for further consideration with what recommendations you can get from our Western Australian Team, to make this Bill a help in reality.

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to order. Senator Cooke rose to make a personal explanation on. the ground that the Minister for Trade and Customs had misrepresented him. He has offered some evidence that the Minister had misrepresented him, but he is now making a speech and I claim that he is out of order in so doing.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - The point of order is well taken. Senator Cooke has made his personal explanation, and he is not entitled now to make another speech. He may refer only to his claim that he has been misrepresented.

Senator Cooke:

– I am endeavouring to back my claim with some evidence. The letter that I am reading proves conclusively that the Minister for Trade and Customs has, to his own knowledge, misrepresented me.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! The honorable senator will not be in order in introducing fresh matter into the debate.

Senator Cooke:

– I ask that the letter from which I have been quoting be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Apparently I have done Senator Cooke some injustice. I had overlooked the telegram to which he has referred, but I did not intend to suggest that the honorable senator did not himself believe in the submissions that he was making. I did receive representations from Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, and I did send a telegram in reply. I inadvertently overlooked that matter. However, no fuss was made after I had explained why the amount had been limited to 5 per cent. The limit under section 4 has now been completely wiped out. That was the limit on the amount that the Treasurer was obliged to meet.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1540

DEATHOF HER MAJESTY QUEEN MARY

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator George Rankin). - I have received the following message from the GovernorGeneral : -

Government House. Canberra. 26th March, 1953

Sir,

By direction of the Governor-General, who is at present in Sydney, I have the honour to refer to your despatch of 25th March, 1953, transmitting an Address of Condolence to Her Majesty The Queen. I am now to convey to you the following reply which His Excellency has received from Her Majesty: -

I sincerely thank the members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia for the kind terms of the message of sympathy which they have sent me on the death of Queen Mary. (Signed) Elizabeth R.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your most obedient servant (signed) M. L. Tyrrell

Official Secretary and Comptroller to the Gover nor-General .

The Honorable the President of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra.

page 1540

FLAX INDUSTRY BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 19th March, (vide page 1316), on motion by Senator

McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The purpose of this bill is to provide for the establishment of a flax commission and for matters incidental thereto. Most people are aware that flax production in this country is not adequate to meet our needs. It is also recognized that flax is an essential commodity, not only in time of peace, but also, and primarily, in time of war. As the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) said in his second-reading speech, flax is used for aeroplane fabric, parachute harness, hangar canvas, gun and boat covers, fire hose, tents and other camping equipment, yarns and twines for cordage, and all linen sewing thread for boots and uniforms for the services, and no effective substitute for flax has yet been found. “With those statements one must wholeheartedly agree. The Opposition supports this measure, which will establish a flax commission of five members to control the flax industry at the production stage. The commission will have very wide powers. It will ensure that there will be an adequate supply of flax in this country and that the process of converting the fibre into a. material that can be used in the finished product will he performed efficiently. According to the Minister the Government does not intend that the commission should engage in the fabrication of materials or twine. Private enterprise in Australia has not found flax production sufficiently attractive. The Government, quite rightly, having regard to the social good, has entered a field that is not adequately covered by private enterprise. The Government has indicated that it does not propose that the commission should function for longer than is necessary to stimulate production to a point at which it would be adequate for our needs. The Opposition concedes that this industry has a defence aspect. This fact demonstrates how wide the defence power may be even in peace-time. I suppose that the entry of the Government into this field of production can be justified only on the ground that it is a part of defence preparations. Now that industrial capacity is probably the sine qua non of war operations we might say that almost every industry has a defence aspect. It is well to notice the new width and breadth that has been given to the defence power. When the defence preparations legislation was under consideration in the High

Court, the court increased the width of the defence power appreciably by upholding capital issues regulations in peacetime. The court made comments which indicated that the defence power in peacetime had a wider application than had previously been thought.

In determining the personnel of a commission such as this, some regard should he paid to the representation of producers, workers and manufacturers. These three elements comprise the force that is engaged in producing and using flax. The Minister did not give any indication of the likely composition of the commission. I invite him to tell the Senate whether the Government intends to have representatives of producers, workers and manufacturers on the commission. I recommend that such representatives should be appointed. In effect, the members of the commission will constitute directors of this important undertaking. Here is a perfect opportunity for the Government to achieve co-operation between employer and employee and give those who are engaged in every aspect of the industry an opportunity to know the problems of the other sections. This is a new venture, completely socialistic, on the part of the Government, acting for the nation.

I should like the Minister also to indicate the financial results of the operations of the Flax Production Committee. The proposed commission will merely supplant that body and I should like the Minister to say something about its position and the results that it has achieved. I should also like him to inform the Senate whether the commissioners will be engaged full-time or only part-time in the work of the commission.

Sub-clause (3.) of clause 14 of the bill reads -

The exercise of a power by the Commission is subject to the directions, if any, of the Minister.. 1 am glad that the Government has recognized the need for ministerial control, but I should like to know how the Minister will become aware of the decisions of the commission. What machinery will be provided, for instance, whereby the commission will advise the Minister of its determinations ? It will be far too late for a Minister to intervene when some particular action of the committee which he does not favour has been consummated and completed. Ho could then only shut the door after the horse had bolted. I invite the Minister to indicate what machinery will be set up in order to enable the responsible Minister to acquire knowledge of the commission’s activities week by week.

Paragraph (d) of sub-clause (2.) of clause 14 of the bill empowers the commission to purchase or otherwise acquire land. If land can be acquired otherwise than by purchase it can be acquired compulsorily. I ask the Minister to comment on that position. There is power in the bill to “ purchase or otherwise acquire “ land.

Senator Spicer:

– It can be leased.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is an alternative to purchase. There is also the alternative of compulsory acquisition.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Surely the Leader of the Opposition does not suggest that clause 14 will confer the right of compulsory acquisition?

Senator McKENNA:

– I do suggest that. The words “ otherwise acquire “ will not limit the commission to leasing land.

Senator Spicer:

– Labour governments have used those words many times in their legislation.

Senator McKENNA:

– I merely invite attention to the possibilities. ‘ Clause 12 provides that the commission may delegate to a person all or any of its powers under the act. If there is virtue in the argument that the power contained in paragraph (d) of sub-clause (2.) of clause .14 will enable the commission to acquire land compulsorily - and I say that there is virtue in it - that power, coupled with the power of delegation, may enable some relatively junior official to exercise substantial authority. As I have already said, the absence of machinery to inform the Minister of the activities of the board is also dangerous. An acquisition of land to which the Minister would not have assented might be completed before ho was aware of the fact. I should like to hear the Minister’s comment on that submission.

The final clause of the bill contrasts with- what the Government has provided in another measure. This clause contains power to make regulations and prescribe penalties not exceeding a fine of £50 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, or both, for offences against the regulations. The Opposition takes no exception to that power because the ambit of the penalties will have been predetermined in an act of Parliament. But the fact that the Government has taken this very proper course highlights how wrong its attitude was in relation to its television legislation which permitted regulations to be made conferring power to impose penalties to an unlimited extent. That was completely wrong in principle. The Opposition recognizes the need for govern^ ment intervention in this matter in the national interest and supports the measure in principle, subject to the comments that I have made.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has seen fit to support this measure. In the interests of defence it is essential that the Government should do all that it can to promote the growing of flax. The object of this bill is to establish a flax commission in order to promote the growing of flax in those areas of Australia which are suitable for its growth. The commission will have power to purchase and acquire land and to enter into contracts with growers for the purchase of flax. When the flax has been grown the commission will take delivery of it at a prescribed price, treat it, and pass it on to manufacturers in the form of fibre. The Leader of the Opposition stated that the bill provided for socialism in the extreme, but it will socialize only a part of the industry. It is probable that only 20 per cent, of the handling necessary to produce the finished article will be undertaken by the commission. The Government is to be congratulated on its proposal to establish a commission to take over the duties of the Flax Production Committee. Under this bill the commissioner will have much more scope than the Flax Production Committee had. If the committee wished to undertake any project such as the building of a mill it had to arrange with the Department of Works for its construction. The commission will be able to enter into negotiations with private contractors for the erection of suitable buildings. It will consist of five members, including a chairman and a deputy chairman. Its establishment will ensure that the best advice shall be available to the flax-growing industry. No doubt the growers, the manufacturers, and the workers will appoint their representatives to place their views before the commission. By this means it is hoped that just and fair treatment will be accorded to the industry. If there were a separate growers’ organization, it would probably be found that their representatives would attend before the commission with the sole idea of obtaining an increase of the price of flax, while the manufacturers’ representative would strive to keep down the price of that commodity, and, consequently, the independent chairman would be virtually a one-man committee. The commission will have power to enter into contracts and arrangements with persons for the growing of flax plants, to purchase or otherwise acquire flax, and to do other things in connexion with the flax industry. The existing Flax Production Committee has entered into contracts with the growers to purchase their straw this year, and those contracts will be continued by the commission. Therefore, the growers will receive adequate payment for the flax straw that they are growing this year.

The flax-growing industry in Australia has a very remarkable record. Prior to 1935 this country did not export flax fibre. In that year the proprietors of two spinning mills distributed research data in order to encourage flax-growing. In 1936 there was only 200 acres -planted under contract to the flax spinners, but by 1939, the area sown to flax had increased to 2,000 acres. At the outbreak of war England was importing about 70,000 tons of flax a year from Russia. Belgium, Holland and France. Towards the end of 1939 the British Government requested the Australian Government to undertake the planting of 8,000 acres to flax in the following year. We had on hand sufficient flax seed’ to comply with that request, and in 1940 the British Government sent to us 400 tons of seed, sufficient to plant an additional 13,000 acres. In all, Australia was expected to plant 21,000 acres in 1940. Owing to the late arrival of the seed, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia were asked to do all they could to plant in August, in order that the best results might he obtained.

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

– -In what kind of country does flax grow best?

Senator SCOTT:

– It thrives in the southern areas which have a rainfall of from 25 inches to 26 inches a year. In order to produce the best kind of fibre, it requires rain right up to the ripening time. As the Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech, considerable quantities of flax fibre are used in connexion with defence materials, such as aeroplane fabric, parachute harness, hangar canvas, gun and boat covers, fire hose, tents and other camping equipment, yarns and twines for cordage and sewing thread for boots and uniforms for members of the services.

In 1941, when contracts were first entered into, the Flax Production “Committee paid £5 15s. a ton for standard flax straw. In addition, it paid bonuses of 10s. a ton for good length straw; 10s. for good harvesting; and another 5s. a. ton if the straw was free from weeds. The committee deducted 5s. a ton if the straw was less than 27 inches long, and a further 5s. a ton for bad harvesting. A deduction was also made in respect of crop containing more than 5 per cent, of weeds. The cost of cartage for distances exceeding 20 miles was borne by the committee. An appeal was made to the farmers to plant 50,000 acres in 1940, and by 1943 there were 63,000 acres planted to flax. In this year the commission will pay £16 10s. a ton for standard flax, and a further £2 15s. a ton may be paid in bonuses. It will make deductions of 15s. a ton for bad harvesting, and £1 a ton if the straw is not free from weeds. The minimum price payable will be £16 10s. a ton for standard straw.

When planted in good soil, flax seed will yield up to 3 tons an acre. The average yield throughout Australia is 26 cwt. an acre. By the application of proper farming methods, in good seasons a yield of 2 tons an acre is easily attainable. When flax-growing in this country was commenced during the early years of the war period the growers suffered many headaches. Flax requires wellworked soil. The principal pest in the industry is the red mite, which eats the plants as soon as the seed has germinated. The bed should be properly prepared, and the weeds killed before the seed is planted. In Western Australia- considerable damage has been caused by the luper caterpillar, which attacks the seed ball when the flax is almost ready to harvest. As a result of the activities of this pest, only relatively small quantities of seed have been harvested from some areas. Considerable time and energy has been devoted to the development of a rustresistant flax. It was found in the early days of the industry in this country that when the crop was almost ready for harvesting, after heavy rain, rust would appear, and the stalk would fracture at the rust points. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and the Departments of Agriculture in the States devoted a good deal of research to this problem. In 1943 the Western Australian Department of Agriculture developed a variety of flax that was almost immune from rust. Since then, other varieties of rustresistant flax have been cultivated, and the maximum yield of fibre has been increased.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Does rust affect the fibre?

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes, it settles on the straw. A crop almost free from rust has been known to develop up to 30 per cent, of rust on the fibre. During the war period severe penalties were imposed on fanners who neglected to treat rust in their crops. Wherever rust settles on the straw it makes a pit mark, and there is then a tendency for the straw te fracture at that point. Long fibre, free of breaks, is most valuable for the purposes I have mentioned.

Australia made a very good war effort in flax-growing. During the war period this country produced 15,000 tons of flax.

Of that quantity 9,500 tons, valued at £2,000,000, was supplied to the United Kingdom. The remainder was retained in this country to meet our war needs. The Australian supplies of flax were most valuable to the United Kingdom, because that country was unable to obtain supplies from its former sources in Europe. A splendid effort in connexion with the production of flax in Australia was made by both Liberal and Labour administrations. The total value of the yield during the war period was about £4,000,000. The Flax Production Committee conducted conferences with research workers in Melbourne twice a year, when plans for the further development of the industry were agreed upon. Great credit is due to Mr. Stevenson, the chairman of the committee, for his valuable work on behalf of the industry. I think that the splendid results that have been attained have been due, in a large measure, to his efforts. At committee conferences the growers announced their requirements, and the unions expressed their views. There has been no major industrial trouble in the flax-growing industry in this country. I trust that with the co-operation of the workers and growers we shall be able to continue to grow flax under the harmonious conditions that existed in the industry during the recent war. Originally, two flax mills were established in Western Australia but, after the war ended, only one of them was retained. That is the mill at Boyup Brook which is probably the most modern mill in Australia, if not in the world. The mill, at first, used the method of dew retting but has now adopted tank retting which is claimed to be the most economical and the best method of handling the fibre. The mill is situated in an area that is suitable for the growing of flax. Although, since the recent Avar ended, difficulty has been experienced in establishing flax growing in other parts of Australia, the industry is flourishing in that area where growers have been able to maintain an average acreage of 3,000 acres. The mill at Boyup Brook is the only mill that the Government has been able to sell. Honorable senators will recall that both the Chifley Government and this Government endeavoured to sell mills and plant belonging to the Flax

Production Committee, but owing to the low price of fibre immediately after the Avar those efforts did not succeed. The Western Australian Government decided to huy the mill at Boyup Brook, and it has since sold it on terms to a co-operative organization consisting of growers in the district. Those growers are doing their best to produce as great a quantity of flax as they possibly can. They realize that it is better to have their eggs, not in one basket, but in many baskets. One reason i’h Y flax-growing has declined since the recent Avar is the high prices that have been received for wool. When one realizes that wool prices rose by as much as 200d. per lb., and that wool can be grown more easily than flax, the decline in flax-growing is not a matter for wonderment. Another reason for that decline is that highly skilled labour is required in the industry. The fibre has to be harvested at a certain stage and then stooked and handled very carefully. Immediately after the war adequate labour was not available, but during the war the Flax Production Committee made labour available to the growers who were enabled to obtain assistance from members of the Women’s Land Army and persons who were unfit for service in the armed forces. The growers in Western Australia have done a marvellous job both during and since the Avar. They are eager to make the most of their opportunity to establish and develop this 11mv industry. I am confident that so long as prices are satisfactory, the growers in Western Australia Will continue in the industry. The Chairman of the Flax Production Committee, Mr. Stevenson, when calling meetings of growers throughout Australia, has always advised the manager of the mill a t Boyup Brook who has attended such conferences. That fact is indicative of harmonious relations that exist in the industry.

The Leader of the Opposition raised a question with respect to the powers that are to be conferred upon the Minister over the Flax Commission. Sub-clause (4.) of clause 2S reads -

The Commission shall furnish to the Minister such other reports, and such documents and information, relating to the operations of thu Commission as the Minister requires.

That means that the Minister can obtain any information from the commission which he may require. .He will thus he enabled to guide the policy of the coinmission. 1 think that that was the iiia in point that the Leader of the Opposition raised. I could speak at much greater length on this subject. I was a keen grower of flax during the war and attended, as a representative of the Western Australian growers, several conferences in Melbourne of representatives of the growers. As I was unfit for war service, I was proud to be able to make my little contribution to the war effort by producing flax. The Government is to bc congratulated upon its efforts to keep the industry going because it is essential to our defence and also to our economy.

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

– in reply - t congratulate Senator Scott on the contribution that he has made to this debute. All honorable senators. T am sure, recognize him as an expert who has had practical experience in the industry. I shall endeavour, briefly, to answer several questions that have been raised in the course of this debate. I inform the Leader of the Opposition (.Senator McKenna) that the proposed Flax Commission will be modelled somewhat on the lines of the Whaling Commission. I think that the Minister desires to keep the number of commissioners as low as possible. It would be difficult to enable all sections of the industry to be represented on that body. In any event, purely sectional representation sometimes tend to delay proceedings. However, so far as I am aware, the Minister has not yet finally decided upon the personnel of the proposed commission. I shall direct his attention to the points that the Leader of the Opposition made.

The Government will keep in touch with the industry in various ways, some of which Senator Scott has indicated. A high-ranking officer of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture will be directly associated with the Flax Commission and. I presume that he will be appointed as a member of that body. I was pleased to hear the reference that Senator Scott made to the work that has been done by the chairman of the Flax Production Committee, Mr. J. A. Stevenson. During the recent war the Australian Government received an S.O.S. from the British Government to start off from scratch and produce flax as a contribution to the Allies’ war effort. The British Government agreed to co-operate in the venture and to share any losses that might be incurred. The establishment of the industry under such conditions was no mean achievement, and the part that Mr. Stevenson played in that work was outstanding. The profits that were made in the early stages were not impressive. Having regard to the figures that the Leader of the Opposition cited, I point out that receipts and expenditure of the Flax Production Committee during the four years up to February last were as follows :- 1949-50, receipts £279,000, expenditure £370,000; 3950-51, £43^,000 and £341,000; 1951.-52, £490,000 and £424,000; and up to the 28th February last, £33’2,000 and £318,000, respectively. Those figures are gratifying having regard to the difficulties that were experienced in the early stages. Obviously, the proposed Flax Commission will endeavour to enable the industry to produce sufficient flax to meet not only Australia’s requirements, but also requirements elsewhere. The Leader of the Opposition also asked whether members of the proposed commission would be appointed on a full-time or a part-time basis. I understand that the chairman will be appointed full-time and that the other members will be appointed part-time, but I do not think that the Minister has made a final decision on that point.

The Leader of the Opposition asked for information with respect to the powers of acquisition of the proposed commission. This matter was raised also in the House of Representatives, and being a layman and, therefore, fearful of giving an opinion on a matter on which lawyers have expressed different opinions, I took the opportunity to fortify myself by obtaining the opinion on it of a highranking officer for whom I know that the Leader of the Opposition has the greatest respect. On the question of whether paragraphs (b) to (/) of subclause (2.) of clause 14 confers powers of compulsory acquisition on the proposed commission, that officer has supplied the following opinion: -

It is a well-known rule of interpretation that a statute should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect the rights of persons. A statute will not be construed as conferring a power to acquire property compulsorily unless the power is expressly conferred or arises by strong inference. Such an inference arises where the statute provides for compensation.

Clause 14 of the bill neither expressly confers a power of compulsory acquisition nor provides for compensation. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Commission can be regarded as having powers under the clause to acquire property compulsorily.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

SenatorLAUGHT (South Australia) [4.44]. - I thoroughly approve of the provision to empower the Flax Commission to open and maintain an account with the Commonwealth Bank and also with any other bank that may be prescribed. I refer to paragraph (c) of clause 27, which deals with the profits of the commission. It is proposed that the Treasurer shall have power to dispose of the profits after the receipt of a recommendation by the Minister. I invite the attention of the Minister to one or two matters in connexion with the flax industry as I have observed it. The south-eastern portion of South Australia, where I live, will perhaps be one of the foremost flax-producing areas of the Commonwealth. The outgoing Flax Production Committee is about to erect a most up-to-date mill for the treatment of flax. I suggest to the Minister that he should always bear in mind that if any profit is made by the commission there is considerable scope for research in connexion with flax-growing and its treatment. The industry is one of the most precarious of our primary industries, because it is subject to attacks by rust, caterpillars and red mite. The profits of the commission should be devoted to research with a view to eradicating such pests and not be paid willy-nilly into ConsolidatedRevenue.

I also invite the attention of the Minister to the necessity for this com mission to report promptly to the Parliament. Too often, reports are made to the Parliament too late. Frequently in the months of April and May we receive reports which refer to the year which ended on the preceding 30th June. That is not good enough. I impress upon the Minister the necessity for the commission to be prompt in its reporting so that this Parliament, soon after the end of the financial year, may consider its report. In that connexion, I also mention again the printing of reports. It is customary for reports to remain for many months in the hands of people other than members of the Parliament. Sometimes it is almost a year before reports of bodies, over which the Parliament has jurisdiction, come into the hands of members of the Parliament. The last report of the Auditor-General, which was in the hands of honorable members within a week of its issue, was a refreshing example of what can be done.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1546

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page . 1515).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is a measure which the Opposition thinks is right and proper. It acknowledges the fact that due regard should be had to conscientious objections, and it also concedes the principle that a right of appeal from the determination of the court of first instance should be given. The Opposition supports that principle and, accordingly, supports the measure. Honorable senators on this side recognize, from the figures that have been given by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer), that not very many people are affected by the measure, but that does not alter the fact that their objections should be considered. Their fate should not depend entirely upon the determination of a police or stipendiary magistrate.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– In common with many other Australians, I am very thankful for small mercies. Whilst I say “ Thank you “ to the Government for introducing this measure, whether from natural “ cantankerousness “ or not, I do not know, I nevertheless say that the hill does not go far enough for my liking. This bill will not permit a right of appeal to conscientious objectors whose cases have already been heard and who have accepted orders made by magistrates. The regulations framed by the previous Labour Government permitted such appeals. A conscientious objector who accepts the decision of a magistrate and undertakes military service, does so not exactly as a result of compulsion but because of the fact that all his life he has been taught to obey the law. Very few conscientious objectors know anything about their right of appeal. A short while ago the Attorney-General gave us the benefit of a solicitor’s opinion. I point out that although solicitors drafted this bill, it nevertheless requires a great deal of mental effort to appreciate how it confers a right of appeal. If that is so, how can lads of eighteen years of age be expected to know their rights under the national service training scheme? I suggest that they accept service, in many cases, because they wish to obey the law. If, after accepting the order of a magistrate and serving in the forces, a conscientious objector subsequently finds that he has a right of appeal he still may not appeal because he has accepted the obligation to serve. I suggest that it is still possible for the Government - not perhaps in this bill, but in the near future - to extend that right of appeal in such cases. I ask the Minister, in all humility, to take this matter into consideration in the future and to bring it to the notice of the Minister for National Service (Mr. Holt), with the object of extending the right of appeal at least in the way in which it applied prior to the 1951 legislation being enacted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

.- Clause 3 of the bill reads as follows : -

After section twenty-nine of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “ 29C. - (1.) In this section, ‘court of review ‘ means a District Court, County Court or Local Court of Full Jurisdiction in the State or Territory of the Commonwealth in which the person in relation to whom the question arises resides or, if there is no such court, the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which that person resides.

I move -

That in sub-section (1.) of proposed section 29C the words “ County Court or Local Court of Full Jurisdiction”, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “or County Court”.

This is purely a technical matter. Under the bill, as it stands, a review of the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction in South Australia would be to a local court of full jurisdiction. It has been pointed out that this could result in one special magistrate reviewing a decision of another special magistrate, which seems undesirable. The effect of the amendment will be that in South Australia, as in other States where there are no district or county courts, the review will be by a Supreme Court judge.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1547

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan)readfirsttime.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to validate, until the 5th December, 1953, the collections of customs duties made under Customs Tariff Proposals No. 7 and

Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals No. 2, which were introduced into Parliament on the 5th March, 1953. The limited time available since the proposals were introduced and the anticipated ending of the present sitting has precluded the possibility of bringing down the customary bills for the enactment of the proposals. Consequently it is desirable to validate duty collections pending the introduction of the enabling bills.

Honorable senators will appreciate that this is purely a machinery measure. An opportunity for a. full debate on the proposed tariff amendments will be presented as early as practicable.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition offers no objection to the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1548

DEFENCE BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan)readafirsttime.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill to amend the Defence Act to empower the War Graves Commission to deal with the burial of ex-servicemen who die as the result of war service and to erect headstones when deemed necessary. Under regulation 31 of the Defence Force Regulations made under the Defence Act, the Secretary-General of the Anzac Agency of the Imperial War Graves Commission is authorized to establish cemeteries and, amongst other things, to arrange for the erection of headstones and the covering of graves. A legal ruling has been given that regulation 31 does not authorize any action with regard to the bodies of members of the Defence Force who die otherwise than on service. The graves of exservicemen whose deaths occur subsequent to discharge but which are accepted as the result of war service, qualify for treatment as war graves. In view of the legal ruling referred to, the Imperial War Graves Commission cannot, in certain circumstances, proceed with the erection of headstones and the covering of graves as required by the Government. It is not possible, however, to change the terms of regulation 31 without a prior amendment of the section of the Defence Act enabling the making of regulations, namely, section 124. This bill proposes the insertion of a new paragraph in sub-section (1.) of section 124 which will empower the making of regulations covering the maintenance of, and other work in connexion with, the graves of members of the Defence Force who have died while on service or as a result of service. It is a simple measure which, I trust, will have a speedy passage through this Parliament.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition offers no objection to the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1548

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1953-54

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Spooner) pro posed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1548

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 1) 1953-54

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

. - I move -

That the bill benow read a second time.

This measure seeks to appropriate an amount of £32,277,000 to enable Commonwealth works in progress at the 30th June, 1953, to be continued pending the passing of the 1953-54 Budget by the Parliament! Programmes for capitalworks are in operation in the major Commonwealth departments including departments such as Works, Postmaster-General’s and Civil Aviation. Toenable these programmes to be continued satisfactorily, funds must be available without interruption for the purchase of materials in advance and also to ensure continuous employment on themany projects. The hill provides therefore for four months’ expenditure on works bused approximately on the expenditure programme of £100,003,000 appropriated in the capital works Estimates 1952-53. In accordance with the usual practice in submitting a Supply Bill, no provision has been made for any new service.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mc Ken n a )adjourned .

page 1549

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1952-53

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by SenatorSpooner)proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

. - I have to inform the Senate that the Opposition will not exercise its right to debate this measure at this stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
QueenslandMinister for National Development · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read asecond time.

It has been found necessary during the current financial year, as in other years, to appropriate expenditures which could not be foreseen at the time of the budget and for which, therefore, no provision was made in the Estimates. Again, expenditure on certain other items appears likely to exceed budget estimates because of higher wages, salaries and other costs. The purpose of this bill and the associated Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill is to seek Parliamentary approval for these expenditures. The additional appropriations covered by these two bills total £39,000,000. This of course does not necessarily imply that total expenditure for the year will exceed the budget estimate by that amount for it is the usual experience that while estimates are exceeded in some items, savings are made in others. In any case, at this time of the year it is not possible to say with any precision how total revenue and expenditure for the year are going to work out. The items for which appropriations are sought will, if necessary, be explained in detail at the committee stage. I shall refer here only to the major items.

One of these relates to provision for the maintenance of our army units in Korea. Under arrangements made with the other Commonwealth countries which have land forces engaged in that campaign, expenditure on supplies and services by each government is debited to a Korean operations pool account and an allocation of expenditure is made on an agreed basis. Some provision for this was made in the budget, but Australia’s share of expenditure on the pool has proved to be considerably greater than was originally anticipated, and it is necessary to provide an additional £6,000,000 to meet claims which are already on hand. Furthermore, claims against the pool are considerably in arrears and may well represent a substantial liability on our part. To cover this liability up to the 30th June of this year, it is deemed advisable to provide a further £10,000,000 in the form of a Korean operations pool reserve. Meanwhile, Australia will continue to make payments on behalf of other countries participating in Korea. These will include payments on account ofseaand air operations which do not come within the pool arrangements, as well as land operations, which do. Although this expenditure will later be recoverable, provision must be made for it now, and an amount of £6,000,000 is therefore included in the bill for this purpose under the heading of “ Other administrations “. An amount of £2,000,000 is provided for the stockpiling ofcoal, and £1,000,000 for additional share capital for Qantas Empire Airways Limited. Appropriation of £7,000,000 is sought for repayment of war savings certificates which are expected to be presented for payment in the current financial year.

Apart from those major items, it has already ‘been mentioned that most departments and authorities have experienced a rise of wage and salary costs above budget estimates, and some provision is necessary on this account. With greater stability in economic conditions, it is to be expected that, from now on, rising costs andprices will no longer operate to swell public expenditures to anything like the same degree as in recent years. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1550

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1952-53

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In my second-reading speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1952-53, which provides for ordinary services, I indicated that it was necessary to seek an additional appropriation for capital works and services. This hill will make that appropriation.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1550

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1951-52

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Spooner) proposed -

Thatthe bill be now read a first time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I merely wish to record the fact that the Opposition will not exercise its right to debate this motion. I do that to preserve the traditional right of the Senate to debate the first reading of appropriation bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill he now read a second time.

This bill provides for a supplementary appropriation of £5,915,668 to cover additional expenditure on certain services during the 1951-52 financial year. The amounts, as detailed, were expended out of a general appropriation of £15,000,000 made available to the Treasurer to meet expenditure which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared. It isnow necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation to cover the several items of excess expenditure. Full details of the expenditure for 1951-52, for which approval is now sought, are set out in the Estimates and budget papers for 1952-53. The Estimates papers show the amount voted for 1952-53 together with the amount voted and the actual expenditure for the previous year which is included for information purposes. Details of the items concerned are also included in the Treasurer’s finance statement for 1951-52 which was tabled during the last sessional period for the information of honorable senators. The Supplementary Estimates detail the items under which the additional amounts were expended by the various departments. Expenditure under the various parts of the Estimates is as follows : -

Any further details of the various items of expenditure will be available at a later stage. Honorable senators will be aware that the first report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts which deals with these Supplementary Estimates was recently presented to the Parliament. The matters raised by the committee are being examined and will receive appropriate attention.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1551

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL1 951-52

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The total appropriation approved by the Parliament for capital works and services under this heading during 1951-52 amounted to £115,408,000. The actual expenditure was £109,179,000, or £6,229,000 less than the appropriation. Due, however, to requirements which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared, certain items show an increase over the individual amounts appropriated, and it is now necessary to obtain parliamentary approval to these increases. The excess expenditure on the particular items totals £3,41 2,455, which is spread over the various works items of the departments, as set out in the schedule to the bill. Any details of the various items which may be required by honorable senators will be available at a later stage.

Debate (on motion by Senator mckenna ) adjourned.

page 1551

LOAN (TEMPORARY REVENUE DEFICITS) BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this measure is to provide legislative cover for temporary deficits which occur from time to time in the Consolidated Revenue Fund during the course of a financial year. Honorable senators will appreciate that while expenditure is fairly constant throughout a financial your, the greater part of income tax collections which constitute a substantial proportion of Commonwealth revenue, is received in the closing months of the financial year. Consequently, there are periods during the year when the Consolidated Revenue Fund is substantially in debit. The need to make special legislative provision for these temporary deficits is of recent origin. During the war, and during the immediate post-war periods any excess of expenditure over receipts was met from a war loan appropriation. The necessary moneys to cover the excess expenditure are provided in the loan fund by the temporary investment of surplus trust fund moneys in Commonwealth Government treasury-bills and, to the extent that these moneys fall short of requirements, by the discounting of treasury-bills with the Commonwealth Bank. Both classes of treasury-bills are redeemed later in the year as revenue becomes available. The bill now before the Senate provides statutory authority for the temporary expenditure from the loan fund for Consolidated Revenue Fund purposes and also for the issue of such treasury-bills as may be required to provide the funds necessary to cover a temporary revenue deficit after any cash balance that may be available in the loan fund is first utilized. As I mentioned before, treasury-bills issued in accordance with the bill will be redeemed before the end of the financial year. The provisions of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act will not therefore apply. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator MoKenna) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5£2 to 8 p.m.

page 1552

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1953-54

First Beading.

Debate resumed (vide page 1548).

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– During the last financial year the expenditure of the Government has ranged over a tremendous field. Its expenses have become very high because of the inflationary trend, which it has made no attempt to stem. The longrange plan, which it announced some time ago, has brought about a state of unemployment, which does not represent the fulfilment of the promises that it made prior to its election. Because of the Government’s failure to fulfil its promise to put value back into the fi, the currency is steadily becoming worthless. According to figures that were announced to-day, the fi lost 50 per cent, of its value between 1939 and 1949. In other words, in 1949, the fi would only buy what 10s. would have bought in 1939. Since 1949, the value of the currency has been dropping more rapidly and fi will now only buy what 5s. Id. would have bought in 1939. In view of these facts, it is evident that the promises that are made by the opponents of the Australian Labour party are made irresponsibly and without any intention, to fulfil them. Economists have observed that after every war there is a period of stress and tension, which brings about an inflationary process. The process which came into operation after the last war was accelerated from 1949 onwards by the inaction of the Government and its ‘ failure to implement its promises.

Prior to the election, the Government parties announced that they would reduce taxation. Instead of reducing taxation, they increased it in their first year of office. Tn 1951 the Government increased income tax rates by 10 per cent, and raised certain other taxes. Certain individuals such as the wool-growers, had to pay addi tional taxation. Last year the Government claimed that it was fulfilling its policy of reducing taxation by removing the 10 per cent, increase in taxation, which it had imposed the year before. At present the Government collects 28 per cent, of the national income in taxation. It now claims to have the economic situation well in hand, but people throughout the country are complaining about the excessive rate of taxation. Thousands of people are now unable to buy certain goods because of the huge increase in sales tax and income tax. Although the Government has increased the rate of tax on individual items, it will not receive as much revenue by way of sales tax as it received previously because the volume of sales has been reduced. “Whatever action the Government takes, it has to take further action in order to get rid of the chaos that has been caused by its previous action. Because a Senate election will be held shortly, it has been inferred in the newspapers .that some taxes will be reduced - probably income tax. Yet the Government proposes to introduce a new health scheme. Who will pay for that? Some one will have to pay taxes in order to meet its cost. Naturally the Government wishes the people to think that it will keep its promises on this occasion. Not only has the Government failed to carry out its promises, but it has not been manly enough to admit that it could not give effect to them. It hopes to bluff the people into thinking that it can still fulfil them.

Honorable senators opposite have said that if the Australian Labour party were returned to office it would use treasurybills to finance the expenses of government and thereby increase inflation. Those honorable senators overlooked the fact that it was a Labour government that made provision for the establishment of special accounts in the Commonwealth Bank for the purpose of preventing inflation, and that the Labour Government used treasury-bills in a way that would stabilize the economy. Honorable senators opposite have said that they do not believe in using treasury-bills, but the Government proposes to issue £150,000,000 worth of treasury-bills this year. The Government might claim that it will redeem those hills within twelve months. It will not redeem them.

Senator Kendall:

– A similar volume of bills is issued every year by every government, regardless of its politics.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I admit that.

Senator Kendall:

– Then what is the honorable senator talking about?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I am criticizing ‘ honorable senators opposite for condemning the use of treasury-bills by a Labour government although they are used by the present Government, which has claimed that it will redeem them out of revenue. It will not do anything of the kind. It will redeem them with loan moneys as it has redeemed such bills in the past.

As I have said, the press has drawn inferences from what has been said at party meetings that the Government will reduce taxation, but no responsible Minister has announced that that is the Government’s intention. If the Government is in a position to reduce taxation why has it not already introduced a bill to provide for such a reduction? When the next reduction in taxation takes place the present. Government will be out of office. Government senators have contended that the Labour Government instituted a policy of over-full employment. They promised that they would maintain full employment. But the Government has not maintained full employment. A state of full employment does not exist at present. A number of unemployed people have been temporarily absorbed as casual labour in certain harvesting operations. Within a month almost all of those people will again be looking for jobs, because they are engaged only on seasonal work. The number of persons who were in regular employment a few years ago but who are not now in such employment, is gradually increasing. All that Ministers will say is that there are so many recipients of the unemployment benefit, and one experiences difficulty in ascertaining from the official statistics that are issued each month the number of persons who are not now engaged in permanent work. Ministers have even declined to inform the Senate of the weekly figures of unemployment in each State. Occasionally there are reports in the press about the number of unemployed persons at various centres, but the official monthly statistics merely show an average number of unemployed persons. I firmly believe that more than 100,000 workers are unemployed in this country at present. They have been thrown out of work as the result of the Government’s policy of restricting credit, and no other jobs are available to them. Many important developmental projects have been closed down, and the people of this country are fearful of the future. Many manufacturers have dismissed large numbers of their employees because there is only a limited market for their goods and they are apprehensive of the future. As the average man in the street wonders what the Government will do next, he has refrained from purchasing articles that he would normally buy, and now purchases only essential requirements.

In 1951 the Government retrenched 10,000 public servants, and many industries followed suit with the result that the people of this country now have no confidence in the Government. Practically every published balance-sheet reveals a state of uneasiness in industry. Although the Government is doing its best, according to its lights, the fact remains that value has not been restored to the fi, and taxation has not been reduced. The Government has completely disorganized the economy of this country. It has gone to great lengths to encourage private enterprise, at the expense of the community. It has sold the people’s assets at far. less than their value, and in some instances has even financed the transactions. It is noteworthy that only the concerns that were paying their way have been sold. In all candour, I make it clear that I shall do all in my power to prevent the Government parties from retaining a majority in this chamber at the forthcoming Senate election, and I am convinced that Labour will gain power in the House of Representatives at the nextgeneral election.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I am conscious of the fact that this may be the last occasion on which

I shall be privileged to participate in a debate in this chamber in which it is permissible for an honorable senator to refer to a wide variety of subjects. I know that I shall probably attract criticism by the socialists on the other side when I say that, as a supporter of the Liberal party, I believe that this National Parliament should try to free the people from controls, instea”d of further regulating them. While not wishing to pose as an idealist, I should like to see the Parliament in the very near future repeal some of the existing laws, instead of making new ones. In my opinion, many controls and regulations could be dispensed with. For the life of me I cannot see why we should compel every person over the age of 21 years to vote in elections for the National Parliament. If a person does not wish to record a vote, why should he be compelled to do so? I urge the Parliament to consider very carefully whether or not the retention of compulsory voting i3 desirable. I consider that members of the Parliament should be elected on the votes of people, freely given and at their own discretion.

The activities of all departments should be scrutinized to see whether any regulations are redundant, and whether unnecessary forms could be dispensed with. Why should every small business man who receives a parcel by air be required to fill in a government form showing the date and value of the commodity that he has received? This is a most irksome procedure. If the Government considers that that information should be available, why could not the airline company submit the necessary information to the department? The present practice in relation to the filling in of government forms - usually in triplicate - adds greatly to the costs of industry.

I am very pleased with the defence policy of this Government, which is more solid than was the defence policy of the previous Labour Government. Soon after this Government was elected to office in 1949 it set about the rehabilitation of our defence services. As a privileged guest at the Royal Military College at Duntroon yesterday, I was very pleased to see the efficient organization that exists for the training of our young men for leadership in the Army. Honorable sena- tors will be pleased to hear that the college has had one of its biggest intakes of cadets this year. I congratulate the Government on its splendid defence policy. As a relatively new member of the Senate, I wish to make a suggestion to add to the strength of our defence services. I understand that a restriction has been imposed on the number of technicians that may be employed by the Postal Department. In Tasmania, as the result of the rapid development of that State, many private telephones, country telephone exchanges, and other telephonic facilities are required, but because of the restriction to which I have referred, the Postal Department is unable to meet the demand= that are made upon it. During World War II. I was a member of the Corps of Signals of the Australian Imperial Force. [ know from my own personal experience that the majority of the men who provided communication facilities in our fighting services were formerly employees of the Postal Department. Therefore, I urge the Government to consider seriously the lifting of the ceiling that has been imposed on the number of technicians that may be employed by that department, so that there may be developed within it a valuable adjunct to our defence services. Those technicians, while providing a well of talent for the fighting services in the event of any future war, could assist greatly in the development of this country by providing urgently needed telephonic installations. I make it clear that the present technicians employed by the Postal Department in Tasmania have been responsible for the expeditious installation of many telephonic facilities in that State, but their number is insufficient to meet the demands that are made on them.

I shall now refer to the provision of aerodromes in Tasmania. In the northwestern part of that State hundreds of thousands of acres of swamp country are being reclaimed in order to provide for an extension of the war service land settlement scheme. That part of Tasmania is rather isolated, and the port facilities are inadequate. The roads, which ave in a deplorable condition, arn not likely to be placed in good order for some time to come. There is an area “f land available which is suitable for the construction of an aerodrome, from which the future produce of that part of the State could be air-freighted to the mainland. Without wishing to draw a long how, I believe that the area that 1 have mentioned is destined to become the dairy of Australia. I link up this suggestion with the defence of Australia. “1 urge the Government to assist the Tasmanian Government, financially, to construct an aerodrome in the far northwest of Tasmania, capable of accommodating the most modern aircraft. In the south of Tasmania the main terminal airport is located at Cambridge, and in an adjacent area a new aerodrome is taking shape. It is being constructed because of the difficulty that would have been experienced in improving the facilities at the Cambridge aerodrome in order to cater for the needs of modern aircraft. When the new aerodrome ha? been completed the present aerodrome could be used for the training of air force personnel. I should like the appropriate Minister to consider setting up an Air Force station at Cambridge when the aerodrome there is no longer required for civil aviation purposes. In pursuance of the Government’s policy of strengthening and developing the Air Force, such action would be completely warranted particularly as it would obviate the considerable cost and worry that is now involved in sending air force trainees from Tasmania to the mainland to undergo instructional courses.

Senator O’Flaherty said that the Government had failed to honour its election promises. If the honorable senator and his colleagues would pause to think they would realize that they were on weak ground in alleging that the Menzies Government has not carried out the promises that it made in respect of taxation and employment. At the same time, there are other problems of transcending importance from the standpoint of the national well-being. For instance, no one can justifiably accuse this Government of having failed to carry out a practical defence policy having regard to the possibility of future aggression against Australia. It must be admitted that this Government has excelled its predecessor in making provision for the necessary forces and equip ment and to ensure that our defences shall be effective should, unfortunately, the need arise in the future to rely upon them. This Government is applying its defence policy without brandishing the mailed fist in the face of possible aggressors. It has left our near neighbours and the “ Commos “ in no doubt whatever that we shall be ready to defend this country if ever that need should arise in the future. In any event our defence preparations under this Government have been far more effective than were our defence activities in December. 1949, when it assumed office. The Menzies Government commenced its regime by dealing, first, with the fundamental requirement of adequate defence preparations and then with the second most urgent requirement of increasing the production of coal, iron and steel and food. Increased production of essential goods is necessary in order to keep industry moving and to feed our people adequately.

Another important job which this Government tackled immediately after it assumed office was to ensure the maintenance of our overseas trade balance. Every honorable senator knows that if we are to remain solvent, expenditure that is incurred by this country must be backed by goods. For that reason, the Government imposed restrictions on imports even though it knew that such action would prove to be unpopular with many of its supporters. Honorable senators opposite who criticize the Government for restricting imports will find that, now, many business men will say, in effect, “ I was hopping mad with the Government when it imposed its restrictions on imports, but I am glad that it did so because now I re’alise that its foresight has enabled me to remain solvent “. Honorable senators opposite have also alleged that .the Government has failed to decrease taxes. They have conveniently overlooked the fact that the Government has increased social services benefits to a substantial degree. Senator O’Flaherty made great play on the degree of unemployment that exists at present. Members of the Australian Labour party revel in talking about unemployment. Government supporters sincerely regret the fact that even one person is unemployed but they do not attempt to make party political capital out of the subject. Members of the Opposition, when they talk so glibly about unemployment, overlook the fact that the Government has doubled the rates of social services benefits that were provided by its predecessor. It has taken every possible step to ensure that persons who, unfortunately, happen to lose their employment shall be adequately cared for. We realize that even the increased social services benefits are not completely adequate. At the same time, every reasonable person will admit that they are liberal, having regard to the requirements of our economy as a whole. When members of the Opposition talk so much about the broken promises of this Government, I remind them that the Government was elected mainly on its promise to defeat socialism. Members of the Australian Labour party have done all in their power to introduce socialization in this country. They cannot deny the fact that the Menzies Government was given a definite mandate to prevent the introduction of socialism. They cannot deny, either, that it has fulfilled that mandate. If honorable senators opposite were honest with themselves, they would admit that, by and large, the Government has done more to stabilize the Australian economy than was ever done by its predecessor during its term of office of seven years.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

.. -When I was first privileged to speak in this chamber, in 1938, I directed attention to the hundreds of thousands of persons who at that time were unemployed but who could have been usefully employed. But for all practical purposes, I might as well have appealed to a. wooden god, because the government of that day did nothing to help those unemployed persons, but left them to subsist as best they could on the dole. As I have said on previous occasions in this chamber, when war broke out the unemployed, who were previously dispensable from the viewpoint of the employers and the government of the day, suddenly became indispensable. Furthermore, whereas money was lacking for the purpose of increasing employment in 1938, it suddenly became available from 1939 onwards. This evening I find myself i:i a similar position. A substantial degree of unemployment now exists in this country. It may be true that recently the number of unemployed persons has been reduced. I deplore the complacency with which the Government approaches this problem. It adopts the attitude that there must, at all times, be a considerable number of persons unemployed in this country. Thar, is to say, in effect that hundreds of thousands of men, women and children must, at all times, bc reduced to the lowest standard of living in order to suit the convenience of non-Labour governments and the interests that they represent. Just as unemployment was completely overcome after war “broke out in 1939, it should be overcome in Australia to-day. After all. what is government? lt is a system of management; and when persons are unemployed, obviously, something is wrong with the existing system of management. Senator Marriott -stressed the necessity for increasing production. How can production be increased at a time when unemployment is increasing? Such a proposition is ridiculous. This Government has not attempted in any way to improve on the system of management that existed in 1938. This Government and employers generally regard unemployment as a disciplinary weapon. They take the view that the greater the number of persons who are out of work, the greaker will be the competition for the jobs that are available and that, concurrently, wages and conditions of employment will bc reduced.

This afternoon, Senator Cooke directed attention to the position that exists in the tractor manufacturing industry. The facts bear out his statement that whilst the Australian industry is capable .of manufacturing tractors equal and, indeed, in my view, superior, to the imported article, this Government is encouraging the importation of tractors at the expense of the local industry to the degree that at present more than 2,000 persons previously employed in it are now unemployed. That, fact leads me to com hide that the policy of this Government is being influenced by overseas interests. The Government is closing down on secondary production to the greatest degree possible in order to serve those interests. After war was declared in 1939, it was found that the engineering industry in this country was at least 60 years behind the times. From 1941 onwards until the cessation of hostilities in 1945, a Labour government was obliged to make up the leeway by providing annexes and importing and manufacturing machinery in an effort to do everything possible to bring the industry up to date in the interests of our war effort. But what is the position to-day? The tendency is to revert to the position that existed prior to the recent war and to close down secondary industries. That fact cannot be denied. It can be substantiated from official records. Senator Cooke also referred to the necessity to train workers in essential industries. He pointed out that during the war we were obliged to admit and train dilutees. Additional workshops had to be constructed and modern machinery had to be installed in factories that were engaged on war work. That fact proves conclusively that previous non-Labour governments were lacking in initiative and knowledge, and even in loyalty to this country. The only bright spot in the picture was referred to by Senator Scott this afternoon when he stated that the flax industry, which was established by a Labour government, is to be maintained.

Senator Scott:

– That industry was not established by a Labour government; it was established in 1939.

Senator CAMERON:

– This Government is influenced not by a desire to do the best for the country, but by inescapable economic needs. A Labour government was obliged to establish the flax industry and this Government has been forced to make a virtue of necessity and make, provision for the continuance of that industry. Unfortunately, the observations that Senator Scott made with respect to the flax industry cannot be applied to primary and secondary production generally.

The Government has failed to do anything with a view to reducing prices. It has said, in effect, that it will have nothing to do ‘with prices control. But the fact is that all prices are controlled. and that it is simply a question of whether private monopolistic interests or the Government shall exercise such control. The Government has said, in effect, that private monopolies shall be allowed to control prices and, in that way, regulate their profits. The Commonwealth Arbitration Court fixes wages at so many pounds a week, but the private pricefixing authorities fix the purchasing power of those wages. Although the court fixes the wages to be paid, the monopolies determine the purchasing power of the wages. It would not matter to the tobacco monopolists, the flour-millers and the -breweries if the basic wage were fixed at £20 a week provided that they retained the power, which the Government has delegated to them, to fix prices. The Government has made no attempt to deal with that situation. In effect, it has said, “ We shall leave everything to private enterprise. As a government, we shall delegate all our powers to private enterprise. To the extent that private enterprise lays down conditions, we shall abide by them.” For all practical purposes, the Government only nominally governs. It is the private monopolists behind the scenes who are actually governing.

As I have explained frequently in the Senate, the currency has been inflated whilst the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), have been pointing out that inflation must be defeated. Everything possible has been done by private enterprise to facilitate the increase of inflation. Honorable senators opposite need not accept my word for the truth of that statement. They have only to refer to statements made by leading financiers. For instance, Mr. Stanforth Ricketson made an interesting statement in this connexion when he addressed an investment, company on the 10th March.

Senator Scott:

– What about the report of the Commonwealth Bank?

Senator CAMERON:

– I shall deal with that if necessary. However, I am making this speech, not Senator Scott, f am not accepting orders from outside authority at the moment. A few moments ago I referred to a statement that Mr. Ricketson had made on the 10th March about the degree to which the Government had inflated the currency. To the degree that the currency is inflated, prices are increased. To the extent that prices are increased, the purchasing power of wages, salaries and pension? is reduced. That is obvious. Mr. Ricketson continues to attack the Government. At the sixteenth annual meeting of shareholders of the Capel Court Investment Company (Australia) Limited, which he addressed on the 23rd March, he said -

The Commonwealth adheres to the programme disclosed at the loan meeting last July. The total of the treasury-bills issued on the 30th June. next will be around £288,000,000. This would, as indicated, be £135,000,000 more than the total at the 30th June, 1052, and £180,000,000 more than at present.

When referring to the issue of treasurybills, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) recently said -

To spend new money created by the Central Bank tends to reduce the value of money and is therefore a tax, though it may not look like one.

Of course it is a tax. It is a corrupt, fraudulent system of indirect taxation. There is nothing new in the process. It has been carried on during the years. The point that I wish to emphasize is that whilst this Government and its supporters say that there is no inflation, or declare that their policy is to defeat inflation, they are, at the same time, facilitating inflation. Support for that contention may be found in the statements of leading Australian financiers. I have yet to learn that the Prime Minister or any other member of the Cabinet has denied the truth of the statements made by Mr. Ricketson.

I know why Mr. Ricketson is opposed to inflation. He represents what he calls “ equity interests “, which are opposed to banking interests. Inflation means that the banks create money considerably in excess of the amount that should be created, and lend it out at interest, at no cost to themselves other than the cost of administration. With equity companies, however, it is a different matter. They invest money in shares represented mainly by physical assets wherever possible. I make no apology for stressing the dangers of inflation, which, no doubt, will be followed by a period of deflation, provided that this Government remains in office. If that happens, a very serious state of affairs will’ arise. The late Mr. V. C. Vickers, who was Governor of the Bank of England for ten years, from 1910 until 1919, referred to the meaning of inflation in his book Economic Tribulation. At page 32, the following words appear: -

We have been taught that Deflation, which benefits the lenders of money (such as banks), is at times an unavoidable’ and necessary action in order to preserve “ sound! finance”: whilst Inflation, benefiting the debtor (such as farmers, shopkeepers and traders), entail; action which is so disgraceful that it should never be mentioned in any respectable bank parlour. . . . And “sound finance*’ means nothing at all. It is merely a sort of blinkers’ slogan adopted to disguise the injustices of a credit system.

That comes from a man who, in his day, was the governor of the leading bank of the world. It is hardly likely that he would risk his reputation and standing in the community by making a statement, of that kind unless he could prove it. If any honorable senator is sufficiently interested, I advise him to obtain a copy of this work from the Library. What Mr. Vickers lias said is beyond question. I have referred to his remarks because if I had not quoted an authority it would, no doubt, be said that the opinions I have expressed are my own entirely.

The Government- has done nothing to correct the inflationary tendency. All that it has done, in effect, has been to give the private banks more power to inflate the currency, or to deflate it, whichever is the more profitable proposition at the time. The consequences of such a policy will make themselves apparent, because the law of cause and effect cannot be ignored. Nor can the cause and effect of inflation be ignored.

I come now to the question of taxation. As Senator O’Flaherty has said, it is perfectly true that there has been no reduction of taxation, and it is not intended that there should be any. Practically all taxation, both direct and indirect, is paid by the men and women engaged in essential industries and services. They make the wealth. They are consumers as well as producers. All others are merely consumers of wealth. Because of inflation and the everincreasing interest bill, which is at present approximately £95,000,000 a year, we are approaching the position where our economy will collapse. If it does not do so it will be readjusted by persons such as myself if they have an opportunity to do so, because rather than wait for such a collapse I myself would readjust the present economic system. Recently, I was looking through a copy of the Melbourne Herald published in 1950. It reminded me that at that time the Australian sky was painted red with the slogan, “We shall put back value into the £1 “. It is obvious to all that value has not been put back into the £1. Actually, it has been taken away. The Prime Minister himself admitted that that is so when, he pointed out that the issue of treasurybills under existing conditions would mean decreased purchasing value of the £1. All economists and financiers admit that that would be the case. When, in 1950, the Government said, with an exaggerated idea of its own ability and knowledge, that it would put back value into the £1, it probably knew that it would fail to do so, just as it has failed to reduce taxes. It will continue to fail because the policy steps necessary to put value back into the £1 and to reduce taxes, particularly in the lower income groups, have not been taken. After all, most of the supporters of the Government are the victims of fixed concepts concerning economics and finance and are not likely to depart from those concepts until something happens to force them to do so. I agree with Senator Marriott that we should increase the number of postal employees. When I was PostmasterGeneral, I endeavoured to make up arrears of postal work that had to be done. It included the installation of telephones, and the establishment of new post offices and exchanges. Arrangements were made accordingly, but this Government has retrenched with the result that a very fine staff has more or less been disbanded. There is still a demand for more telephones and postal services but nothing is being done.

Senator Marriott, who is a new SUPporter of the Government in this cham ber, has challenged the Government’s policy, and he is justified in doing so particularly with regard to Tasmania, Queensland and New South Wales. When I was Postmaster-General, I visited as many post offices as possible. There are approximately 10,000 post offices in Australia, S,000” unofficial and 2,000 official. Most of the buildings are out of date and they should be demolished. There is not sufficient accommodation for the staff, but instead of erecting substantial buildings the Government is using many prefabricated structures. A new telephone exchange is being built iii Russell-street, Melbourne. That work was initiated by the Chifley Government. It is far from completed. It should have been finished two or three years ago so that telephone facilities in Melbourne would be properly centralized and automatic exchanges could replace manual services. But when the Government discharged about 4,000 men it could not expect the work to be done. The Government is the management of the country and it fails when public facilities are not kept up to date. The indictment that has been directed by Senator Marriott against the Government is well deserved. He referred to small businesses. They are a reducing quantity. To the extent that big business expands and strengthens, small businesses go out of commission. They can be kept going only where they are indispensable. That is why they will survive longer in the country areas than in the cities.

Senator Marriott referred to compulsory voting. I make no apology for it. In my opinion, every adult who is eligible to vote has a responsibility to take some part in the management of tho country. I am well aware that no govern mont can go beyond the understanding of the majority, but I believe that compulsory voting has the effect of educating where other means fail. There is a tendency on the part of many people to acquiesce in their own subjection and to put up with things as they are rather than challenge the management. Compulsory voting has the redeeming quality of compelling people to take a more intelligent interest in their own affairs. Repeatedly the Government, claim? that it has a mandate to do this or that, but that is only an assumption. A government cannot’ say that it has a mandate to do anything unless it has a reasonably intelligent vote on the issues concerned. For example, in 1916 the people cast an intelligent vote in the referendum on conscription. The referendum vote on the arbitrary proposals of the Bruce-Page Government in 1926 was an intelligent vote, and a mandate from the people. In September, 1951, the people voted against the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950. That was a reasonably intelligent vote. But the Government claims to have a mandate on banking. It has nothing of the kind. That is obvious on reading the policy speech that was delivered by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in 1949. It is only an assumption. Compulsory voting compels the people to take a more intelligent interest in their affairs. The people can be compelled to do the things that are good and things that are bad. I know that the anti-Labour forces would compel the workers to refrain from striking. I would be opposed to that form of compulsion, but generally compulsion cannot be avoided. The question is how it is used.

The most important question to be decided at the moment is how to maintain full employment for the workers. Nobody can justify, by any process of reasoning, the forcing of men to remain idle on the dole when they are able and willing to work and when work is there to be done. According to public reports, between 5,000 and 6,000 exservicemen are qualified to go on the land and increase production. Why does not the Government make it possible for them to be employed in that way? Nothing is being done. Wheat-growers, woolgrowers and other producers are becoming fewer and more powerful, obviously because they have the power of capital. The small men starting from scratch cannot compete with them. I refer to men who want to go on the land and are denied access to it. There are thousands of them, and it is the Government’s duty to make it possible for them to become primary producers. To the extent that the Government makes unemployment possible and condones such a state of affairs it is acting against its own proclaimed policy of increased production. It cannot have a policy of increased production and at the same time restrict production by a policy of inaction. The position that we are facing is serious and I stress it often because I do not want to see, if it can be avoided,, what I have seen since 1893. I refer tothe recurring crises to which the Prime Minister referred in his report upon the London economic conference. Nothing, is being done to prevent another crisis. It is all very well to say that sufficient money is. not available. The fact is that there is no shortage of money, manpower and materials.

The position is so acute that Italianimmigrants very properly are taking action in a court of law against the Government. For all practical purposes, the Government promised them employment. Ever since they landed in Australia many of them have been idle on the dole. Now they are going to challenge the Government in the courts of law just as the immigrants challenged it in the High Court of Australia on the cost of their board and lodgings in the hostels. If the Government had the interest of the nation at heart there would be no unemployment and there would be no disinclination on the part of workers to come to Australia. All these things would be dealt with constructively and successfully. But they are not being dealt with and I cor.sider it my duty to direct the attention of the Government to that state of affairs. In December, 1949, when the Labour Government went out of office there was no unemployment and no one was dependent on the dole. To-day there are thousands on the dole and unless the policy of the Government is altered there will be thousands more. A worker who loses his or her job has to apply for relief, but has to starve for two weeks before becoming eligible for the dole. I invite honorable senators opposite who speak so complacently about 3 per cent, or 5 per cent, of unemployment to imagine themselves in the position of an unfortunate member of the community who Has lost his job. What would they be doing? Probably most of them would be seeking to join the Communist party. Those who have some knowledge of economics would be so indignant, outraged, and humiliated that they would be willing to join any party that was prepared to challenge the government that had been responsible for their misfortune. That is why the Communist party exists to-day. I say to the Government, “ Solve the problem of. unemployment; provide decent men and women with a reasonable standard of living and full employment, and you will solve the problem of communism “. So long as pressure is brought to bear on the workers as it is being brought to bear upon them to-day by this Government; so long as they are forced down below the bread-line to the dole; so long as the children of workers are denied adequate opportunities for a good education as is happening in every State of the Commonwealth to-day ; and so long as the people _ of Australia are denied adequate hospital accommodation and treatment, communism will remain, and men and women who otherwise would be opposed to the philosophy of communism, will embrace it. Honorable senators opposite should remember that communism is the effect and the policy of the Government of which they are supporters is the cause. Until that cause is eliminated to the degree that it can be eliminated without loss of dignity and prestige, the ranks of the Communists will continue to increase. Communism cannot be eradicated by legislation alone. Unless the root causes of communism are eliminated, legislation will be useless, because power on paper is vastly different from power in reality. Throughout the ages, laws have been ignored because power on paper has not been equal to the resistance of oppressed people. Throughout the forthcoming election campaign, I shall say what I have said in this chamber to-night. My’ aim will be to convince the people of the Commonwealth of the necessity to depose this Government and to replace it as quickly as possible by a. more intelligent and more loyal administration.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

– The only portion of Senator Cameron’s long diatribe to which I shall reply is his concluding statement that we on this side of the chamber are not loyal. That accusation is strongly resented by Govern ment supporters, and I have no hesitation in reminding the honorable senator that, so far as I am aware, nobody on this side of the chamber has yet found it necessary to flee from a crowd of loyal Australians and hide in a meat safe. 1 take the opportunity afforded by this debate to express a few embryonic thoughts on what I consider to be the most difficult internal problem facing this country to-day. I refer to the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States, and the need to do something to improve those relations so that our economy may work more smoothly. As I have said, my thoughts on this subject are embryonic, but if they will encourage somebody else to believe that there is something in them, and therefore, to develop them more fully, or to think they are so utterly despicable that I should be shown exactly where they are wrong, my remarks will have had the desired effect.

Throughout the Commonwealth there is evidence of the breakdown of the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States. The State Electricity Commission of Victoria has millions of pounds worth of machinery which is rusting, useless, and producing nothing. A large dam, the Eildon Dam, is being constructed by the Utah Construction Company. For this project much material and machinery has been ordered and delivered but cannot now be used to its full capacity. Therefore it is lying idle, useless and producing nothing. We have public works half completed and hospitals half built. Throughout Victoria, and I gather all other States, millions and millions of pounds have been invested, but these investments have produced nothing at all because the undertakings concerned have not been completed. That state of affairs cannot continue. If it were permitted to continue, there would be no holding inflation, because the most important ingredient in any public works programme is that the works should be finished and put into production as soon as possible so that tha money that has been invested in them may be repaid. By no means the least important effect of the present situation is the fact that it is being used for political purposes. The people are being confused instead of being informed of the true reasons for existing conditions. No democracy can survive if its leaders seize upon tragedy and endeavour to turn it to their own ends. The functioning of a democracy depends upon informed minds and Australia cannot survive the existing situation for long, economically or even politically.

An endeavour to tackle the problem has been made recently. The suggestion has been made that responsibility and duty, which are now divorced, should be married by returning the taxing powers of the States in order that they may regain their sovereignty and so be able to carry out their own works. However, it is most unlikely that three States at least will agree to such a solution, and although it would benefit Victoria very considerably, that benefit would be enjoyed at the expense of Australians in other parts of the Commonwealth and the overall picture would not be improved to any marked degree. In any case, the proposal would not restore the sovereignty of the States. They would be given back not taxing rights, but only residual taxing rights - the right to tax what the Commonwealth does not want to’ tax. State sovereignty cannot be regained in that way.

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

– Sovereignty and federation do not mix.

Senator GORTON:

– I do not propose to be drawn into the bylanes at present. It must be obvious that the return of residual taxing powers would not restore State sovereignty as would the return of full taxing powers. Even if uniform tax were abandoned by agreement with the States, the problem would not be solved because under the Constitution, as it has been interpreted by the courts, a State government can, at any time, withdraw a power that it has referred to tho Commonwealth. I believe, therefore, that the solution of the problem of Commonwealth and State financial relations does not lie in the restoration of taxing powers. Certainly, that device would not overcome the problem of the planned use of capital for the development of the Commonwealth. Nowadays, developmental works are not financed from tax revenue to any great degree. They are financed from loan funds, and under this Government’s entirely newconception of Commonwealth responsibility, which is designed to help the States, and which, in fact, ‘has helped the States, the Commonwealth itself accepts responsibility, to a greater or lesser degree, for providing those loan funds. Whereas previously only what the. people of the Commonwealth subscribed could be expended on developmental work, now what the people subscribe and what the Commonwealth Government is prepared to subscribe is expended on such work. And that is no mean sum. I shall cite some figures to illustrate the importance of the loan programme. In 1950-51 . tax reimbursements to the States totalled £128,000,000 and the loan programme was approximately £125,000,000. In the following year, tax reimbursements reached £161,000,000 and the loan programme rose to £225,000,000. I am not sure what tax reimbursements will amount to in the current year, but the loan programme is estimated at £185,000,000. Most of the tax reimbursement grants are absorbed in the operation of State business enterprises, the maintenance of police forces, and other nondevelopmental activities. Therefore, most of the development is carried out through the loan programme, and the responsibility for that programme has been accepted largely by the Commonwealth Government. It would be impossible for any other government to accept that responsibility. Obviously, we could not have six State governments all with the power to issue credit to fill a loan which the public would not fill. There can be only one government with power either to impose taxes to fill a loan or to issue credit to fill a loan - a course that has been adopted more and more in recent years. If the Commonwealth Government is the only Government that can make our loan programme possible - and make possible a continued loan programme for two or three years ahead so that work may be planned and not be dependent on the whims of the loan market - responsibility for the use of that money must also re? upon the Commonwealth Government to a greater degree than in the past. Before I am accused of being a centralist. I would like to suggest that what I propose would not necessarily involve .greater centralization. The Australian Government which would he charged with the responsibility of providing funds would also have the duty of stipulating how and where the funds would be spent. But the Government would not have administrative control of its expenditure.

This problem is of the greatest significance and must be solved if Australia is to progress. It may be that a solution will lie in the establishment of many smaller States financing their own road authorities, and providing schools and other facilities out of local loans and revenue as sonic’ American administrative areas do. if that is the solution, then my suggestion would imply decentralization rather than centralization, and administration would be brought closer to the people. There may be difficulty in implementing such a course. It may be necessary for constitutional powers to be reversed so that instead of residual sovereignty residing in the States and only certain powers in the Commonwealth, certain powers might be guaranteed to the States and the residual powers might remain with the Commonwealth. Much can be said for and against what I have suggested, but all honorable senators should be concerning themselves with these matters. I suggest that Australia cannot continue as it is at present. The problem cannot be solved by taxation whether in the . hands of the Commonwealth or the States. The problem of development concerns loan money more than taxation. If this Parliament is to fulfil its functions honorable senators should endeavour not to confuse the minds of the people, as many of the Premiers have confused them, but to inform them as far as it can and lead them in the consideration of a very vital problem.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I want to speak on this measure because it provides me with an opportunity to reply to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) in relation to a matter which I brought before the Senate this morning. There has been a flood of Government propaganda about overseas capital investment in Australia. The Minister for National Development appears to have been the spokesman selected by the Menzies Go’vernment on this matter. In September, 1952, he said that the Australian economic position was infinitely sounder and more stable than it was the year previously. That may have been so, but the statement could be questioned because no country in the world can claim to have a sound economy while tens of thousands of its people are unemployed. He said that there was no lack of confidence in Australia, and he predicted that industrial organizations would continue to be attracted to this country. I hope that industrial expansion will continue in this country. But the Minister said that United Kingdom projects involving an expenditure of £48,000,000 and United States projects involving nearly £50,000,000 in Australia had been announced. In October, 1952, the Minister said that American capital totalling nearly £50,000,000 had been committed for investment in this country by American companies, and that these companies were extending their present interests in Australia or setting up entirely new enterprises. One would imagine after hearing that statement that we were a second Canada and that overseas capital was flowing into Australia with the same rapidity as it flows into Canada because, temporarily, a conservative government was in power here.

As the Menzies Government approaches its inevitable doom, it has begun to practise the policies of deception that were responsible, for placing it on the treasury-bench. The Minister for National Development has claimed that £50,000,000 of American capital has boon invested in Australia during the last two years. That statement is entirely ff.’ise and in keeping with much of the specious propaganda that has flowed from the Menzies Government. Honorable senators will observe that the Minister’s statement was not ambiguous. He referred to overseas capital and American capital. He intended to convey that the people of America were confident of the future of Australia because a conservative government was in power. The claim of the

Government in regard to overseas investment of capital in this country is based on a myth. No dollars have been received for investment in Australia. Instead, United States companies have borrowed money in Australia for the further development of industries already established here. In other cases they have re-invested their profits from the industries that they have established here. No exception is taken to that action by the Opposition, but it would he nearer the truth to say that £50,000,000 of Australian money had been invested in American industries in Australia during the period mentioned. In a recent issue of the Financial Review, a good conservative paper containing much factual information on financial matters published by the Sydney Morning Herald, a report of a speech by Mr. StaniforthRicketson, managing director of J. B. Were and Company, appeared. The report stated -

Mr.Ricketson went on to criticize overseas companies who borrow in Australia to finance operations here. He said these corporations whose capital is owned entirely by overseas interests have the privilege of holding profits in Australia for their overseas shareholders. Even though those profits may, in some cases, be retained in Australia they remain the property of foreign nationals and Australians have no share in them.

Senator Spooner:

– How can they own the profits if they do not own the capital?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I suggest that the Minister for National Development address that question to Mr. Ricketson. Mr. Ricketson said -

Among the types of foreign corporations which have obtained loan funds were oil corporations, £10,000,000, motor manufacturing and financial. £6,000,000, food processing,

£4, 000,000.

He went on to say -

Substantial amounts for such bodies have boon provided or promised by Australian financial institutions thus considerably reducing the capacity of the latter to finance essential public utilities and industrial companies developed by Australian industry. Only recently the administrative head of one of Australia’s great public utilities said that whereas previously financial institutions have made subscriptions to its loans his board had not received a single application from those institutions. This, it would appear, is partly the result of heavy loan commitments which some of these institutions have entered into with foreign corporations.

I take no exception to the operations of the American companies but I do object to the Minister’s statement that overseas capital has been invested in Australia. In reality, the capital referred to has been subscribed by the Australian people.

Senator Spooner:

– Will the honorable senator road to the Senate the statement that he has attributed to me?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I have before me a brochure that has been issued by the federal secretariat of the Liberal party of Australia, in which this statement appears -

page 1564

QUESTION

OVERSEAS CAPITAL

Record Investments in Australia.

A record amount of overseas capital was invested in Australia in 1951-52. Announcing this on September 1, the Minister for National Development (Senator W. H. Spooner) expressed his belief that Australia’s economic position was infinitely sounder and more stable than a year ago. . . . Since 1951 new and expanding United Kingdom projects involving expenditure of £48,000,000 and United States projects involving nearly £50,000,000 have been announced. Speaking on October 1, 1052, Senator Spooner gave details of the American investment. “Never before in Australia’s history “, he said, “ have such large amounts of American capital been committed for investment in this country as in the past 15 months. Since June, 1051. new investments totalling nearly £50,000,000 have been announced by American companies either extending their present interests in Australia or setting up entirely new enterprises “.

There is no doubt about the authenticity of the statement, because on the back page of the brochure it is stated that it has been issued by the Liberal party of Australia, and the names of the office bearers of the federal council of the Liberal party for 1952-53 are set out. Although the Minister endeavoured to cloud the issue during question-time this morning by saying that I had made a false statement, I submit that there is no doubt that the statement that I have attributed to the Minister was, in fact, made by him.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Senator Cormack will need all of his capital in order to retain his seat in this chamber. The Minister should clarify the position by informing the Senate of the total dollar investment that was made in Australia during the period in which he claims that record overseas investment took place here. He could do so by ascertaining from the Commonwealth Bank the amount of dollar clearances, the value of new machinery that has been imported from dollar countries, the value of raw materials required to establish new capital investments, the proportion of new investments that has been expended on Australian labour and raw materials, and ti i« amount of dollar transfers involved in the operations of the company. I aU-o direct, the Minister’s attention to a prospectus that has been published recently by the press of this country. It reads, in part -

The prospectus shows that the directors of the corporation are all resident in the United States of America, Theiaddresses being 1775 Broadway, New York. I point out that when it becomes necessary to transfer to the United States of America, dividends from, profits made in Australia, there will be a considerable drain on our dollar funds, upon which the development of this country is so dependent.

I come now to the subject of coal. Whenever this subject is mentioned by the Opposition, the Minister states that the present Government has produced coal. I remind honorable senators that the increased production of coal is attributable to the policy that was adopted by the previous Labour Government in relation to open-cut mining, and applied by the Joint Coal Board. However, there has been a. mistake in relation to the estimated consumption of coal in Australia. It has been said that a mistake was made in estimated production, and that consequently there has been over-production. I point out that, duc to the restrictive financial policy of the present Government, there is now not so much coal being consumed as when there was a state of full employment and industry was working at top speed.

  1. am greatly perturbed about one aspect of the production of coal at present. .1. have been informed by a most reliable authority that the cost of production of open-cut coal in New South Wales is £7 4s. a ton. That is most alarming, if it. is correct. Why, it is almost as dear as gold ! No wonder there is plenty of coal available! The Minister should examine the matter-
Senator Spooner:

– Is that the cost, landed in Adelaide?

Senator ASHLEY:

– I have asked the Minister to examine the matter. If he is unable to obtain particulars from his department, I shall furnish them to him.

On a previous occasion in this chamber I referred to the fact that the firm of George Wimpey and Company is greatly favoured by the present Government, which sold to it for a little more than £500,000 a dragline that was valued at £750,000. Honorable senators will gain an idea of the magnitude of the machinery when I point out that an expenditure of £30,000 was involved to erect it. I repeat, that it was worth at least £750,000.

Senator Spooner:

– Do not be silly !

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Minister made a similar interjection on the previous occasion when I raised this matter in the Senate. Why has special treatment been accorded to this company? Three months ago the Joint Coal Board informed the management of that concern that it would have to reduce its production. I remind honorable senators that open-cut coal is inferior to underground coal. The quality of coal is dependent upon the quantity of overburden. Under the rationalization scheme, with which the Minister is familiar, George Wimpey and Company was informed that it would have to reduce its production from 2,500 tons a day to 1,000 tons a day. Apparently pressure was brought to bear in the right quarter, because that company has not reduced its rate of production. The coal is placed in a dump during the day-time, and at night it is picked up again and carted to a washing plant twenty miles away. It is then transported to Victoria, where it is taking the place of coal produced from underground mines, where production has been greatly reduced, and one mine has closed down althogether. That coal has been placed on rail at 36s. a ton. This is not news to the Minister, who was informed about it by a deputation that he received in his office yesterday. I should like the Minister to examine the matter and inform me, before the end of the present sessional period, of the average cost a ton of open-cut coal in New South Wales, delivered to the market. The Government has appealed constantly for greater production of coal, and I am glad that the miners have responded.

Senator Spooner:

– There is not a single open-cut mine in New South Wales that sells coal at £7 4s. a ton, let alone that figure being the cost of production. Indeed, there is not one mine in NewSouth Wales that sells coal at anything approaching that price. I have never before heard such a totally irresponsible statement by a member of this chamber.

Senator ASHLEY:

– My statement was not irresponsible. I have been informed

Senator Spooner:

– I have before me a list of selling prices at ports, after the payment of freight for 100 miles-

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Minister cannot fob me off by interrupting me. I know that the facts are not palatable to him, but he should take it on the chin.

Senator Spooner:

– I would be prepared to sell 100 tons of open-cut coal to the honorable senator for £1 a ton less than the figure that he has mentioned.

Senator ASHLEY:

– There are 1,000,000 tons of coal in dumps in New South Wales at present. I make that statement with a full sense of responsibility. I repeat that not half of that coal will be sold because it is of low grade and cannot compete with high-grade coal that is being produced at underground mines. The Minister has cited the cost of coal at grass, but the real price that must be considered is the price of coal not at grass, whether it be on. the northern, southern or western coal-fields, but at the point of delivery to the user. I should like the Minister to correct me if I am wrong in stating that the coal to which I have referred and which was produced at one mine that has been closed down and at other mines at which production has been reduced, was being placed on rail at a cost of 36s. a ton higher than that of high-grade coal.

This Government is continually appealing and whining for increased production as the solution of our economic difficulties. The only thing that the Government itself has produced has been alibis for its ineptitude which has caused our present economic difficulties. The Government claims that things will soon improve. At Christmas-time I read reports in the press to the effect that a great improvement had taken place in sales by retail stores and that the position would be much better twelve months later. However, the journal of the Retail Traders Association of New South Wales stated that the value of retail sales in the State in 1953 was 5.5 per cent, below that of sales for January, 1952. Yet, the Government continues to boast about the prosperity which we are supposed to be enjoying, and in its propaganda it claims that this year will be the brightest economically for many years. I have not the slightest doubt that the people would be glad to get back to conditions comparable with those that existed when Labour was in office in 1949. At that time there was full employment and Australia enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. Overseas capital was freely invested in this country and thousands of persons came here from abroad to share in our prosperity. To-day, this great country is halted at the crossroads. For some reason that has not been explained, the Government has diverted Australia from the path that leads to prosperity and full employment. Its financial and fiscal policy has been purely restrictive. ‘ The Government has diverted Australia to a path that has led to unemployment and the disruption of industries. It has caused hardship and suffering and it must accept responsibility entirely for the position that now exists. The Government claims that it has not been at fault, that it has not been responsible for the present state of affairs and that an improvement will soon occur in our economy generally. During the Macquarie by-election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) broadcast a statement in which he said -

There are many industries in this electorate and throughout the electorates of Australia that are receiving all the man-power that they require and all the bank finance they need while more essential industries starve.

I do not know to which essential industries the Prime Minister was referring when he made that statement. I assume that he was referring to primary industries. But, as a result of all the manoeuvring and the restrictive policies of this Government, no appreciable improvement has occurred in those industries.

To-day, at least 150,000 fewer persons are employed in this country than in December, 1951. The Commonwealth Statistician in his summary for the quarter ended December last stated that 121,000 fewer persons were in private employment compared with the number that was employed at the corresponding date in the preceding year and that in the three years prior to 1951 there had been an average annual increase of 85,000 persons in private employment. In the compilation of those figures no regard was paid to the number of new arrivals, including immigrants. I base my statement that at least 150,000 persons are now unemployed on the state ment of the Commonwealth Statistician that between December, 1951, and December, 1952, the number of persons in employment had decreased by 121,000. Then, I made allowance for the average annual increase of the number of persons in employment during the three years preceding 195.1. In the earlier years following the war, thousands of persons were being demo!.::!! .i”-:! from the forces, the average increases were much greater and so could not be used as a fair comparison. On the basis of 125,000 unemployed in December last, according to the Commonwealth Statistician, and the annual increase in employment being reduced by 85,000 persons, it is reasonable to assume that there are at least 150,000 persons unemployed in Australia to-day. T urge the Government to give earnest consideration to the position of persons who, unfortunately, are now unemployed. Failure to deal with that problem has been the main cause of the defeat of the non-Labour parties in this country in every by-election and in four out of five State elections that have been held in recent months. That problem concerns not only the persons who have the misfortune to lose their employment, hut also every industry which has been obliged to put off employees. When, for instance, 100 employees are dismissed in an industry, a fear is instilled into the minds of those whose employment is continued. Consequently, they reduce their volume of expenditure. They become afraid that they themselves will soon be dismissed. That development reduces the purchasing power and business turnover of the community. I trust the Government will face up to the two problems of unemployment and inflation. I shall be prepared to render any assistance that it may be in my power to give with a view to overcoming those evils.

Senator Spooner:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. Senator Ashley, in the course of his speech, made the extraordinary statement that the average cost of coal produced on the western coalfields

Senator Ashley:

– I did not refer to western district coal. I referred to the average cost of open-cut coal.

Senator Spooner:

– I accept the honorable senator’s correction that he said that the average cost of open-cut coal was £7 4s. a ton. When he made thai statement, I was so astonished that I interjected, as I believed that he had made an honest mistake and had confused the landed cost of coal at Adelaide and Melbourne with the cost at the mine. But the honorable senator insisted that the average cost was £7 4s. a ton at the open-cut mine. I have not at hand tho official figures of the cost of the coal, but I Iia ve obtained the official selling prices which represent the cost plus profit. io open-cut mine in New South Wales sells coal at anything like the price that the honorable senator mentioned. Apart from the personal reflection upon myself that was implied in th» honorable senator’s statement, it is a mater great importance that the facts sh 071.. made known. It is c? gre:.!; importance to those engaged in the western coal-fields that coal produced at open-cut mines in that district should enjoy a high reputation. The employment of many hundreds of men now engaged in the open-cut industry can be prejudiced by irresponsible statements such as that made by the honorable senator. If publicity is given abroad to this statement that coal from that coal-field is costing £7 4s. a ton, buyers will be prejudiced and unemployment must result. I ask the honorable senator to speak with a greater sense of responsibility in matters of this kind. I inform bini that coal from open-cut mines on the western coal-fields in New South Wales can be bought at 63s. 7d. a ton at the siding. The fact is that the coal to which the honorable senator referred is being sold at a price less tha,n half that which he cited.

Senator Ashley:

– The Minister has cited the cost of coal from only one mine.

Senator Spooner:

– The selling prices of coal produced at other open-cut mines include the following: - 72s. 7d. a ton, 52s. 4d. a ton, 54s. a ton, and 67s. a ton. In not one instance in this complete list in respect of open-cut mines does the selling price of coal exceed £3 17s., which is only half the figure that the honorable senator mentioned. There is only one open-cut mine in the complete list which sells coal at half that price. I say that it is a dreadful thing for an honorable senator to make a statement such as that, particularly when he represents and resides in one of the coal-mining constituencies. It is a most reprehensible statement. He has attempted to belittle and degrade an industry which functions in his own electorate-

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the Minister in order in making a personal explanation-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McCallum).- I have allowed the Minister to make a personal explanation.

Senator Ashley:

– I do not want your protection. I shall protect myself.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. Order ! That is a reflection on the Chair and I ask the honorable senator to withdraw it.

Senator Ashley:

– I did not say that I do not want the protection of the Chair. I do not want you to protect me.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. Order! When I am in the Chair I do not exist as a person. The honorable senator must withdraw that remark.

Senator Ashley:

– I withdraw it.

Senator Spooner:

– I had been saying

Senator Brown:

– This is a very long personal explanation !

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. Order! I think that perhaps the Minister might continue the statement in his reply to the debate.

Senator Ashley:

– May I make a personal explanation, Mr. Acting Deputy President?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Yes.

Senator Ashley:

– I referred to £7 4s. as the average cost of coal. In making that statement I assumed that it would be understood that it applied to coal which had been landed. Naturally, it would not refer to the coal used by consumers in the western districts.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! Is there anything further that the honorable senator wishes to state in his personal explanation?

Senator Ashley:

– I am explaining the matter in order to make the Minister’s mind clear. I repeat that I referred to the price of coal at the point where the customers would use it.

Senator Spooner:

– I asked the honorable senator whether he meant that, and he said that he did not.

The ACTING DEPUTY PREST DENT.- Order !

Senator ROBINSON:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to a project in which this Government is financially interested and to point to the unsatisfactory rate of progress which is being made in the agricultural areas and Great Southern towns of Western Australia with the gold-fields water supply scheme. This scheme is generally referred to as a comprehensive scheme. The Australian Government, after a very thorough investigation by certain officers, led by Mr. Loder, whom I assisted in his investigations, agreed to share with the Western Australian Government the estimated cost of the scheme which, in 1948, was £4,300,000. In that agreement, however, the Australian Government limited its maximum contribution to £1,500,000. That agreement was made in 1948, and, because of the shortage of materials at that time, progress was very slow. The cost of the work to-day is estimated at approximately £10,000,000. It can be appreciated that if the State Government is left with this added financial burden it cannot hope to complete the scheme in a reasonable time. The residents of those inland and rural areas will thus be precluded from receiving the benefits of a scheme which has already been approved.

The area covered by the scheme is approximately 4,000,000 acres, the population of which in 1947, when the census was taken, was 32,700. Doubtless it has since increased. In the area there are’ 23 rural towns, and I venture to suggest that not one of them has a satisfactory water supply, with the exception of those that are on the gold-fields main. The town of Pingelly is perhaps in the most unfortunate position of all. Indeed, that town’s water supply is unique in the history of Australia. The supply is controlled by the Public Works Department of Western Australia. It was inaugurated in 1911, and, to my knowledge, since its inception the town has never had a potable supply of water. It invariably has an offensive smell. Except immediately after the winter rains, the salt content is far too high for it to be of any use for even gardening purposes. I, myself, had a saline test made in May, 1951, and it was then found that there were 557 grains of salt to the gallon. In February of this year I had a bacteriological test made by Western Australian Government investigators, who advised me that there was an uncountable number of animal organisms in one cubic centimetre of water and that the water had given a positive reaction to bacteria coli, which, of course, renders it definitely unfit for human con- sumption. Since 1911, the residents of Pingelly have been paying water rates to the Government, and all that they get from the scheme is a filthy effluent reticulated through the town. It has to rely on roof catchment for its water supply.

Looking at other towns in the area which are to be served by the proposed scheme, it is found that they are all in a very unsatisfactory position in regard to water supply. The Narrogin water has a salt content and the supply is hopelessly inadequate. The Katanning scheme is inadequate. The same may be said of all the rural towns in the area covered by the comprehensive scheme. All those towns are subject to savage water restrictions during the summer months. They are unable to have a sewage system, and the residents cannot develop gardens. Similarly, the gold-fields are subject to restrictions during the summer months. The water supply is always inadequate to meet, the demand. I therefore suggest that, it is essential to increase the capacity of the storage and the mains leading to the gold-fields areas in order to supply the towns in those areas and to enable water to be taken to the adjacent rural areas.

This comprehensive water scheme is to Western Australia very much what the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme is to the eastern , States. The Snowy Mountains scheme is being financed entirely by the Australian Government. [ therefore contend that Western Australia should be provided with at least half the cost of this comprehensive water supply scheme. No doubt the Government is aware of the very slow progress that is being made with the scheme. Any assistance which it is able to give, in order to expedite the work, will be most appreciated by the residents of the areas concerned. I have taken a personal interest in the progress of the pipeline from the Wellington dam, at Collie, to Narrogin. When one visits that area from time to time, it is difficult to determine whethernew pipes are being laid or whether the old pipes are being taken up, so slow is tho progress. They always seem to be in the same place. I urge the Government to do what it can to assist the Western Australian Government to expedite the scheme.

Senator COOKE:
“Western Australia

. -I was very interested to hear Senator Robinson refer to the Great Southern Water Supply Scheme, which resulted from negotiations between the Labour Government of “Western Australia and the Chifley Government. It received the full blessing of the then Australian Government, which agreed to pay £1 for £1 with the Western Australian Government in order to provide a water supply scheme far bigger than that referred to by the honorable senator. Shortly after that time a State election was held. Before polling day the LiberalCountry party waged a campaign on the basis of whether the scheme could be carried out and whether the farmers were prepared to receive it. That campaign was successful in that the scheme was considerably restricted. Ultimately, the Australian Government intervened and said that the scheme would not be introduced unless the pipe leads from the source of water supply were large enough to enable supply to be made to the original area. Quite unconsciously, I am sure, Senator Robinson has pointed to the fact that the assumption of office by the Liberal-Country party in Western Australia sounded the death-knell of a really comprehensive water supply scheme for the area. He said, in effect, that from the time the Labour party ceased to hold office in Western Australia work on the Wellington dam stagnated. No progress was made thereafter.

Recently in the Senate, Senator Seward asked whether it is not a fact that after the Liberal-Country party assumed office in Western Australia expenditure from the vote provided for the scheme was also negligible. There is still money to be obtained from the original amount promised by the Chifley Government on a £l-for-£l basis. Senator Robinson has given a clear and adequate illustration of how stagnation occurred after the assumption of office of a government which was interested not so much in providing amenities in rural areas and decentralization as in conducting a political campaign. You remember the cobweb campaign-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McCallum).- Order !

The honorable senator will address the Chair.

Senator COOKE:

– I am speaking to honorable senators generally and to Western Australian senators particularly. Those honorable senators will remember that the Wellington dam had cobwebs’ over it almost before the scheme commenced. I say to the present Australian Government that if it will co-operate with the present Western Australian Government the progress of the scheme will be just as vigorous as it was during the regime of the Chifley Government. I compliment the honorable senator on his interest in a scheme which was based on good reasoning and commenced by a good government.

This Government is now asking for additional Supply, although its last budget provided for expenditure of approximately £2,000,000,000 The path to this latest request for Supply is strewn with broken promises. The Australian economy has been almost destroyed because the promises of the Government have not been honoured.

Debate interrupted.

page 1570

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McCallum) . -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 1570

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1953-54

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator COOKE:

– This Government has a record of broken promises. It promised the Australian people that it. would maintain full employment. At present there are 150,000 unemployed, though not all are drawing unemployment benefit, according to the latest figures of the Commonwealth Statistician. Figures based on unemployment relief do not represent by any means the true position of unemployment in Australia.

Senator Paltridge:

– Did the honorable senator say 150,000?

Senator COOKE:

– Senator Paltridge ina.y look at the draft of my speech in the morning. I am not being cross-examined. I am making a speech. The number does not represent the total unemployment in Australia. Before a person can obtain unemployment relief, he must be out of work for a fortnight. If a clerk is out of work and is considered suitable for some labouring or manual work and refuses to do it, he is not paid the unemployment benefit. Many persons are unemployed and yet they are not eligible for relief because of their position. Senator Marriott said that unemployment was a negligible affair and that the fundamental problem was defence. I say that unemployment is a very serious matter. The people in every State have shown at the ballot-box that they regard it seriously. The Labour party warned the country in 1949 that the only solution of inflation that would be offered by the LiberalAustralian Country party coalition was a pool of unemployed. The Government has its pool of unemployed now but inflation has not been cured. Honorable senators on the Government side have admitted that inflation has run riot. It has seriously affected secondary industry, and has embarrassed the Government and made it almost impossible for Australia to maintain its overseas markets. In four or five years Australia has deteriorated from a country with the lowest production costs in the world to a country that has been priced out of overseas markets by inflation. We cannot supply goods on an adequate cost basis to countries that previously we looked upon as being at the peak of inflation. We cannot offer them goods at a price that they are prepared to pay.

Recently I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture for a statement upon the wheat agreement. When the Labour Government negotiated and completed an agreement for the sale of wheat, it was criticized by the supporters of the present Government for the inflationary price that was obtained. The same criticism was advanced with regard to the price of wool. It was said that we were becoming too affluent. Too much money was said to be imposed upon a low-price structure.

To-day, Australia’s cost of production is so high that the Government has been unable to complete an agreement with other nations that also are suffering inflation although it has been negotiating for weeks. At one time those countries were 50 per cent, above us in inflation.

Senator Pearson:

– Does Senator Cooke suggest that the basis should be the cost price in Australia?

Senator COOKE:

– I do not say that. We negotiated a wheat agreement that was par excellence. The wheat-growers were satisfied with that price. It covered cost of production and a margin of profit, enabling them to put something back into the land and pay off the banks. Now the Government is endeavouring to negotiate a reasonable and adequate price but it cannot complete the matter. We have costed ourselves out of the market. We are offering other nations wheat at a price that they are not prepared to pay and it is unreasonable to expect them to pay it. We have slipped from real security in rural industries to a position where we are unable to get a reasonable return. Unless we can reach a basis of agreement with countries whose costs are lower than ours, we shall be in a serious position indeed. This Government can hold itself responsible for throwing away the stability that the rural industries enjoyed. We have costed ourselves out of overseas markets by inflation which this Government started and failed to control. Secondary industries are in much the same position. Costs of production are so high that their existence is threatened. Many of them cannot continue without government assistance.

Recently, I referred to the sale of tobacco leaf. I remember that previously, honorable senators on this side of the House charged the Government with having neglected the industry. In addition, it made production costs so high that the price of tobacco leaf was forced upwards and the industry fell into a dangerous position. Many growers were bankrupt. Now tobacco leaf cannot be sold in Brisbane. The combines have the Queensland growers by the throat. The same position obtains in Western Australia. In an endeavour to fatten the pig on the way to market, the Government is trying to introduce legislation to save the industry, although for the last twelve months the Labour party has been appealing to it to assist the tobaccogrowers. The position is lamentable. Inflation is destroying Australia and any government that is returned to office will have difficulty in restoring the position.

When the Labour Government went out of office, the basic wage in Western Australia was £5 7s. a week. Now it is over £12. That is how the Government has kept its promise to put value back into the £1. Because there was no change in the basic wage recently in some States, Government supporters claimed that they had stopped inflation. The fact is that the basic wage is 100 per cent, higher than it was when the Labour Government went out of office. The Government promised to reduce taxation, but taxes have increased in every department and the total has risen to the extraordinary figure of £116 a head for every man, woman and child in Australia. Before this Government took office, the average was £S9 a head. It is significant that this increase has occurred in peace-time. The outlook for Australia is very bad unless the economic policy of the Government is changed. The Government has enjoyed the fruits of office on broken promises. If one individual outside the Parliament had given such promises to another person and had dealt with him as the Government has dealt with the people, he could have been charged, as Doyle has been charged, with dishonesty, embezzlement, fraud and cheating.

The Government has been sheltering behind the defence vote. Expenditure for defence in the budget has reached £201,3’27,500. Such an expenditure on defence in peace-time is difficult to justify. There is a tendency now in some quarters to suggest to the Government that communism and democracy can live side by side. In those circumstances, the defence vote is only a shield for the Government. Previously we were told that the failure of the Government to carry out its promises or to achieve anything was due to communism. Now the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) does not want to deal with Communists. They are apparently all right now. Marshal Tito’s visit to London has prompted the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) to say that communism and democracy can live peaceably side by side. There is very little difference between communism, fascism and liberalism as we know it in this country, but as a last resort, communism, international and local, is being given the Government’s blessing. Now, the Government’s excuse for its failures is the defence vote We are not supposed to query defence expenditure. We on this side of the chamber would not object to it if we knew that the money would be expended wisely and well, but we have not been told how or where it is to be expended. No explanation lias been given, and I am sure that any explanation given by an honorable senator opposite would not be adequate. How are the national service trainees being treated ? In Western Australia, many of them are in camps 400 or 500 miles from their homes. Their period of training is six months ; yet this Government, which is prepared to expend more than £200,000,000 on defence, will not grant week-end concession fares to national service trainees who are encamped more than 100 miles from their homes. Has any one ever heard of such hypocrisy ? “ Brass hats “ who travel around Australia seeking recruits are allowed almost unlimited expenses. Recently, a Tasmania senator asked how much it had cost the Government for each recruit to the defence forces since the present recruiting campaign started. I did not hear the reply, but the figure must have been fabulous. Our defence vote should be subject to the most severe scrutiny.

Senator Spicer:

– Does the honorable senator not approve of it?

Senator COOKE:

– I approve of every penny of the defence vote provided’ it is expended sensibly, but I believe the stage has been reached at which our defence expenditure should be examined thoroughly. - The Government has failed to justify it. The Australian people were told not long ago that the young men of this country were not alive to their responsibilities; that they did not realize that the insidious influence of communism was creeping over the land. The Prime Minister, in his policy speech at the last elections, spoke of the necessity to maintain Christian standards. Indeed, he harped on that theme; yet when a request was made for the provision of a chapel at a military camp in Western Australia so that religious services could be held in appropriate surroundings, what answer was given? The Minister for the Army said that whilst he believed that adequate provision should bo made for the holding of religious services in military establishments, the Government could not accede to the request. If the Government sincerely desired to sec Australia continue as a Christian nation, surely it could have made available out of the huge defence vote of more than £200,000,000 the small sum that would have been necessary for this work. The Government should not hesitate to make facilities for worship available, not only in the camp to which I have referred, but also in all training establishments and for all denominations ; hut, -just as it is hypocritical in big things, so it is hypocritical in small things.

Although the Government has made a last minute desperate effort to fulfil certain promises that it made to its wealthy supporters during the 1949 and 1951 election campaigns, it has not made any attempt to fulfil the promises that it made to the people on those occasions. For instance, taxation under this Administration has been increased and not reduced as was promised. From the end of the war until 1949, the Chifley Government made progressive tax reductions which totalled £132,000,000. Under this Government, taxes have been increased to such a degree that our annual tax bill to-day is greater than the entire national income at the time the Chifley Government relinquished office. Even if the reductions promised by this Government were made, the tax burden on the Australian people would still be very serious.

We, on this side of the chamber, had no hesitation in telling the Government that its 1952-53 budget was beyond the capacity of the Australian people, but wo wore assured by Ministers and by their “yes” men, that the expenditure contemplated in the budget was the irre ducible minimum. We were asked on that occasion, as I have been asked tonight by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), whether we approved of the Government’s defence programme. Nevertheless, the Government itself proposes to curtail defence expenditure.

Senator Pearson:

– Does expanding production have anything to do with it?

Senator COOKE:

– It has everything to do with it if the additional produce can be marketed ; but primary production in this country has declined over tinyears and not increased, and the demand for some of our secondary products, including coal, has receded. There is ample coal at the pit-heads to-day. The coal-miners have done a good job; but the wheels of industry are slowing, and consequently the demand for coal is declining and coal-miners are losing their jobs. I have said that communism will increase unless the moral Christian structure of the nation is preserved. It will also increase if governments fail to safeguard the welfare of the people. Poverty and unemployment are the best breeding grounds for communism. To-day, unemployment is spreading to the coal-fields. That is a problem to which this Government must direct its attention. The stage is being reached at which this Government, having done its best to destroy economic standards in this country, is now preparing to pass the ball to the Labour party, which, once again, will have to face the task of rehabilitating our economy.

Senator Robertson:

– That will be a sorry day.

Senator COOKE:

– It will be a sorry day for the honorable senator, but not for the nation. Our overseas balances have been seriously depleted. When Labour relinquished office they were at a record high level, but this Government’s policy of encouraging a flood of imports dissipated our sterling -balances at an alarming rate and seriously threatened our secondary industries. In addition, the operation of credit restrictions embarrassed many business people who had ordered goods and were unable to take delivery of them. Then, overnight, the flood of imports was stopped. The Government was not prepared to consider the situation analytically, or to put into its administration the effort that Labour governments had been called upon to make in war-time. A blanket restriction was placed on imports, and quotas were fixed at 20 per cent, of the previous levels. But the cure was just as severe as the illness. I remind honorable senators that the problem posed to this Government by the flood of imports into this country was of its own making. It did not inherit that problem from the previous administration. The Government’s embarrassment was the result of its own policy. To-day, the business community is so frustrated that the Government has no chance of regaining its confidence. The first necessity to restore our economic balance is to reduce indirect taxes. These vicious impositions are levied on every person in the community, and they bear with particular severity on those individuals who are least able to carry the burden. If the Government has any consideration at all for the people of Australia it will endeavour immediately to eliminate unemployment. Senator Marriott said to-day, in a most charitable way, which I am sure is his nature, that the Government has increased the unemployment benefit. To what figure has it been increased? It is still only a small percentage of the basic wage. That is no answer to unemployment.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– No one said it was.

Senator COOKE:

– For the peace of mind of the honorable senator who, as an organizer for the Liberal party - and no doubt a well-paid organizer - spread that party’s election promise to maintain full employment, I hope that the unemployed will soon be given better treatment than the payment of a mere dole of £2 5s. a week in an economy which demands a basic wage of £12 a week. It has been claimed that we on this side of the chamber have attacked the Government unfairly. I am stating facts, and I challenge any honorable senator opposite to answer my statements. No one had a better appreciation of the defence needs of Australia than did the two Labour Prime Ministers who guided this country in. “World War II. Labour’s defence policy is based on thoroughly up-to-date mobile forces, in the air, on land, and at sea, and upon the development of Australian industry in order to enable it to provide for all the requirements of our forces in the field, in the air or on the water. What action has the Government taken or what policy has it in relation to defence that was not initiated by the Labour Government? I should be pleased to help the Government if it could put forward any concrete proposal in relation to any matter from unemployment to defence.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - This has been a discursive debate because honorable senators have spoken on matters not related to the bill. Nothing but gloomy predictions and destructive criticism have come from the Opposition side of the chamber. Senator Cooke made no statement which contained any sign of optimism or any appreciation of the progress and development that has occurred throughout the country, and of which every Australian should be proud. I think that I dealt adequately on another occasion with the statement of Senator Ashley concerning the cost of open-cut coal. His statement was unbelievably inaccurate. By interjection I asked him whether he referred to the landed cost of coal at Adelaide or Melbourne, or some other place remote from the coal-fields. In reply he said that he referred to the cost of production.

Senator Ashley:

– I referred to the price of coal where it was used.

Senator SPOONER:

– I shall be interested and examine the Hansard report of the honorable senator’s speech because the statement that he just made by interjection is not in accordance with the notes that I made while he was speaking. I believe that the honorable senator made an extravagant statement which was entirely without foundation. He made another statement in the same category. He said that the open-cut machines which had been sold to George Wimpey and Son Limited for £500,000 had a true value of £750,000. That statement is a reflection on the staff of the Joint Coal Board and the officers of various government departments.

When the honorable senator made a similar extravagant statement on another occasion I explained to him that the greatest precautions were taken in the sale of this plant. The Cabinet has issued instructions that such plant is not to be sold by the Joint Coal Board alone, lt is to L- told only in consultation with Treasury officials in order to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken anc! reasonable prices obtained. I do not recollect the details of the sale of the plant to George Wimpey and Son Limited but I have such confidence in the adequacy of the arrangements made that I repudiate the honorable senator’s allegation as inaccurate. It was as misleading as his statement concerning the cost of open-cut coal.

Senator Ashley criticized my statement on the subject of industrial progress and the investment of overseas capital in Australia. It is not unfair to say that he is becoming the chief apostle of gloom and despair in this chamber. Nothing is ever bright on his horizon. As I have said, he criticized overseas investments in Australia. Only a short time ago he was the chief critic of the weakness of the loan market. I can remember his constant outpourings on the state of unemployment in Australia.

Senator Ashley:

– I am still pouring it out.

Senator SPOONER:

– I know that nothing would please Senator Ashley more than an increase in unemployment.

Senator Ashley:

– That is a lie am. the Minister knows it.

Senator SPOONER:

– The stock in trade of the honorable senator is gloom. The fact is that the loan market is strengthening. The Government’s new loan has opened very well indeed. Judged by every economic standard there is full employment in Australia. Lord Beveridge, whose work is a classic on this issue, has said that a community may be regarded as having full employment when not more than 4 per cent, of its labour force is unemployed. Less than 2 per cent, of people are out of employment in Australia and the employ.ment position is strengthening every month. Honorable senators opposite have endeavoured to capitalize on the employment situation. They have become the proponents of gloom and despair. They hope to be successful in dislodging the Government quickly so that they can get into office and reap the benefit of the good work that the Government has done in putting the Australian economy on a stable basis. In reply to Senator Ashley’scriticism of overseas investment, I shall quote some extracts from an article which will appear in the next issue of National Development, the magazine that is produced by my department. I say with pride that it is one of the best publications of its kind in Australia. It3 articles are not political. They are written by public servants in the best tradition of the Public Service, which does its best for the country whatever government may be in power. A part of the article reads as follows : -

One of the most striking features of Australian development in recent years has been the very large extent to which industrial enterprises from abroad have taken part in the expansion of manufacturing industries. The entry into the Australian scene of important manufacturers from other countries has occurred mainly in three ways. Some overseas firms have established direct subsidiaries in Australia, wholly owned, financed and operated by the parent company. Others have joined fortes wilh local interests in creating a new enterprise or m Expanding an existing one, and, in the ti.ird category, Australian firms have benefited by making agency arrangements with overseas manufacturers to use the latter’s patents, trade names and know-how on a royalty basis. Whatever their origin, whether wholly or partly financed from abroad, these enterprises in fact become Australian companies, registered and incorporated in this country, subject to its laws and adding their contribution to the total store of manufacturing capacity within the nation. The history of overseas participation in Australian industry is a fascinating story of confidence in this country’s future.

I invite the Labour party to have similar confidence in its future. The article continues -

Between the end of the war and June, 1951, investment in manufacture planned by companies with major overseas interests totalled approximately £100 million in 541 known now or expanding enterprises. This does not include the probable large sums (of which no details are available) contributed by private investors abroad who have taken up shares in Australian manufacturing companies. Of this £100 million, £0G million was announced by firms with United Kingdom interests, involving 340 projects, and £27 million by firms with United States interests, involving 150 manufacturing projects.

I shall not quote the article in detail. It goes on, giving chapter and verse, to set out the development that has occurred and, as far as practicable, the sources of the capital invested. The article will appear in the next issue of the magazine, for all to read.

Senator Armstrong:

– Will it be signed ?

Senator SPOONER:

– None of the articles in the magazines are signed, but I assure honorable senators that it will substantiate fully the public statements that I have made on this subject in good faith, believing them to be true. No doubt they will be found to be true. Contrary to the pessimistic statements that have been made by the Opposition, I believe that this Government has done a particularly good job. It has provided a solid foundation for future progress. One of the good things that has happened is that overseas capital has been attracted into Australia. Every new industrial project in this country provides additional work for our people. If there is goodwill between employers and employees, as well as between the political parties of this country, every increase of manufacturing and industrial capacity should lead inevitably to a higher standard of living for the Australian people. However, I emphasize that that result will not be attained unless there is goodwill. One of the gravest charges that I lay against the Labour partyis that its constant criticism and endeavour is to cause distrust and antagonism with consequent ill effects, instead of co-operation between various sections of the community.

Senator Ashley:

– Pursuant to Standing Order 363, which reads -

A Document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister of the Crown, unless stated to be of a confidential nature, or such as should more properly be obtained by Address, may be called for and made a public Document.

I ask the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to lay on the table the article from which he has quoted.

Senator SPOONER:

– As the article is a confidential document, I decline to table it-

Senator Ashley:

– The Minister is hiding in a coward’s castle.

Senator SPOONER:

– At least my reason is a logical one. If Senator Ashley’s reasons were logical they would command greater respect. I point out that the article will be published in a magazine within a short period of time. I do not think that it would be fair to the department to make available for perusal the whole of the article prior to publication.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for an appropriation of £151,654,000 to carry on the necessary normal services of Government other than capital services for the first four months of the financial year 1953-54. The amount required may he summarized under the following heads : -

The bill provides for the carrying on of essential services approved by the Parliament in the Appropriation Acts 1952-53. The amounts provided for ordinary services represent, with minor exceptions, approximately one-third of the 1952-53 appropriations, after allowing for basic wage adjustments announced during the year.

The provision of £65,095,000 for defence services is to maintain expenditure on the defence programme, and to meet requirements in Korea and Malaya. The amount of £11,344,000, under war and repatriation services, covers expenditure on repatriation and rehabilitation and other post-war charges and, in addition, includes expenditure on account of the operations in Korea, which will later be recovered from other countries.

The amount of £16,000,000 for “ Advance to the Treasurer “ is required to enable the payment of the special grants to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania to be continued pending receipt of the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and also to cover unforeseen and miscellaneous expenditure, and to provide for any unexpected defence requirements. Except in relation to defence, no amounts arc included for new services.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– As the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has stated, the bill provides for the carrying on of the ordinary annual services of the country for a period of four months commencing on the 1st July. That is a usual and normal procedure at this time of the year. We accept the Minister’s assurance that the total amount involved is approximately one-third of this current year’s appropriation, after allowing for basic wage increases announced during the year.’ I have no further comment to make at the moment, realizing that any honorable senator who is interested may, at the committee stage, discuss the details.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I refer to Division 207 - War and Repatriation Services - for which the proposed vote is £4,746,000. I should like the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to inform me how the amount of the proposed vote compares with an appropriation that was made about this time last year. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) stated in his second-reading speech that, except in relation to defence, no provision has been made for new services. I regret that financial provision has not been made for the establishment of institutions for the treatment of neurotic ex-service personnel who are at present receiving treatment for mental sickness caused in the service of this country. They are at present being treated in quarters that no decent Australian citizen would ever expect them to occupy. I am keenly disappointed that, once again, no provision has been made to relieve this unfortunate and disgraceful state of affairs.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I assure the honorable senator that, when the budget is being presented, consideration will be given to the provision of funds for the purpose that he has mentioned. The measure before the committee makes provision for the carrying on of services for a period of four months on the basis of the appropriation for 1952-53. No new services are being provided for. This bill provides for approximately one-third of the expenditure under that heading during this financial year.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I refer to the proposed vote of £238,000 under Division 201- Joint Coal Board. As I have been under the impression that that instrumentality is self-supporting, I should be pleased if the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) would explain the reason for this provision.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

.- Under the heading “Miscellaneous Services “, the appropriation for the Joint Coal Board for 1952-53 was made up as follows: -

The provision in the measure before the committee is for approximately one-third of last year’s expenditure by the board. The amount of £238,000 to which the honorable senator has referred is estimated to be required in respect of the four months ended the 31st October.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I refer to the following item under the heading of Commonwealth

Railways - “ Freight concessions - North Australia Railway and Central Australia Railway, £245,800”. I should like the Minister to inform me who are the recipients of these concessions, and in what manner is this money to be expended.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– The sum to which Senator Critchley has referred represents freight concessions on the carriage of coal from Leigh Creek to Adelaide on the Commonwealth Railways.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1578

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 1) 1953-54

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1549).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill is complementary to the measure which the Senate has just passed. Whilst the other measure dealt with the normal annual services of the country, this bill deals with the continuation of capital works and services. It is necessary that all current works be continued in the interests of employment and having regard to the works themselves. This is a normal procedure at this period of the year. The Minister has assured the Senate that no provision is being made in this bill in respect of new services. The Opposition has no objection to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1578

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1952-53

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1550). Senator McKENNA (Tasmania - Leader of the Opposition) [11.35] . -This measure relates to the current year and to the current estimates. It appears from the bill and from the second-reading speech of the Minister for National

Development (Senator Spooner) that provision is being made for certain items of expenditure which could not be foreseen when the budget was brought down, whilst there also appear to be certain items on which expenditure is likely to exceed the original estimate. Under this measure and the Supply (Works and Services) Bill (No. 2) 1953-54 provision is being made for a, total estimated expenditure of £39,000,000. That appears to be an extraordinary amount to have been overlooked. The Minister pointed out that the sum of approximately £6,000,000 arises out of special arrangements in respect of Korea. The sum of £2,000,000 is being provided for the stockpiling of coal, and the sum of £1,000,000 in respect of additional share capital for Qantas Empire Airways Limited, whilst the sum of £7,000,000 is being sought for the repayment of war savings certificates. The Minister acknowledged that much of the additional expenditure arises as a result of increases of wages and costs, and that fact is another acknowledgment that inflation has continued throughout the period that is being covered.

There may be an explanation for the provision of the amount of £7,000,000 for the repayment of war savings certificates. I should like to know why a sum of that nature and type was overlooked. If it was not overlooked, how does it happen that, very suddenly the Government anticipates that it will be called upon to meet the repayment of war saving certificates to the value of £7,000,000? How does it find now, after only nine months of the financial year have expired and only six months have elapsed since the budget was brought down, that this rather extraordinary item arises? The amounts that are involved in both the Budget and this supplementary appropriation will, of course, come under review in the Budget next year when the final figures for the year will be available and a comparison between this year’s operations and the estimates for next year will come under review. I should like an explanation of that point.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I inform the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that the amount of £7,000,000 that is being provided for the repayment of war saving certificates is a normal amount tb at might reasonably be expected to fall due for repayment. Under this measure, provision for that expenditure is being made from revenue whereas, usually, war saving certificates are redeemed from loan moneys. The honorable senator may recollect that this financial year the Australian Government has made its share of loan moneys available to the States for the purpose of financing their works programmes. For that reason this amount must be found from revenue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1579

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1952-53

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1550).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader pf the Opposition · Tasmania

– This measure is the works and services counterpart of the bill with which the Senate has just dealt. The net expenditure for which provision is made in this and the preceding measure amounts to £39,000,000 of which approximately £6,500,000 is being appropriated under this bill in respect of works and services.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1579

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1951-52

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1551).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This measure appropriates the sum of approximately £6,000,000 which forms a part of the Treasurer’s Advance of £15,000,000 that was appropriated in 1951-52. Complete details are available to the Senate, and I have no comment to make on the matter at this stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1579

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1951-52

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1551).

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– This measure also relates to the year 1951-52, which has closed. It deals with works and services for that period. The total appropriation for that year was £115,40S,000, whereas expenditure was £109,179,000, or £6,229,000 less. However, expenditure on certain individual items relating to works and services has been exceeded. That expenditure totals £3,412,455. This bill proposes to give covering authority for the expenditure of that amount.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1579

LOAN (TEMPORARY REVENUE DEFICITS) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1552).

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– This measure seeks authority for treasury-bill finance utilized by the Government to cover budgetary deficits, or temporary budgetary embarrassments, suffered as far back as the 1st July, 1950. The bill is given retrospective effect, and accordingly, retrospective approval is being given for what has happened since the 1st July, 1950, which is nearly three years ago. I comment upon the fact that such approval has been delayed. The bill seeks to authorize the temporary, use of loan fund money and treasury-bills to cover deficiencies in revenue to meet current expenditure as the year goes by. That is not an uncommon practice, of course; revenue rather lags behind expenditure in the year. It is the practice to have recourse to loan funds and, on occasion, treasury-bills, to keep the ordinary annual services of the country flowing. It is somewhat interesting to note the way in which treasury-bill finance has grown. On the figures made available by the treasury, the year commenced with £153,280,000 of treasury-bill finance. At the 28th February last, the last date for which figures are available, the figure had risen to £285,000,000. That means that almost £132,000,000 of treasury-bills was issued during only eight months of the year. I recognize that the Government’s revenue will flow in over the concluding months of the financial year, but I should like the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to make some kind of forecast of the expected amount of treasury-bills that will be outstanding at the 30th June, next. That is a position which, I should imagine, the Government will be watching with great attention. Although a good deal of revenue will flow into the coffers of the Government from now until the end of the financial year, the fact that the Government apparently will have to call heavily on treasury-bill finance to help to finance the State works programmes indicates that there is likely to be a record pool of treasury-bills at the 30th June,

Friday, 21 March, 1953.

Senator McKENNA:

– Late as the hour is, I take the opportunity briefly to recount the complete and rapid change of face of the Government in relation to treasury-bill finance. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), at meetings with the State Premiers in October, 1951, when the 1951-52 year was under consideration, said -

A deficit budget at an inflationary period like this would’ be a scandal. It would expose any government to the accusation that it did not care about inflation because it was prepared to pour £50,000,000 of new money into the existing supplies and so aggravate the inflation.

That was in October, 1951. Yet before that year had concluded the Government used £45,000,000 of treasury-bills to help to finance State works programmes. A comparison of treasury-bills at the opening of that financial year with those at the end plainly discloses the use of £45,000,000 of additional treasury-bills. When the last budget was presented it was acknowledged that such a method of finance had been resorted to and that the sum involved was used in connexion with trust fund balances, and that some £27,000,000 had been taken from the National Debt Sinking Fund to finance State works programmes.

In order to show how suddenly the Government realized that it had been steering on the wrong tack, and completely changed course, I refer to a statement of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), made on the 2nd May, 1952, which was much nearer to the end of that financial year. The press of that day, reporting the proceedings of the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, referred to the matter. For instance, the Sydney Morning Herald of Friday, 2nd May, 1952, stated -

Fadden warns Premiers. “ No central bank finance “. The Federal Treasurer, Sir Arthur Fadden, told the Loan Council to-day that the Commonwealth would not allow central bank credits to be used to finance State works programmes.

That was on the 1st May, 1952. Yet, before the year was out, indeed, within two months of that statement being made, some £45,000,000 of treasury-bills was used, showing a complete lack of anticipation. The most extraordinary part of all this is that in the budget that followed 30on after the conclusion of that financial year the Treasurer made the following statement, which is remarkable in the light of what had been said previously : -

We consider it justifiable, in the light of the change in economic conditions as compared with a year ago and the emergence of some signs of unemployment, that loan raisings for essential works of a truly developmental and productive kind should receive some special assistance from bank credit.

That was a complete change of policy.

Senator Gorton:

– Does not the honorable senator consider it to have been justified?

Senator McKENNA:

– I think so. We have never objected to that form of finance, but I point out how critical the Government senators were of Opposition senators who urged that central bank finance should be used for reproductive works and to mop up any pools of unemployment.

Senator McCallum:

– The Opposition did not say that it should be used to mop up unemployment.

Senator McKENNA:

– We did. We have been pointing out in this chamber from almost the day the Government. took office that inflation was under way. We warned the Government, particularly in October, 1950, when we moved in this chamber for a bill for a referendum to give the Australian Government power to control prices. We gave the Government a firm and very grave warning that if it did not at that stage take positive steps to halt inflation it would have a raging unemployment problem on its hands. Government senators repudiated any such suggestions, and have lived to see an acute unemployment problem on their hands.

Senator Vincent:

– The honorable senator does not suggest that it is acute now, does he?

Senator McKENNA:

– I do. It is nothing like as acute as it was during the 1930’s, but who can feel any complacency about it, in view of the fact that the Government admitted recently that at one period there were approximately 44,000 receiving unemployment relief? I know from the rule of thumb method that applies in the Department of Soci.il Services that if one wishes to determine the total number of persons unemployed in the community, one simply multiplies by three the number of persons on unemployment relief. Senator Vincent has asked whether I consider the unemployment problem acute. I reply that I should consider it acute if there were only- 10,000 unemployed in Australia.

Senator Spicer:

– Was it acute in. 1947 ?

Senator McKENNA:

– I cannot recall the details of that year. I regard unemployment of any dimensions in a. country such as ours, which is shrieking out for development, as acute. Unemployment grows in acuteness with each individual who is added to the list. I deplore the tendency that we hear from time to time to discount unemployment because only 30,000 nv 40,000 people are on unemployment relief. The Government, particularly when it was wooing the electors in 1949, spoke about full employment, and undertook to maintain it. Now we never hear a word about full employment. Instead, the Government speaks about maintaining a high level of employment.

Senator Pearson:

– Does the honorable senator claim that a high level of employment existed in 194.7?

Senator McKENNA:

– It existed during the whole period that Labour ruled.

Senator Spicer:

– That is nonsense.

Senator Vincent:

– What was the level in 1947?

Senator McKENNA:

– The Prime Minister, in October, 1951, and the Treasurer, in May, 1952, stated plainly that no central bank finance would be used to finance State works programmes. They followed those statements by using £45,000,000 of central bank finance. Within two or three months, in the budget session, the Government leaders said, “ Of course we must have central bank finance. It is the proper thing to use”. I do not contest the last statement. I merely wish to show that that attitude has been typical of this Government. It has displayed vacillation and incompetence and then sudden spurts in another direction. That instability has done more to undermine the confidence of the business community of Australia than has any other factor. It was that loss of confidence in the Government and the feeling that the country had lost intelligent leadership that led very largely to the unemployment position. The bill is not opposed by the Opposition, but it is necessary to record formally those facts, and I could not resist making that comment upon the Government’s performance.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1581

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1953

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed, to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 1582

ATOMIC ENERGY BILL 1953

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.

This is a bill to bring together in one piece of legislation all matters associated with the provision of atomic energy. The Atomic Energy (Control of Materials) Acts of 1946 and 1952 are repealed, but are re-enacted with a few additional provisions; the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is created with all necessary powers and functions; and, because of the highly secret nature of some of the commission’s activities, special provisions are also included in the bill relating to security. This bill is made necessary by the important discoveries of uranium-bearing ores especially in the Northern Territory, and by the Government’s determination that these deposits shall he vigorously and promptly exploited for the defence of Australia and its allies, and also ultimately for industrial and other purposes. The bill is something of a milestone in Australia’s progress in the field of uranium and atomic research and development, as it marks the stage to which we have come since 1946, and from which we must now go forward to great developments in the future.

The original Australian Atomic Energy (Control of Materials) Act was passed in August, 1946, inspired to some extent by the establishment of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission and the simultaneous presentation of atomic energy control legislation to the parliaments of Great Britain, the United States of America and other countries. The passage of that somewhat tentative act actually preceded the discovery of uranium in Australia, except, perhaps, in South Australia, but it appears to have been thought desirable that Australia should enact similar legislation to that coming into operation in the other countries I have mentioned.From that time onwards very little happened in the Commonwealth sphere until September, 1949, when Mr. White, a private prospector, discovered uranium-bearing ores at Rum Jungle, in the Northern Territory. He made his discovery as a result of pamphlets published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources, then a part of the Department of Supply and Development, now of the Department of National Development. The bureau promptly sent its geologists to the area, and prospecting and mining operations were commenced early in 1950 at the end of the wet season. Five additional prospects were discovered, hut results were very discouraging and difficult to interpret geologically. Several bores put down near White’s discovery turned out to be negative or disappointing. These discouragements continued throughout 1950-51 ; nevertheless, the bureau went on with its work and extended its tunnels. Then, in December, 1951, its persistence was rewarded with the discovery at a new intersection of what appeared to be large ore bodies of high grade. Further exploration work was then pressed forward in the belief that if substantial deposits of this high-grade ore were proved, Australian uranium resources would make an important contribution to world defence and its own economy. Subsequent work has now established that we have substantial deposits, and later prospects indicate that there are likely to be other deposits of similar grade.

Previously, in September, 1951, after consultation with the Australian Government, Mr. Playford, Premier of South Australia, had gone overseas in connexion with South Australian uranium deposits. While he was there it was arranged, with the assistance of the Australian Government, that three representatives of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, led by Mr. Jesse Johnson, director of the Raw Materials Division of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, should visit Australia to examine not only the South Australian deposits but also those in the Commonwealth’s own territories. They arrived in March, 1952. They spent a good deal of their time in close consultation with Commonwealth Ministers and officials, visited Rum Jungle, examined our grades of ore, especially the newly discovered grades, and made themselves very familiar with our conditions and our prospects for the future. Acting on hehalf of what is known as the Combined Development Agency, a body consisting of representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, Mr. Johnson negotiated an agreement between the Australia Government, the Government of South Australia and that agency for the development of Radium Hill in South Australia and the treatment and sale of uranium products. Commonwealth Ministers and their officers played a prominent part in bringing this agreement to finality, and, indeed, I think it fair to say that the agreement could not have been completed but for the assistance of the Australian Government.

At the same time, an agreement was entered into between the Australian Government and the agency for the sale of certain tonnages of ore extracted from Rum Jungle during development work there, to be shipped to the United States of America and treated there for the purpose of gathering chemical and other scientific knowledge as to the best methods of ultimate treatment in Australia. We also worked out the principles of a longterm agreement for the sale of uranium from Rum Jungle to the agency and for financial and technical assistance. The details of this agreement took some time to complete, but it was signed by our Ambassador in Washington some time ago, and it is in all respects an agreement most satisfactory to Australia, in regard to price, conservation of reserves of ore, and other matters.

In tho meantime, the Government had decided that the Rum Jungle area should be developed as quickly as possible, and that the best way to do this was to engage the services of some experienced and reputable Australian mining company. To this end an agreement was negotiated and has been signed between the Government and Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited for the rapid development of Rum Jungle on behalf of the Commonwealth by Territory Enterprises Limited, which is a subsidiary of Consolidated Zinc Proprietary

Limited. The company went into formal occupation of Rum Jungle on the 1st January, 1953.

As an indication of the vigour with which this venture has, at the request of the Commonwealth, been pushed forward since then, I mention that on the construction and engineering side temporary camps at Rum Jungle have been cleaned up, improved and extended, a lay-out for the town site near the mine has been prepared and approved by the Administration; roads works are in progress, equipment has been hired; the first six houses have been completed and occupied and more are under construction ; further contracts for the construction of accommodation for single men have been negotiated; a powerful temporary generating set has been installed pending the construction of a 7,000-volt transmission line to the mine; liquid fuel storage and handling facilities are being installed ; security fences erected; the necessary transport fleet organized; temporary general and technical offices have been established at Rum Jungle, accounting procedures instituted, and, in addition, many other steps have been taken. On the mining side a new main shaft is being sunk and old development shafts expanded. Driving and cross-cutting have been greatly advanced. The company has just successfully negotiated a three-year industrial agreement with the North Australia Workers Union in respect of workers in the area. This scale of progress at Rum Jungle will be rapidly accelerated as time goes by; ore will be produced this year, the treatment plant will be erected, and the project will be in full production of U308 next year.

In the matter of atomic research and development also the Government has been active. Upon the recommendation of an able committee of scientific men called the Atomic Energy Advisory Committee, we took decisions to embark upon a research and development programme leading to the industrial use of atomic energy. In pursuance of this programme some scientists will shortly be on their way to Harwell to join other Australian nuclear-physicists already there to participate in research in England, returning later to Australia to pursue our development programme on the spot. All this will be done in consultation with the Governments of Great Britain and the United States of America.

Prospecting and surveying for uranium in the Northern Territory have also been proceeded - with as quickly as possible. The Bureau of Mineral Resources has sent officers overseas, particularly to the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States of America, to keep abreast of technical developments in the search of uranium deposits. It has continued its ground prospecting and has also developed a new air-borne survey technique with great success. The first air-borne scintillometer ever exported from Canada is in use by the bureau. Recently, remarkable results were obtained from an air survey of 1,200 square miles in the Rum Jungle area, and still more extensive surveys are taking place.

The question of private prospecting and mining in Commonwealth territories has been under close examination by the Government for some time. At the request of the Government, the Atomic Energy Commission has now formulated proposals embodying a policy for surveying and prospecting, designed to stimulate private prospecting and open up fresh uranium fields by private enterprise. These proposals will be considered by the Government in the near future and announcements will be made.

The above is a very brief outline of some of the things which the Government has done in this matter since it came into office. I believe that we have acted with imagination and vigour and have soundly and wisely laid the foundations for great developments in the field of uranium and atomic energy. The future will depend largely upon the commission, backed as it will be by the resources of the Government. It is a body of firstrate men, clothed with adequate powers and able to call not only upon the facilities of other government instrumentalities such as the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, but also upon the knowledge and experience of experts at home and abroad, and upon the resources of private industry in Australia. It will not be the Government’s fault if Australia is not producing large quantities of uranium in a comparatively short time, and also producing atomic power for industrial purposes within a reasonable number of years. As already announced, the commission will consist of Mr. Stevens, formerly secretary, Department of Supply, who will be a full-time chairman, devoting the whole of his very great abilities to this task; and Professor Baxter and Mr. Murray, who will be part-time members. The contribution of these two last-mentioned gentlemen, since the constitution of the commission was announced last November, has already proved that Australia is fortunate indeed in having been able to obtain their distinguished services in this great national work.

Turning now to the bill, honorable senators will observe that it is divided into five parts, the important ones being Parts I., III. and IV., which I shall deal with in some detail hereafter. Part I. deals with matters such as interpretation, application of the act to the Crown and to the territories of the Commonwealth. Part V. contains certain miscellaneous sections relating to delegation of authority, application of the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act, jurisdiction of the courts’ right to hear certain offences in camera, institution of prosecution for offences, the right to prosecute either summarily or upon indictment, and the power to make regulations. Part II. of the act is new and important. It sets up the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and includes many clauses usually in statutes incorporating bodies of this kind. The powers and functions of the commission set out in Division 2 of Part II. are wide, and are intended to clothe the commission with adequate authority to deal with matters relating to the exploration, mining and treatment of uranium and associated minerals, the disposal of the products, research and development in connexion with uranium and atomic energy for industrial as well as defence purposes.

I draw attention to sub-clause (4.) of clause 17 of the bill, which is intended to ensure that the functions and powers of the commission are performed within the strict limits of the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers, leaving the States free .to develop their own uranium resources, as we earnestly hope they will do in the same way as the Government of South Australia is doing. The remaining clauses of Division 2 deal with the service of the commission and with financial provisions which need not be commented upon here, but which can, if necessary, be explained in detail at the committee stage of the bill.

Part III. of the bill, which deals with the control of materials, is for the mostpart a re-enactment of the Atomic Energy (Control of Materials) Acts of 1946 and 1952. Sections 12 and 13 of the 1946 act are omitted, as their subjectmatter is considered to be adequately covered by other sections, in particular section 13a of the 1952 act. Clause 41 re-enacts section 13a except that the new provision is not now limited to the territories of Australia as was section 13a, and a new sub-clause (3.) has been added, consequential upon the application of the new clauses to the whole of Australia. Two other changes have also been made. Clause 34 makes it clear that the powers conferred by Part III. are to be exercised only for the purposes of the defence of the Commonwealth or in relation to things done, or proposed to bc done in a territory of the Commonwealth. This limitation is inserted so as to make it clear in the interests of a State that things done under Part III. within a State can be done only for defence purposes. Another limitation is provided in subclause (3.) of clause 38, which provides, in respect of the granting or refusal of licences under the section, that the Minister must grant a licence in respect of anything proposed to be done in a State unless he considers it necessary or desirable for the purposes of the defence of the Commonwealth to refuse to grant such a licence.

Part IV. of the bill deals with security and is new, although many of its provisions are copied or adapted from existing legislation. Clauses 44, 45 and 46 of the act prohibit the communication, acquisition, or removal of what is called “ restricted inf ormation “ with intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth. Restricted information is defined very fully in clause 5 of the bill, the terms of which have been drawn up after careful thought and on the advice of technical experts including nuclear-physicists, metallurgists and others. Honorable senators will readily recognize the need for safeguarding rigorously the type of information so defined. A necessary ingredient of the offences under each of the sections I have just mentioned is that the offence should be committed “with intent to prejudice defence “. Proof of such intent may often be difficult, and clause 47 deals with this. This provision is taken from section 78 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which has been a well-known feature of Commonwealth legislation for many years.

Clause 48 deals with the unlawful communication of restricted information by certain persons including those to whom it has been entrusted by Commonwealth officers or which has come into the possessions of a defendant by reason of his special position. Clause 49 deals with sabotage of property. Clause 50 deals with the right of arrest and search of persons suspected of having committed offences under this part, but these powers can only be exercised by a constable, or a peace officer appointed under the Peace Officers’ Act. This is a similar provision to that contained in the recently enacted Defence (Special Undertakings) Act which was approved in another place, except that its terms are more restricted than those contained in that act.

The remaining provisions of this part deal with the obligation by persons seeking employment to furnish information, the oath or affirmation of secrecy, and the necessity for the observance of secrecy by members or employees of the commission. Other clauses deal with the limitation of right of action against the Commonwealth in respect of acts done under clause 50, the right to declare restricted area3 and to forbid entry thereon, and the prohibition of access to restricted information in the possession of contractors.

In drawing up this bill the Government has sought to bring together under one authority - the Australian Atomic Energy Commission - functions and powers formerly scattered amongst several departments, or not possessed by any of them. As regards security, we have formulated provisions sufficient in the Government’s view to prevent information from reaching the enemies of this country, and at the same time preserving as far as possible the traditional rights of our citizens. Experience may show that amendments are necessary, but we believe we have produced a fair and powerful piece of legislative machinery for shaping the future of Australia in this most important field of uranium and atomic energy. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.24 to 10 a.m.

page 1586

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table the Tariff Board reports on the following items : -

Polishing Bobs or Wheels

Remote Controls for Cycles

Potassium Bi-carbonate.

Inferential Water Meters

Ordered to be printed.

page 1586

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators will be aware of the Government’s recent announcement of its intention to make the self-assessment of provisional tax optional to taxpayers. This bill now provides for the practical implementation of that decision. It is unnecessary for me to traverse, other than briefly, the history of the legislation in this field. Honorable senators are fully acquainted with the principles of the pay-as-you-earn system of taxation and with the very important modifications which the Government made to the system last year in order to overcome the inherent deficiencies and undesirable features so far as its application to fluctuating incomes was concerned.

It is sufficient to say that the Government’s objective in introducing the principle of self-assessment was to permit taxpayers themselves to participate in the calculation of their provisional tax particularly in those cases where they were able to satisfy themselves that by reason of fluctuating incomes the departmental basis, using the preceding year’s income, was demonstrably deficient in estimating their liability. Since the introduction of those reforms which, at the time, were welcomed by the great body of taxpayers and their advisers, the criticism has gained ground that the taxpayers themselves are being unduly handicapped by the requirement that they estimate their incomes prior to the close of the income year. The compulsory aspects of the selfassessment system have been under review by the Government, and the Government is of the opinion that there are factors now present which justify a further modification of the selfassessment provisions. The most important of these factors is the evidence that incomes for the most part now disclose a noticeably steadier trend compared with previous years.

It is proposed, therefore, that the system of optional assessment of provisional tax shall apply to assessments already issued for 1952-53, and in respect of future assessments. The bill leaves open to the taxpayer the choice of paying provisional tax upon the basis notified by the Commissioner of Taxation, that is upon the basis of the preceding year’s income, or of the taxpayer himself estimating his provisional tax upon the basis of his current income. However, he will not he obliged to self-assess his provisional tax, nor will any penalty be incurred if he does not do so. In those cases where the person chooses to self-assess his provisional tax, the bill makes necessary provision against those few taxpayers who may be induced to withhold, unduly, their rightful contributions to the revenue by grossly under-estimating their incomes. Towards this end, the bill provides for the imposition of a penalty where the person, employing the system of selfassessment, under-estimates his income by more than 20 per cent, lit should be noted that no penalty is proposed unless the person chooses to self-assess on an estimate of income which is not only more than 20 per cent, lower than his income of the current year, but also lower, by more than 20 per cent, than the income of the preceding year. These further reforms, as now proposed, should satisfactorily meet the criticism that I have mentioned.

I invite the attention of honorable senators to another clause which deals with the matter of trading stock in relation, particularly, to the question of trading stocks in the hands of the winemaking industry including distillers of spirits from wine. The taxable income of a business, for income tax purposes, is determined having regard to the value of trading stock on hand at the beginning of the income year and the value of trading stock on hand at the end of the year. Such trading stock may be brought to account at cost or at market selling value or at replacement price. As far as the wine-making industry is concerned, the law at present is not sufficiently flexible to meet the peculiar conditions of the industry in regard to its trading stocks. It has been customary for the industry to adopt, as common trade practice for evaluating stocks on hand, a. standard value of so much a gallon for unfortified wine, fortified wine, brandy and spirit. There is, of course, an unusually extended process through which the product of the industry has to pass, involving blending, fortification, &c, before it reaches the stage of being a mature marketable product, as, for example, in the case of saleable wine or spirit. This process necessarily involves the industry in carrying over for a period of several years large stocks of unmatured wines and spirits. As I have stated, the existing income tax law does not adequately recognize these peculiar conditions, and a strict application of the present trading stock provisions, having regard to the standard practice of evaluation of stocks adopted by the industry, could quite conceivably spell financial ruin, not only to the wine-making industry but also to the closely allied grape-growing industry. The Government, recognizing the peculiar conditions obtaining, has given the closest consideration to possible alternatives, and it proposes that returns and assessments, based upon the industry’s own standard values, should not be disturbed and that, as regards the future, the industry’s methods of valuation should be recognized in principle by legislation. Honorable senators will find support for the present proposals upon a reference to existing provisions in the law relating to the valuation of natural increase of live-stock.

In the case of live-stock owners who are obliged, for income tax purposes, to bring their live-stock to account as trading stock, the law already allows those primary producers to value the natural increase of live-stock at selected standard values subject to certain minimum values that have been prescribed. Those particular provisions were inserted in the law in recognition of the practical difficulties which would confront live-stock owners if they were compelled to value the natural increase of live-stock on what would be regarded as a normal basis of valuation for other trading stock. Accordingly, in relation to stocks on hand at the end of the current year, 1952-53, the bill proposes to permit wine-makers to select a standard price per gallon as the basis of valuation of each. class of their trading stock. It is proposed, however, that minimum values be fixed in relation to the selected values’. The relative, minimum values proposed are as follows : - Unfortified wines, ls. 6d. a gallon; fortified wines, 2s. 6d. a gallon; and brandy and fortifying spirit, 6s. a gallon. Whilst the bill will more adequately provide for the special conditions, of the wine-making industry, the proposed provisions will not result in any less or any more net income being assessed to the wine-makers than would be the case if the existing provisions were enforced. Upon eventual disposal of the stock, the actual sale value will, of course, be required to be brought to account.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1588

ATOMIC ENERGY BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1586).

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

;.- Under this measure the Government seeks to do a number of things; but, primarily, it proposes to apply security safeguards in respect of the production of uranium in Australia. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), in his second-reading speech, surveyed the development of uranium deposits in this country since 1946. The most important and interesting proposal in the bill is that the Government has decided to set up an Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The importance which the Government attributes to this matter is disclosed by the fact that it proposes to entrust the Secretary of the Department of Supply with the duty of developing atomic energy in this country. This is to be a full-time job. I am pleased to note that the Government has not underestimated the importance of this subject. Up to date, this task has been the responsibility of the Department of Supply and, at this juncture, I must say that in my view the development of atomic energy in Australia has been very slow indeed. As a result of the setting up of the proposed commission under this bill, I trust that that work will be accelerated. It is true that because of Australia’s peculiar circumstances our national development is restricted by lack of power. The guiding fact behind, the establishment of the aluminium industry in Tasmania, was that a great source of power exists in that State. Because of the pressure of great industrial development in this country, it is amazing how quickly we become short of power. Already the Government of Tasmania, has a serious problem in maintaining and developing sufficient power for the needs of the island and its future development. That Government will need to move rapidly in order to keep up with the demands for power. Because of the geographical location of our coal supplies, great difficulties arise in transporting it from where it is mined to where it is needed. I agree that there is no limit to what could happen in this country if we could develop the industrial application of atomic energy. It would bring about a revolution that would amaze, I imagine, even Jules Verne if he were alive to-day. With unlimited power the growth of the country would be beyond description. Even the words “ phenomenal “ and “ colossal “, which the film magnates use, would not be suitable to describe it.

I applaud the decision of the Government to establish a commission and to put in charge of it a man of proved adminis-tra.ti.ve ability in the Secretary of the Department of Supply. The secondreading speech of the Minister suggests that the commission will be a full-time job for all of its personnel. I do not know whether the Minister is able to supply the information, but at the committee stage I should like him to inform honorable senators of the salary that it is proposed to pay to the chairman of the commission and the other members, and the conditions of their appointment. It seems to me that members of the Parliament and also the public would be able to gain an idea of the real importance of this matter from the importance which the Government itself attaches to it.

I criticize, at this point, the rate of development of Rum Jungle. I remember, when I was inspecting the then known deposits of uranium in Australia, going to the Harts Ranges a little after the middle of 1949. A find had been made in that area which looked as though it might be an important one. It showed uranium, in a form which had not previously been discovered. I think the term which the metallurgists used was that, it was a “ samarskite form “. We thought that the find was important, and we went to the Harts Ranges and rewarded, in a small way, a number of Italian mica miners who had made the discovery. The discovery was not of great importance, but the reward was an encouragement to those miners to move further afield. In that way we thought that other discoveries might be made-

Senator Wright:

– The honorable senator cast a breath of suspicion by his presence, did he?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– There were six Italians involved in the find, and I think that we gave them £300, which was just sufficient for one good party each. However, it was psychologically important to acknowledge the find. The point I wish to make is that while we were actually in the Harts Ranges in 1949 news came of the find at Rum Jungle. We had two geologists working in the Harts Ranges and they were despatched almost overnight to Rum Jungle. That was a little after mid-1949. It was not until the 1st January, 1953, that the present Government took what seems to me to be its most definite step to obtain production at Rum Jungle. It then handed over production to Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited-

Senator Spicer:

– A lot of things had happened in the meantime.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– A lot of time had passed.

Senator Spicer:

– And a lot of things had happened.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The point that I am trying to make is that not enough things happened. In 1949 the majority of the people decided that the responsibility of government should be changed from the Chifley Government to the Menzies Government. We are examining the time that has elapsed since and whether worthwhile development has taken place. My major criticism of the second-reading speech of the Minister is that he has claimed progress in the development of Rum Jungle. I cannot agree with him. Until Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited began to develop it, the progress was so slow that the Government should be ashamed of it.

Senator Spicer:

– Senator Armstrong is a groat advocate for private enterprise.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I am an advocate for those who can do the work. If private enterprise can do it, I am eager to see it do so as quickly as possible. If the Government can do the work better, let the Government do it. The development of uranium deposits in

Australia has not been as speedy as we would like, but the importance of uranium is recognized by the setting up of the commission. We will watch with great interest the future development .of uranium in Australia because it will present to the country, for the first time, an alternative source of power. Our great industrial weakness in Australia is the lack of power.

I remind the Senate that in 1946-47 Senator Ashley, who was then Minister for Supply in the Chifley Government, laid down a series of rewards for the finding of uranium and to encourage the search for the ore. The Government ordered that rewards should be paid in the following scale : - £1,000 for the discovery of a deposit containing sufficient ore to be of economic importance; £1,000 for the discovery of a deposit capable of producing 25 tons or more of uranium oxide; £2,000 for each 25 tons and pro rata for any excess over 25 tons; and a maximum of £25,000 for any one deposit. This Government has paid to the discoverer of the Rum Jungle deposits a total sum of £25,000 tax free. Why has not the Government increased the rewards? Since the Labour Government set down a scale, the value of the £1 has been reduced to about 10s. by inflation. The basic wage is almost double what it was in 1946, but the amount that is available as a reward for the discovery of uranium has not been altered. The new commission’s first task should be reconsideration of the rewards that are offered for the discovery of uranium. If the Chifley Government could make £25,000 available in 1946 as a reward, the time has pasesd for a substantial increase.

Senator Henty:

– A reward of £25,000 would keep the discoverer off the breadline.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– It would bc very handy, but it must be considered in the light of the benefit that is derived by the nation from the discovery. There is a need for generosity in order that the search for uranium may be encouraged. Every possible avenue should be explored so that mcn may be encouraged to interest themselves in search for uranium, and the rewards for successful discoveries should be adequate. Uranium is not only important to Australia from an industrial point of view but, speaking internationally, countries that have uranium to spare are the ones whose voices will be heard in the near future. We can take little notice of the extensive criticisms that have been published, particularly in Sydney newspapers recently, about the security measures that are being taken on our uranium fields. Every responsible person will agree that there must be absolute security in matters of this kind, and that whatever security checks are imposed must be efficient. The Minister virtually admitted in his secondreading speech that the security proposals in this measure were a gesture to the United Kingdom and the United States of America, to assure those countries that any information that may be made available to Australia in connexion with the production of uranium will be well guarded. However, it is one thing to make security arrangements but it is another to make them operate efficiently. That, of course, will be the responsibility of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The bill will empower the commission to enforce security measures in such a manner that information about the development of uranium projects in Australia shall not reach our enemies.

The Labour party has always been critical of the tendency, in the enforcement of security measures, to lay too much emphasis on the man who is employed at the lowest level on a project. Such men rarely have the mental capacity to absorb information that might be useful to the enemy. History has shown that the man we have to watch is the top scientist. Very often great effort is wasted in watching low-level employees whereas in fact probably not more than half a dozen men employed in any one project are capable of understanding and communicating vital information. Our experience of Fuchs, Nunn May, Rosenberg and others who betrayed their country shows that a degree of knowledge -is necessary to the disclosure of secret technical data. Therefore our security measures must be directed particularly at men of that kind. We are told that, in many instances, in- formation has been passed on to the enemy by scientists, not for political motives, but because of the belief that scientific knowledge is the property of the world at large. It is strange, however, that one seldom finds that secret information has been disclosed to countries such as Argentina. Somehow our secrets are always revealed to Russia. The very survival of this country may depend upon the efficiency of the security measures that we adopt in connexion with the development of our uranium projects. Therefore, generally speaking, the Opposition does not, oppose the security provisions of this bill. There are certain aspects of them, however, that we are prepared to discuss with the Government. It would appear that, so far at least, the Rum. Jungle project will process uranium ore only to the stage of U308 which, I understand, is a form of uranium oxide. Uranium oxide is not a fissionable material and it does not seem that we will develop a fissionable material in Australia in the immediate future, although we may do so eventually. “ Prescribed substance “ is defined in the bill as meaning uranium, thorium, plutonium, neptunium, or any of their respective compounds, and it includes any other substance that is specified in the regulations as a substance that is, or may be, used for or in connexion with the production of atomic energy or for research into matters connected with atomic energy.

The Government has also provided for security precautions relating to information concerning the quantity of thesematerials that is produced. It is important that such information should not become general property. In fact, it should not become the property of any one outside the top ranks of the commission. The Government also proposes to prohibit the giving of information concerning the proportion of these materials that is mined. That is also an important provision. The process of treating these metals up to the stage of U308 is common knowledge, but if information concerning their treatment has been published the security provisions will not apply to that information. From reading American magazines, it would appear to me that the only information on atomic energy which has not been published concerns top-level secrets. It seems to me that the processes that will be used in Bum Jungle will be known throughout the world.

Senator Spicer:

– If that is so there will be no prosecutions under this bill.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– That is so. I do not think that the Government will have to prosecute under the security provisions of this bill. However, this legislation will show that the Government is prepared to protect this project in the same way as the United Kingdom and the United States of America have protected their atomic projects. I commend the Government for its proposal to set up the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I recommend that the Government should give further consideration to the rewards that are paid to the discoverers of uranium fields in order to make certain that every encouragement is given to the full production of that metal. It has been said that because of the geographical nature of Australia, this country could become the greatest producer of uranium, in the world. That would be good. Apart from its tremendous importance in war this country has need of atomic energy as a source of power more than any other country. It is well that we should hasten any development that will enable us to use that power. The Opposition does not oppose the measure.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– I commend the Opposition for supporting this bill and congratulate the Government on having introduced with such speed a bill to establish the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. It is very good occasionally for a great matter such as the development of uranium to be dealt with in this chamber because such matters could almost be described as all-party measures. Both sides of the chamber have given of their best in the consideration of the bill and I congratulate Senator Armstrong on his contribution to the debate.

This bill contains two provisions which will give the Minister for Supply great power. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission will be under the direction of the Minister to a very great degree. Of course that provision will appeal to the Opposition. I trust that the Minister will confine himself to policy matters and leave developmental work to the commission, the members of which will be very capable and energetic men. The Senate must congratulate the Government on its decision to employ Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited to do the developmental work at Rum Jungle. Big companies have the knowledge, the drive and the energy to develop- projects of this nature. It often amuses me when honorable senators opposite rant against big companies. When we require to have a good job done with speed we cannot do without them. They are the employers of most of the labour in this country and their destruction would result in the destruction of the jobs of their employees.

I disagree with Senator Armstrong concerning the development of uranium deposits in Australia. A great deal ha3 been done in the development of Rum Jungle and other uranium areas. I was a member of a parliamentary mission which visited the Northern Territory last year and spent a day in Rum Jungle. Of course, that visit did not give the members of the mission the right to pose as atomic experts, but we were able to see what had been done in the area. Considering the conditions under which operations were commenced, a great deal of work had been done at the time of our visit to the area. In spite of the fact that operations were being carried on under the overwhelming damper of government direction, some work wa» being done. Since Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited has commenced its activities the work has been expedited.

The area that is being developed at Rum Jungle will make a grand site for the development of a town. A lake which will provide a wonderful water supply lies within a few miles of it. No one knows where the water comes from “but the lake is very big. During the war it supplied all the air force installations at Rum Jungle with a bountiful supply of water without the level of the water in the lake being lowered an inch. Th, Royal Australian Air Force installed alongside the lake a pumping plant, the foundations of which still exist. Another advantage of the site that is being developed lies in the fact that it is very close to the great Batchelor air strip, which was developed during the war and is still in good condition. It is fortuitous that an airstrip exists in the area. In addition, there is a railway alongside, from which a spur line, which was constructed by the Royal Australian Air Force, is still in existence. I noticed with interest that many shafts that had been sunk by the Royal Australian Air Force to obtain water in the jungle are in a fairly good state of preservation. In one instance, when a piece of wood that had been driven into the top of a bore casing was removed, water began to flow immediately. I was told by some of the workers in the area that an Australianmade bush geiger-counter was equal to any such instrument made elsewhere in the world. Some of the men claimed that, because it had stood up to very rough work in the bush, it was superior to other makes. “With typical Australian ingenuity, some of the prospectors had adapted the Australian-made geigercounter for use on a vehicle. That was a great improvement on the former practice whereby the prospectors were obliged to carry the instrument through the bush. “When we visited the adjoining farms, I had a most interesting conversation with Mr. “White, who discovered uranium at Bum Jungle. He told me that he and his wife, after listening to a broadcast on behalf of the Department of Supply, in which information was given of the kind of rock formation for which prospectors for uranium should search, he remembered that he had seen similar rocks in the jungle nearby. That led him to discover the extensive uranium field at Rum Jungle. Mr. “White’s experience demonstrates the wisdom of official broadcasts being couched in language readily understandable by the layman. By his enterprise, Mr. White earned a reward of £25,000. I consider that that was a very good reward, because, unlike other prospectors, who have had to incur a great deal of expense, following an actual find, he did not have to perform any developmental work. In this instance the amount of the reward was almost clear profit to

Mr. White. As the cost of developing finds of minerals in the Northern Territory is considerable, and has had a retarding influence on the activities of prospectors, I think that the Government is to be commended for making a reward for proof of a find of uranium, which did not involve the finder in any developmental work.

I cannot agree with Senator Armstrong’s assertion that not much work has been undertaken in connexion with our uranium deposits during the last few years. On the contrary, I consider that a great deal of developmental work has been performed, and I am sure that the activities of Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission will result in the full exploitation of the vast deposits of uranium in the Northern Territory. In the past, Australian industry has been severely handicapped by the absence of natural oil resources in this country. It may well be that ultimately uranium, as a source of power, will prove to be as valuable to Australia as is oil to the United States of America. I trust that the development of the industry will be proceeded with expeditiously.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I rise to express a personal opinion on this matter - which is divorced entirely from the views of the Labour party - based on my conscientious belief in the inherent freedom of the subject and his right to have recourse to law, without compulsion. Senator Henty referred to the remarkable qualities of an Australian-made bush geiger-counter. When I was at Rum Jungle, the party of which I was a member walked about half a mile from the actual uranium field to inspect a bore that had been installed by service personnel during the war period, and from which it was claimed that a continuous supply of water, adequate for both industrial and domestic purposes, was available. The official who was conducting the party carried an Australian geigercounter. After we had been’ at the bore for a while a member of the party asked him if there was any likelihood of a uranium deposit being discovered adjacent, to the bore. The official replied, “ No. I have had it in this area before. I will open it up and show you that it will not make a registration here “. However, when he took the instrument out of its case, it did in fact make a registration. The official then said, “ I am afraid that I have made a mistake, unless, of course, some members of the party have uranium in their pockets “. Although the official spoke in the lighter vein, it subsequently transpired that some members of the party had uranium souvenirs in their pockets. I admit that they had no right to the souvenirs. That experience brings me to the crux of the matter, which relates to the provisions for security contained in PartIV. of the measure before the chamber. Clause 47 reads -

On a prosecution of a person under paragraph (a) of section forty-four, section forty-five or section forty-six of this Act -

It is not necessary to show thathe was guilty of a particular act tending to show an intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth . . he may be convicted . . .

If it is proved that a photograph . . or any information . . . is or includes, restricted information has been dealt with by that person … it shall be deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been so dealt with with intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth.

On the occasion to which I have just referred, each member of the party, including myself, was shown to possess an article which would come within that classification and on the mere laying of a charge - a statement merely being made in terms of the security provisions in this bill - each of us could be brought before a court and be obliged to prove that he was not guilty of an offence under these provision.

Senator Spicer:

– Guilty of what?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– Guilty of intent.

Senator Spicer:

– That would not be sufficient ground on which to assume guilt. What offence would a person be charged with in those circumstances?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– He would be charged with having in his possession an article covered by the provision that I have just read. It could be alleged that the person concerned intended to use that article for illegal purposes, or to aid an enemy; and that person would be obliged to prove his innocence. All of the security provisions embodied in this bill are, to say the least, framed on very light lines. I am aware that I shallbe told that they appear in the Crimes Act. Nevertheless, they are unjustified. For a number of years, I have endeavoured in ray humble way to have those provisions deleted from the Crimes Act. Consequently, I object to the insertion of them in this measure.

These security provisions relate to production and prospecting and the treatment of uranium ores. I point out to honorable senators that all treatments of uranium ores down to a concentrate are known to metallurgists, including amateurs, and, indeed, geologists. A prospector experiments with all sorts of processes in order to discover the contents of a particular ore. If he should find a residue of uranium oxide, he acquires knowledge of a particular treatment. Various methods are employed in the crushing of ores for finds. Sliming, slushing and washing are processes which have been known for ages. All flotation methods are well known in every country wherever ore is treated, or tested. All electrolytic and magnetic treatments are well known in every major country, even in so-called backward China. The treatment of uranium ore up to U308 is, in fact, no secret at all. Yet, under these provisions a person may be prohibited from employing such methods. These provisions will inject a fear into individuals who possess such knowledge, not because of the fact that they possess it, but on the score that they intend to use it for an illegal purpose.

Senator Spicer:

– Not if it is published material.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I know that much has been published on the subject. Nevertheless, it will be easy to prove illegal intent against an individual who is found to possess an article covered by the proposed security provisions, particularly if the individual has knowledge also of treatment processes. For instance, if a photograph of Rum Jungle were found in my possession I could be charged, not simply on the ground that I possessed the photograph, but on the allegation that I intended to use it for the purpose of divulging certain information about operations at Rum Jungle. Thousands of persons are well acquainted with these matters and they believe that they should make their information available generally in the cause of progress. Up to the production of U30S, all treatments, including some magnetic treatments, are known to thousands of persons who engage in the testing, separation and refining of ores. Articles of an instructional nature indicating how certain ores should be treated have been published from time to time as have also articles dealing with the treatment of uranium ores. Under these proposed security provisions, a person who had knowledge of such processes could be charged with an offence even though he might simply be endeavouring to help his fellow men in the interests of progress.

I strongly object to these provisions. Treatments of uranium ores from U308 to U325, and even finer uranium, at which stage it can be used to produce fissionable material, have so far been kept secret. I can well understand the application of these proposed provisions in order to maintain secrecy in respect of those processes. But these provisions are to apply to the production of fissionable material to the initial stage. I cannot understand why that is necessary. Treatment from U308 to U325 is not generally known. Furthermore great danger is involved in handling uranium ore between those stages, because it then becomes dangerous due to radiation and the possibility of explosion. Because of the troubled condition of the world to-day, I can well understand the reason for keeping secret that phase of the development of atomic energy, but that is not what this bill proposes to do. Nobody in this Parliament knows very much about the research that is being conducted in South Australia. The two places where such research is being carried out could be safeguarded without the need for all the paraphernalia contained in Part IV. of this bill, which relates to security measures. It is the treatment of the ore from U308 to U325 that is interesting to foreign agents. Why is it necessary to make security provision for a lot of other matters which are not really important at all? I happen to know something of the fate that befell certain men in the past who stood up for their rights in our courts of law. I do not think it is right that any man should be deemed guilty on the mere assertion of somebody else that he is guilty. I have seen instances in which men were convicted because they were not able to prove their innocence after it had been asserted that they were at the scene of a crime. Because they were not able to prove that they were somewhere else when the offence was committed they suffered the penalty provided by the law. It is necessary only to cast our minds back a few years in order to remember the ramifications of a certain organization in Australia, and probably also in other parts of the world, which engendered fear in the minds of some of the people. As a result of its activities certain men were incarcerated for many years.

Senator Hannaford:

– What was that organization ?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I do not intend to tell the honorable senator.

Senator Hannaford:

– Then why mention it?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– This bill provides that if a man is accused by somebody else, his guilt may be assumed, and if he is not able to prove his innocence he may be incarcerated for as long as twenty years. That is absolutely wrong. I agree that the important stages in the development of atomic energy should bc safeguarded, because it is obvious that the country which first begins to use such energy for industrial purposes will have an immense advantage over the rest of the world. But I think it is absolutely wrong to apply blanket security measures, such as this bill seeks to do. I am giving my own opinion on this matter, although it does not coincide with that of my party. I am perfectly entitled to do so and I am exercising that right because I believe that mine is the correct view.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– in reply - I thank Senator Armstrong and Senator Henty for their contributions to the debate. I shall make some comment later concerning the criticism which Senator

O’Flaherty has directed at certain parts of the bill. First, I wish to refer to one or two matters raised by Senator Armstrong. The honorable senator sought information concerning the salaries that will be paid to the chairman and members of the commission. Under ti:e provisions of the bill, the chairman and members are to be appointed by the GovernorGeneral, and their salaries will he fixed by him. I think that when the honorable senator reflects upon this matter he will appreciate that it would be improper at this premature stage to anticipate what, ultimately, will be a decision of the Governor-General. Consequently, T cannot at the moment supply him with that information, but I have no doubt that when the appointments are made the salaries to be paid to the members of the commission will become public property.

I consider that the honorable senator was a little ungenerous to the Government in his allegations of delay by this Government in the development of atomic energy in Australia. That was, perhaps, the one defect of his speech. His comments were just as ungenerous as mine would be if I were to remind him of the fact that between 3946, when his Government first took action in this matter, and 1949, as far as I am aware, nothing occurred. It would be most ungenerous on my part to suggest that t,1, at failure to take action was due to som;j default on the part of the Government of which he was a member.

Senator Armstrong:

– We did not have any uranium. We had to wait till somebody found it.

Senator SPICER:

– That may be so, but it could be said that the Labour government took a long time to find it. I do not say that, but I do say that the remarks of the honorable senator en this subject, having regard to what T had already said in my second-reading speech, were a little unfair. I remind him of the fact that the discovery was made by Mr. White somewhere about September, 1949, and that that discovery was made, as I stated last night, largely as a result of pamphlets which had been published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. The remainder of the story is that the bureau promptly sent its geolo gists to the area, and prospecting and mining operations were commenced early in 1950, at the end of the wet season. I cannot see that any delay occurred in that period. Five additional prospects were discovered, but results were very discouraging and difficult to interpret geologically. Several bores, which were put down near White’s discovery turned out to be negative or disappointing. These discouragements continued throughout 1950-51; nevertheless the bureau went on with its work and extended its tunnels. In December, 1951, its persistence was rewarded with the discovery, at a new intersection, of what appeared to be large ore bodies of high grades. Far from suggesting delay, that record indicates a good deal of diligence. I think that the Government has some reason to be proud of the course that it has followed and the developments that have taken place.

Although Senator O’Flaherty has left the chamber, I shall refer to several matters that he raised. He spoke of the security provisions of the bill. They are designed to provide for security in relation to uranium, and have been drawn after the most careful consideration by the Government’s advisers and with a view to providing that degree of security that is essential. They are not intended to go further. Senator O’Flaherty appeared to proceed on the basis that a man was guilty of an offence because he had an intent to do something contrary to the interests of Australian security. The fact is that it has to be proved first of all that he has committed some act and that in committing that act he had the intent to prejudice the defence of Australia. First he has to be proved guilty of the act. That is provided in the bill. It must be established, with the assistance of the particular provision to which Senator O’Flaherty referred, to the satisfaction of a court. Senator O’Flaherty referred to what might have been a perfectly innocent situation so far as he was concerned when he had some material in his possession at Rum Jungle. He admitted that it was material that he should not have had.

Senator Scott:

– Are the provisions of the bill retrospective?

Senator SPICER:

– No, they are nol retrospective. I would not have the slightest doubt that if one assumed that the thing that he had in his possession fell within the definition of restricted information, in the circumstances the honorable senator would not have had much difficulty in establishing to the satisfaction of the court that he did not have it in his possession with intent to prejudice the defence of Australia. In the case of an innocent person, I should think that that would be so easy to prove that there is very little to complain about in this somewhat limited provision with regard to the onus of proof. In fact there is nothing new in this provision. It has been in section 78 of the Crimes Act for the last 40 years, and although the Crimes Act was amended in some respects by the party to which Senator O’Flaherty belonged when it was in office, it did not take any steps to remove that particular provision from the statute book. Having regard to the nature of the matter with which we are dealing, I suggest that there is nothing in Senator O’Flaherty’s criticism in that respect.

Senator O’Flaherty appeared to overlook entirely the limitations that are placed upon the definition of restricted information as it appears in clause 5 of the bill. It is true that if the actual definition of restrictive information is taken by itself, it might cover many of the operations which according to the honorable senator are now common knowledge, but that position has been guarded against. It is expressly provided that for the purposes of this measure, information shall be deemed not to have been restricted information at the time of the alleged offence if the accused person proves that before that time, that information had been published in scientific or technical literature or in a public statement made or authorised by, or on behalf of the Commission or a Minister of State of the Commonwealth or a State. The fact is that a lot of the matter to which Senator O’Flaherty referred is commonly known and I would not have thought that there would be the slightest difficulty in establishing that it had already been published in scientific or technical literature. As a further safe guard, the Minister himself or the Commission may determine from time to time to exclude from the definition of restricted information material which has become more or less public property and which it is not necessary to keep secret, and therefore may be taken off their restricted list. With those comments I thank honorable senators for their reception of the measure and ask for its speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

The bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– If no honorable senator wishes to refer to the portion of the measure preceding clause 19, I wish to make it quite plain that I am devoting my comment simply to the legal aspect of this matter. I believe that the Government’s purpose in bringing in this legislation is being fulfilled by the setting up of a commission of independence, skill, and intelligence, recognizing that that form of administration is best suited to the immediate advancement of atomic energy. With regard to the commission, I draw the attention of honorable senators to clause 27, which states -

The Commission may, with the consent of the Treasurer, borrow on overdraft from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia monies not exceeding Five hundred thousand pounds at any time. . . .

The commission naturally will have heavy financial responsibilities yet, having selected a public corporation as the means of discharging the functions of this legislation, clause 19 states -

The Commission shall comply with the directions (if any) of the Minister in relation to the performance of a function or the exorcise of a power by the Commission.

Over the last ten years, the question of the relationship between Ministers and public corporations of this kind has received the attention of those interested in public administration. In Great Britain where, under socialistic legislation, the management of large enterprises such as the coal-mining industry has been entrusted to corporations, this problem has engaged the attention of the legislature. I am astonished to find that the commission which is to be responsible for the development of atomic energy is to he subject in all things, great or small, to the direction of the Minister. In Great

Britain, the fairly general practice is that public corporations should be obliged to comply only with general directions that a Minister may consider to be necessary in the national interest. That system protects corporations from interference in detailed administration by an uninformed Minister. I do not wish to amend this legislation at this stage. I rise merely to draw attention to the futility of establishing a commission, the very purpose of the existence of which is to provide scope for independent judgment and specialized skill, and, at the same time, to give a Minister of the Crown power to direct that such and such an edifice shall be built here and not there, or that the commission shall engage typist A instead of typist B. The progress of such an important function as the development of atomic energy in Australia, might well be impeded by misguided judgment of that kind. The probability is that it will not be impeded, and that therefore the principle will not bc put to the test but, as one who has some responsibility for the passage of a law that is aimed at ensuring the best discharge of the functions that are to be entrusted to the commission, I believe that we have a duty to those whom we shall invite to hold office as members of the commission, to guarantee by legislation that they will not be pestered by unnecessary interference. Therefore I urge that consideration be given to completing the commission’s independence by limiting the Minister’s authority to the issuing of general directions that appear to be necessary in the national interest. That I think would establish ministerial control at its proper level, and guarantee the commission freedom from party political interference.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– It is not my purpose to defend the Government, but’ the point raised by Senator Wright is one on which apparently he and the Opposition hold divergent views. I believe it to be a fundamental necessity that a Minister should have absolute control over any organization for which he is responsible. Looking back upon our history, one finds that many of the troubles, State and Federal, that beset this country, have resulted from the establishment of public bodies outside ministerial control. That is a wrong principle. This measure will confer upon the Minister substantial powers over the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I agree with that. I also agree with Senator Wright that ministerial interference in connexion with such matters as the appointment of typists or the location of a particular building is most unlikely. During my secondreading speech on the bill, the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) asked by way of interjection, “ You do not think there will be any prosecutions under the act ? “. I do not. The Government has taken the trouble to draft a comprehensive measure, containing wide security safeguards, but both the Attorney-General and I agree that, in all probability, prosecutions under this legislation will be rare. There may perhaps be one or two, but that will probably be the limit. I believe, too, that Senator Wright’s fears about ministerial interference with the work of the commission are groundless. All the power that the Minister requires to assume control in the event of a crisis is contained in the bill. That power is necessary. It is fundamental to parliamentary control and to the democratic system itself. Ultimately all controlling authority must be responsible to the people. I should not be prepared in’ any circumstances to deprive a Minister of full power to control an organization for which he is responsible to Cabinet. If anything goes wrong upon whom does the responsibility rest? It rests not upon the chairman of the public corporation, but upon the Minister who is responsible to the Government and ultimately to the people. Therefore, a Minister who assumes that responsibility must have power, should the occasion arise, to take whatever action he deems to. be necessary to ensure that the job for which lie is responsible shall be done.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– On this issue I find myself in a position midway between that of Senator Wright and that of Senator Armstrong. In my opinion, particularly in relation to government enterprises which carry on substantial trading activities, there is much to be said for Senator Wright’s point of view; but, in this instance, we are dealing with an activity which is completely associated with the defence and security of Australia. It is convenient to place the responsibility for the development of atomic energy in the hands of a commission, but many of the things that the commission will do will be aimed at promoting the security of Australia and of our allies. They will be matters that are intimately associated with the problems of defence. Surely, if there is one matter for which Ministers must take ultimate responsibility, it is defence. There seems to be no escape from that. Therefore, in this instance I believe that the commission must remain subject to ultimate ministerial authority. I suggest that it would not engender confidence among our allies if this project, which is of great importance, were handed over to the control of persons who could act independently of the views of the Government. Senator Wright might object that the Government could have used a more limited formula. Frankly, I do not think that a more limited formula could be used in this instance because it could not give the protection that is needed in dealing with a matter which is of such great security significance. It seems to me that there is no half-way house in this matter. The Government intends that in dealing with most matters the commission will proceed without ministerial interference. However, great issues might arise, even in relation to small matters. The ultimate responsibility must then fall upon the Queen’s Ministers of State.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I am very sorry that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) in replying to Senator Armstrong and Senator Wright did not state that the Government accepted the general principle of ministerial responsibility. It amuses me that whenever a Minister takes action in relation to a department it is termed ministerial interference. When an appointee takes similar action it is regarded as having been done for the good of the country and he is regarded as being great and wise and a person who cannot possibly be wrong. The Attorney-General has said that in this case it is of the utmost importance that the Minister should be directly responsible for the undertaking and that there can be no half-way house. I agree and I contend that there cannot be any half-way house in connexion with other legislation. It has been suggested by Senator Wright that appointments can become political. The only reason that political appointments seem to be worse than public service board appointments is that the political ones are subject to public criticism and to the watchful eye of the Opposition. Who is to say that many of the thousands of appointments that are made by the Public Service Board are not very much worse than some of those that are made by Ministers? The removal of ministerial control strikes at the very root of ministerial responsibility and, ultimately, it strikes at the democratic form of government. If a Minister should be responsible for the actions of every officer of a department including the typists he should ‘be responsible for the actions of atomic physicists in a project such as this. It has been necessary to include the security provisions in this bill because of unfortunate experiences in relation to bodies which have handled atomic fission throughout the world. Whether a cricket club or a government is concerned, in the final analysis, an organization must rely on the integrity of the individual. Why should any legislation provide that a Minister of the Crown should be any less responsible than the appointee of a corporate body?

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– Clause 39 of the bill reads as follows : -

  1. The Minister may, by writing under his hand, authorize a person to enter on land specified in the writing, or to enter on land on or under which the person so authorized has reasonable grounds to believe that a prescribed substance, or minerals containing a prescribed substance, may exist, and the person so authorized may -

    1. enter on land in accordance with the authority;

    1. make observations or tests, or carry on experimental mining operations; and

    2. extract and remove samples of minerals.

I rise for the purpose of stating my objections to this bill. In my opinion this bill has not been introduced wholly and solely for defence purposes. It reminds me of the industrial revolution in England. A new power-

Senator Spicer:

– I rise to order. The honorable senator is dealing with clause 39 of the bill and I submit that he must relate his remarks to that clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The bill is being taken as a whole.

Senator MORROW:

– I agree with Senator O’Flaherty that the first country to develop atomic energy for industrial purposes will be in the favorable position which England enjoyed when the industrial revolution took place and steam was harnessed. The Government has stressed the defence aspect of this measure for the purpose of blinding the people to its real intentions. The country that learns the secret of harnessing atomic energy will do most of the world’s industrial business. Consequently, the uranium project to which this bill relates is a business proposition. The only object of the Government in handing over the development of uranium to Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited is the protection of the big cartels which do not operate in the interest of the people. Those cartels live like parasites on the backs of the people and exploit them. This bill will take away the rights of an individual in his own property. If a prescribed substance is believed to be on a person’s land the representatives of the Government can go into his backyard, demolish his house or do anything else that they wish on his land.

Clause 44 of the bill reads as follows : -

  1. A person who, whether lawfully or unlawfully, has knowledge of or access to, or has in his possession or under his control, a photograph, sketch, plan, model, article, instrument, appliance, note or other document, or any information, which is capable of conveying, or is or includes, restricted information -

    1. shall not, with intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth, publish it, or communicate, give, transmit or disclose it to some other person ; and
    2. shall not, having reason to believe that it will be used to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth, publish it, or communicate, give, transmit or disclose it to some other person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for twenty years.

Clause 45 of the bill provides -

  1. A person shall not, with intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth, acquire a photograph, sketch, plan, model, article, instrument, appliance, note or other document, or any information, which is capable of conveying, or is or includes, restricted information.

Penalty: Imprisonment for twenty years.

Those provisions will deprive individuals of their rights and the Government has not included them in the bill wholly for defence reasons. Its main object is to harness atomic energy for the purpose of enabling big cartels to produce goods for the highest bidder. I know that members of the Opposition do not oppose this bill, but I believe that it is wrong in principle and should not be passed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1599

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1588).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This measure deals with two broad propositions. It provides for some concessions to be made to the wine-making industry in relation to its trading stock. The Opposition recognizes the need for that provision and has no objection to it.

The main provision of the bill relates to a measure that was passed by the Parliament last year. Under it the Government introduced an entirely new system of provisional taxation by providing for compulsory self-assessment of income tax. It visited with a penalty anybody who made an error greater than 20 per cent. in calculating his provisional tax. The Opposition strenuously opposed that measure,particularly its penalty provisions. In fact we divided the Senate upon the matter, I think on the 4th June last year. Now, only eight months later the Government, realizing the error that it made on that occasion in resisting the plea of the Opposition, has introduced a fresh proposal. This is one more error of judgment that has marked its course in Treasury matters during the last three and a half years. The Government now proposes to reverse a decision that it made as recently as June of last year.

Senator Pearson:

– Not reverse.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Government is reversing the provision that selfassessment shall be compulsory.

Senator Pearson:

– We have not reversed our decision to allow a man to make a self-assessment.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Government is reversing an obligation on persons to self-assess provisional taxation, which is now to be made optional. If, in the exercise of the option, a taxpayer makes a margin of error, that default is visited with a. penalty in this clause. Under this bill, that matter will rest with the taxpayers. Last year the Government made it obligatory on taxpayers to assess their provisional tax. The Minister stated in his second-reading speech -

The compulsory aspects of the selfassessment system have been under review by the Government, and the Government is of opinion that there are factors mow present which justify a further modification of the self-‘ assessment provision.

We welcome the change of heart by the Government, and we support the proposal that the question of whether a taxpayer should or should not assess his provisional taxation is a matter for him, and shall be entirely optional. I simply repeat, that this is one more instance of the Government having recklessly rushed into a situation without mature and proper thought, and then being obliged speedily to retreat from that position.The effect of this alteration now proposed by the bill will be to enable taxpayers in the interim to retrace their steps over this particular n]atter. The Opposition lias no objection to the measure as presented, and contents itself with the comment that I have already made about the recklessness with which the Government rushed into this situation only eight months ago, despite the strong objections of the Opposition. At least this is one occasion on which the Government has seen the light at an early date.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Clause 3 contains provisions in relation to the wine-making industry. As I understand the position, proposed new section 31a will enable a taxpayer to substitute for the present basis of stock valuation a selected value that has been approved by the Commissioner. As has been pointed out by the Minister, even though the taxpayer retains an advantage, if the selected value is less than cost of production or replacement value or market selling value - the basis at present required by section 31 - he will ultimately have a reserve load of tax to pay when he disposes of his stock. There is no reason why provision should not be made to meet the peculiar circumstances of the wine-making industry, and as the relief will be on the side of the taxpayer I heartily applaud the proposal. However, I direct the attention of honorable senators to subclause (2.) of clause 3 which provides that the value at which any trading stock, being wine, has been taken into account in an assessment under the principal act, shall be deemed to have been the proper value to be so taken into account. I urge the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to give this matter his earnest consideration, because I believe that that provision is wider than the Government intends. Let us suppose that the cost of producing a gallon of wine is 10s., and that in the past the taxpayer has adopted in relation to his intake of stock a unit of value of 2s. 6d. Without this legislation it is now recognized retrospectively that the proper value that should have been taken into account was 10s but the Commissioner has accepted returns on the basis of 2s. 6d. Everybody has gone along in the belief that that basis was perfectly correct, and that it is quite proper now that the department should recognize and accept that basis, and therefore that it is quite right that the Parliament should say that a person who has returned stock on a basis acceptable by the department over the years has returned his proper value of stock. I consider that the proposed provision is capable of application to approve a valuation which is in error, because of the margin between the cost of production of a gallon of wine and the returned value. Let us say that Tom Smith has so much wine in his establishment, which he returns as “ stock on hand £5,000 “, and that in fact he has fraudulently understated the quantity of his stock. All that appears in the entry is one aggregate figure in relation to stock on hand. I quite approve of the provision in so far as it accepts the base returns that have been made upon a proper accounting basis, which have disclosed full quantities, or have been calculated on full quantities, which the department and the taxpayer recognize as proper. But I point out that if the taxpayer has shown the . figure of £5,000 against the item “ Stock on hand “ at the opening of an accounting period, but a proper calculation of his quantity of stock on the basis of cost of production would be £10,000, this sub-clause would protect the taxpayer, though he was fraudulent. I urge that consideration be given to this aspect of the matter - as I have urged it in recent days - because, stoutly as I wish to defend the Dona fide taxpayer and to give to him relief, quite strongly, also, I resist the provision of any shield of protection for a person who has not brought to account the proper value of his stock on hand.

Senator Spooner:

– Would not that position be covered by the provisions in relation to fraud ?

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– With very great respect, in my view, definitely not, because we have gone out of Our way to say that the value at which any trading stock, being wine, has been brought into account in the assessment of the taxpayer under the assessment act, in respect of income derived during the year of income prior to the 1st July, 1952, shall bc deemed to have been the proper value to be so taken into account.

Senator Spooner:

– Value ?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, I emphasize value. I point out that the only entry that appears in the return is a statement of value. Nobody puts in “ 5,000 gallons at 2s. 6d.”. All -that appears against the entry “ stock on hand “ at the commencing date is a figure - a value.

Senator Spooner:

– I doubt that.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am undaunted by the Minister’s doubt. It is only because of the persistence of the doubt that I wish to make my emphasis plain. My duty is discharged when, following representations that I have made in the progress of the week, I now come to the occasion when, as a public representative, I have a duty to state in this chamber my view of the situation. The responsibility now passes to the chamber as a whole.

The bill also deals with the process of self-assessment. I would regard myself as completely failing in my duty on this occasion if 1 did not examine the proposals of the Government in this respect with care. I have come to learn through experience that legislative proposals in relation to taxation must be scrutinized by the representatives of the taxpayers with the utmost care. I think that the system of provisional taxation that we inherited from the former Labour Government demands immediate review at its base. It has developed into a complicated and vexatious state of affairs, and I think it can he fairly stated that the only relief and consolation it gives to a taxpayer is the thought “ My executors will not be troubled about paying my taxes which I have left unpaid”. With that degree of a grave-digger’s humour we have had foisted upon us a system of provisional taxation, and perhaps more than one honorable senator has thought that on his death the Commissioner of Taxation would immediately say “Well old chap, you died before the end of the financial year. As you have paid tax for the whole of the year, I shall make a refund to your widow “. Anyone who has experienced the troubles of executorship knows that, invariably, almost before the mourning cards arrive through the post a demand is received from the Commissioner of Taxation to make a return and to account for the interrupted period from the preceding 30th June to the day on which the coffin box was nailed down. Then, the assessment process goes on. No penalty is- payable in respect of the time taken by the assessor and, in due course, through the beneficence of the Taxation Branch - may be eighteen months or two years later - the taxpayer receives a reassessment which may give him some relief but which, in my experience, is a demand for the payment of further moneys in respect of the interrupted period. So much for the system that is being continued.

The Government made a laudable attempt last year to improve it in order to give to the taxpayer the benefit of “ self-assessment “, as it was called. Had I fully understood all that was involved in that term, it would not have commended itself to me as it did at that time. Without scrutinizing that proposal with the guardedness with which I now scrutinize this proposed amendment of it, T failed to observe that it provided that by the 31st March, or a later date, the taxpayer would receive a demand for the payment, of provisional tax and thereupon sub-section (4.) (a) of section 221’da - I quote from the measure which the Senate then passed in its urge for simplicity - provided that where provisional tax is payable in accordance with the last preceding sub-section the taxpayer shall calculate the amount of the additional tax. I failed completely to note that the Taxation Branch in its licitness transferred not only the obligation to make a return but also the obligation to calculate tax to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, at the moment, I am not in possession of the form that was sent out I have sent for it, but it has not yet been supplied to me. But the Senate will be familiar, I hope, with the frightening, complicated form which accompanies that thing which most people of purpose and energy in the country have come to dread annually. Accompanying the demand for payment of tax was a demand that the taxpayer calculate his provisional tax for the current year. I am here to say how grateful I am to the Government for introducing this measure to relieve the taxpayer of the obligation to carry through that process. But I am here also to protest that the improvement that is now proposed still has its shortcomings. Although it is said that self-assessment is now to be completely voluntary, I should like the Senate to examine sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 221yda. which provides that a taxpayer who has received a notice of assessment on which is notified the amount of his provisional tax may, not later than a certain date,, send to the commissioner an estimate of, first, the amount of his taxable income for the whole year; secondly, the respective amounts of income from salary or wages, income from personal exertion not beingincome from salary or wages and income from property comprised in that estimated taxable income; and, thirdly, the amount of deductions which have beenor will be made from his salary or wages during the year. I emphasize that although now the responsibility for theassessment of provisional tax may - not shall - rest upon the taxpayer, such an estimate is required to be made in a form which is bracketed in the divisions that I have mentioned. In other words, thisbill, as drafted, is completely futile unlessit provides an advantage to the taxpayer. It is our job to see that the advantage ismade fairly available to the taxpayer. That purpose will be frustrated underthis measure in the form in which it now stands. We desire that the taxpayer shall be enabled to take advantageof the option of self -assessment, but underthe bill the prerequisite of his taking, advantage of it is that he shall submit an estimate under those headings. A degree of particularity of that sort is quite unnecessary for the assessment of provisional tax which is made only for a period of twelve months at the most. Thefinal tax will be assessed when the taxpayer undergoes the requirement of filling in his return in respect of thefollowing year. That is still an obligation which can fairly be accepted by thetaxpayer if he desires to claim a reduction of provisional tax. But for purposes of my argument, let the taxpayeraccept the obligation of sending in an estimate of his income with a degree of particularity required by the proposed new section that I have cited. I abstain from making any pointed complaint with respect to that part of the process. Having done that, the taxpayer maymake that estimate but under clause 4’ of the hill - I read into this provision the word “ may “ -

The taxpayer may furnish to the Commissioner a statement showing - (/) the amounts so estimated; and

  1. the amount of provisional tux payable in accordance with the next succeeding sub-section.

That is where I find myself at the point of rejecting this measure. I cannot, on behalf - of the taxpayer, admit an obligation to calculate his provisional tax upon his own return. There may be persons who have lived in the intricacies of the Taxation Branch, persons who are unappalled by the prospect of that process ; but I have lived most of my life among people of the country who work by day and do not expect to become tax assessors by night.

Senator Laught:

– Once a year.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– A new horror has been added to modern life by the process of returning tax assessments in the complicated form which they are required to observe - even once a year. It is a process that everybody who has to furnish a return showing his income dreads. As for the farmer being faced with the responsibility for assessing his provisional tax and, at the same time, making his estimate as a condition of obtaining the relief that the Government intends to give to him, I find myself completely unable to accept that obligation. I suggest to the Minister that he should add to paragraph (/) of sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 221yda the words “ and thereupon the Commissioner shall reassess the amount of the provisional tax”. That provision would then provide that the taxpayer may furnish to the Commissioner a statement showing - “ (/) the amount? so estimated, and thereupon the Commissioner shall reassess the amount of the provisional tax ; and “.

That is what all honorable senators intended should be done under the “measure that the Senate passed last year. It is what the Government intends to do now. Therefore, it should be written into the bond, because the relationship “between the Taxation Branch and the taxpayers these days is quite as acute as’ Shylock cutting the flesh. I believe that the Government intends to do as I have said. I strongly support the proposition that a taxpayer whose income has been reduced in the current year should have the right to submit an estimate of his current income. I believe that the Government intends that the taxpayer, having declared that estimate to the Commissioner, should then have his provisional tax reduced. But anybody who has seen the complicated form in which a farmer is expected to calculate and reassess his provisional tax will discern in it an obstacle that will deprive the taxpayer of the advantage that the Government intends that he should enjoy. The farmer taxpayer may take the form in hand and essay the process of assessment. But he has no hope of understanding the matter. I, with some apprenticeship to the department of the law that deals with taxation, would never essay that task. One’s knowledge of the whole chapter of income taxation is not such as to enable one with any degree of accuracy to essay the task involved in the completion of the form of assessment prescribed. Or, the farmer taxpayer may, as a condition of obtaining this advantage that the Government intends to give to him, employ a tax agent who, necessarily and quite rightly, makes a professional charge for the service that he renders. So the farmer taxpayer finds himself in a situation in which he asks, in effect, “ Am I going to take advantage of this option to produce a form of self-assessment? “ Because of the form in which this legislation is drafted, while giving the taxpayer an opportunity to reduce his provisional tax, it creates, as a condition of that advantage, the provision in sub-section (g) whereby the taxpayer must assess the amount of provisional tax payable in accordance with the next succeeding sub-section. My contention is that it should be made plain that all that the taxpayer has to do is to submit an estimate of his income. The department will then recalculate his provisional tax in accordance with that estimate, and only then will the provisional tax become payable. That could be simply secured by writing in to the bill, between paragraphs (/) and (g) the words “ and thereupon the commissioner shall reassess the provisional tax “.

Senator Spooner:

– The taxpayer would have to pay his assessment in the meantime.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I should not regard the ingenuity of the government, or even that of the Minister at the table (Senator Spooner), as exhausted if confronted by the necessity to provide words to get over that position. Surely, if we are to give the taxpayer an option to reduce his provisional tax in accordance with his reduced income, we can also provide that if he takes advantage of our option and submits an estimate of his reduced income, the additional provisional tax will not be payable until he receives his reassessment.

I pass now to another aspect of the matter. I regret that the government is adhering to the form of penalty expressed in clause 5 of the bill. I wish to make it plain that, with regard to this penalty, I am assured that it docs not represent 5 per cent, of the difference between the original provisional tax and the reassessed provisional tax from the date when it became due until the deferred date. That being so, I am totally at a loss to understand why the obligation of the taxpayer who underestimates his income on the estimate of provisional tax is not simply that if, by underestimating in March 1953 he escapes, until March 1954, the payment of £100 tax, it should not be to pay a proper rate of interest. In such a situation, I should not regard 7 per cent, as an excessive rate of interest. Enquiries which I have made from the Treasury and the Taxation Branch assure me that the proposed penalty will not be equal to 5 per cent. I myself prefer that the interest payable on money that the taxpayer escapes from paying by reason of his underestimate should be 7 per cent.

Senator Laught:

– That is what is happening.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It is not. He is to be the victim of what is called a penalty.

Senator Laught:

– It is merely a different name.

Senator WRIGHT:

– The honorable senator may call it a different name, but under the method which I propose he would at least have the satisfaction of knowing how the amount had been computed.

Senator Spicer:

– It is a penal rate of interest.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes- and I also caught the wink of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer). It is an idle interjection. I am familiar with penal rates of interest, but I am endeavouring to sug-gest a fair rate of interest in the circumstances.

Senator Pearson:

– The honorable senator has increased the rate.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I have not. I have increased the payment. Every taxpayer who regards himself as a conscientious taxpayer resents being the victim of a penalty.

Senator Spicer:

– He is not conscientious if he underestimates his income.

Senator WRIGHT:

– The AttorneyGeneral offers me, his colleague, an interjection of that kind. He knows perfectly well that one of the elementary propositions in our profession is that many erroneous estimates are made conscientiously and in good faith. In law, an estimate would, never be considered fraudulent unless the degree of error clearly indicated fraud. To say that because a man underestimates his income he. is not conscientious is quite unsound.

Senator Laught:

– A 20 per cent, tolerance is allowed.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I know that, but I am protesting against the imposition of penalties. I am urging my view only, with great respect to those who disagree with me. I hearkened to their advice last July and am now so presumptuous as to prefer my own opinion. I say, that it is to be regretted that we should adhere to a penalty instead of making provision for payment of a proper rate of interest to compensate taxpayers who discharged their liabilities in full in March, 1953, and to bring taxpayers who understate their obligation on to a. comparable level.

It should not be concluded from the definiteness with which I am accustomed to state an argument, only for the purpose of having it adequately considered by other honorable senators, that having stated it I cease to be interested in further support of it. Do not let it be imagined that I consider this bill not to be an improvement. I have said that it will relievo the general body of taxpayers from the obligation to render a return at the time they receive their provisional assessments. If I had gained that understanding from the bill -which was passed by the Parliament last year I should have been simply appalled by it. I imagined then that we were merely giving to a person, whose income had been reduced, an opportunity to render an assessment so that he could have the Taxation Branch re-assess his provisional tax. In this bill, the Goverment is going a long way to correct that provision, but I respectfully urge it to go to the length of saying that a taxpayer who submits his estimate of current income for the purpose of assessing provisional tax should not be obliged to make an assessment of tax upon that estimate. That should be the obligation of the Taxation Branch. Further, instead of a person whose estimate is in error by 20 per cent, being the victim of a penalty, let the maladjustment that arises between taxpayers in that connexion be corrected by making it his obligation to pay a proper rate of interest on the money that lias been outstanding in consequence of his erroneous estimate, instead of subjecting him to a penalty.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I support the bill, and in doing so I wish to invite the attention of honorable senators to some of its salient features. It seems to me that during the rather long discourse of my learned friend and colleague, Senator Wright, we were somewhat taken away from the real purpose of the bill. The measure deals with two important matters, the first being modification of the self assessment procedure relating to provisional tax, and the second is an expression of the law relating to tax payable on the trading stock of wine-makers. I shall deal first with the second matter. I do so with particular interest, because being a representative of the State of South Australia, 1 appreciate the importance of the wine industry to that State and the chaos that could easily result in the industry if the Government had not taken timely and imaginative action by introducing this bill. There is a vast soldier settlement area on the River Murray which depends on the wine industry, and several other large areas, including the Barossa Valley, which also depend on the industry. Many thousands of small growers will be directly affected by this measure. It will not be merely a case of large, affluent wine-growers and wineries obtaining relief.

For many years a standard value has been taken for the purpose of assessing the income tax to be paid by wineries on the liquid which is in the process of being made into wine. I understand that, recently, the Taxation Branch was advised that it was in error in allowing this standard value to be taken. If the new procedure were followed in future the wineries in the areas to which I have referred would be called upon to find several million pounds in cash, on the basis of a notional assessment. The immediate consequence to the industry would be that, in this autumn, the intake of grapes from thousands of growers would be practically nil, because the wineries would not have the cash with which to pay for the grapes. Their funds would have been diverted to pay income tax. That, in simple form, is the problem which this part of the bill seeks to solve. The point that I wish to stress is that there will be not ultimate loss of revenue to the country because of the introduction of this measure, because when the stocks of wine are saleable, tax will be paid on the finished product, as has been the practice for many years. I compliment the Government on its imagination in coming to grips with this problem, and I commend the bill to honorable senators accordingly. It will give stability to the wine industry and will allow a time-honoured custom to continue to operate with full legislative authority.

I now turn -to the part of the bill to which Senator Wright devoted his talent and most of his attention. I think that the Government should be given credit for its imaginative treatment of this matter because it has seen the difficulties of administering a perfectly good phase of law. The Curtin Government in introduced the system of provisional taxation.

By and large, that system has been of great importance to Australia. The Curtin Government appointed a committee to consider the matter and I believe that the present Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), who was then a private senator, was a member of that committee. The immediate problem at that time was to get tax payments from persons who might be changing their occupations or moving about and might not complete their tax returns. It would have been difficult to catch up with them. As a result of the discussions, there was grafted on to our taxation system the idea of provisional tax. In the case of wage-earners, it has settled down into the payment of tax by the purchase of stamps and through group certificates and has caused no trouble.

Senator Spicer:

– It is strictly payasyouearn.

Senator LAUGHT:

– That is so. It has been necessary to evolve a system to cover farmers, professional and business people and those who derive income from investments and property. The measure that the Senate is discussing has no reference to a limited liability company or to wage-earners. It refers to 750,000 taxpayers. The system of self-assessment commends itself to me just as it has commended itself to the people of Canada in particular. It is working well there. The main problem has been ironed out by the measure that is now before the Senate. A taxpayer may make a completely voluntary election. I understand that each taxpayer concerned will receive with his assessment a notice to the effect that he may accept the provisional tax which is set out on the notice and pay it, or he may elect to self-assess his tax. I approve entirely of that amendment to the law. In order to “ keep the game clean “, to use a colloquilism, and so that selfassessment of provisional tax will not be deliberately low, it is necessary to have a penalty. A tolerance of 20 per cent, is provided before the penalty starts to work. The taxpayer may elect to self-assess and if he exceeds the tolerance he becomes liable to a penalty which the commissioner still has power to remit if he believes that the case warrants such action. Senator Wright took strong exception to the fact that a taxpayer, in order to carry out this election, had to furnish certain figures to the commissioner. So far as I can determine, the three or four sets of figures that the taxpayer has to furnish in such circumstances need not present him with any real hardship.

Senator Wright referred to the fact that such a taxpayer after working all day would be confronted with this task at night. I submit that the time that is taken by the taxpayer to avail himself of this improvement on the old system of provisional tax would be a mere nothing compared with the benefit that he seeks and hopes to get. If he is in a complete quandary about it and cannot go to a solicitor or a tax agent because of the cost, and if it is not convenient for him to go to the Taxation Office, he could write a simple letter to the Commissioner of Taxes setting out his problem. From my experience, the taxation commissioners are most courteous and, in the odd case that is envisaged by Senator Wright, a prompt and courteous reply would be received. I see no great hardship in the statute as it stands, and I judge this from an experience of more than twenty years with officers of the Taxation Branch. The commissioners send representatives regularly to the larger country towns and contact can be made with one of those representatives. Information on taxation procedure is widely distributed also, so that for practical purposes I cannot see in this bill the difficulties that Senator Wright appears to see. I believe that this is a step in the right direction. The Government has admitted that the system that was introduced last year has not worked in the way that was expected. That is a frank admission. The Government is not mulish about it but has done the right thing by introducing this amending bill.

Concurrently with this important amendment, I should like to see a consolidation of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act at an early date. T believe that the type is already set. Assuming that the Senate passes this measure to-day and it passes through its other formalities quickly, I should like to see a consolidated act in print for distribution throughout Australia soon. This legislation affects most persons in the community directly. I receive complaints constantly from registered tax agents, members of the public, solicitors and others about the untidy state into which the statute has fallen. lc covers the parent act and innumerable amendments. I direct the attention of the Government to the urgent necessity for the printing of the measure in consolidated form. I also suggest that there should be a review of the whole of the taxation legislation so that a restatement of the law can take place in far more simple language than it is expressed to-day. Senator “Wright referred to section 221. It is fantastic to read page after page of section 221. In the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1936-51 as consolidated to 1951, the section starts at page 164 and is still running at page 183. Then the sub-division on that page is “ Section 221yda “. The whole section is in a state of confusion. It should be possible to simplify the taxation laws and I urge upon the Government that that work should be done during the approaching recess.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– It is unfortunate that honorable senators have heard nothing from the Government with regard to this measure since the second-reading debate began. I realize that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has been called away on something quite urgent.

Senator Spicer:

– I was not in the chamber during most of the debate.

Senator McKENNA:

– I know that. I take the opportunity to support Senator Wright’s argument with regard to clause 3 of the bill. Senator Wright made a very constructive criticism of that clause and it was a practical one. I hope that I shall do his argument justice if I briefly put a case to the Minister. Sub-clause (2.) of that clause, dealing with the trading stock of a wine-making business, states: “The value at which any trading stock has been taken into account in a prior year shall be deemed to have been, the proper value to be so taken into account “. Senator Wright addressed an argument which I paraphrase in this way. The standard for calculating the cost of stock has been adopted in the course of years. Let us assume that it was 2s. 6d. a gallon and that the true stock was 5,000 gallons. That would give it a value of £625. Let us assume that instead of returning a value based upon the correct quantity of 5,000 gallons, the person concerned returns a value based upon 2,500 gallons at 2s. 6d., the standard rate usually adopted. He would return £312 10s. He would understate the stock. Accordingly, the profits would be understated and the tax would be underpaid. In_ using the word value, the bill states that “ the value at which any trading stock has been taken into account shall be deemed to have been the proper value “. I agree with Senator Wright that the way that clause is drafted the improperly returned value would be £312 10s.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator McKENNA:

– That means that the profits would be understated in that year and that the tax would be underpaid. What the Government is seeking to do is to recognize the method of valuation adopted and not to give its blessing and sanction unreservedly to the end result. I direct the attention of the Minister to that portion of his secondreading speech in which he stated -

The Government proposes, therefore, that returns and assessments, based upon the industry’s own standard values, should not be disturbed and that, as regards the future, the industry’s method of valuation be recognized in principle by legislation.

It may be argued that, in the example I have cited, the taxpayer would be caught when he sold the product in question because he would have to pay tax on a greater margin of profit. That is no answer because, by means of the device that I have mentioned, a taxpayer might avoid liability to a higher rate of tax in one year and pay tax at a lower rate in the following year. Therefore, I believe it is completely sound to argue that by providing that “ the value at which any such trading stock has been taken into account shall be deemed to have the proper value “ we shall be, in effect, validating a fraudulent transaction of the kind that I have cited. I suggest to the Minister that the purpose that Senator Wright ha3 in mind, and with which I am in agreement, could be accomplished in either of two ways. First, it could be accomplished if the word “ value “ in the first line and in the next to last line of the sub-clause were altered to the word “ rate “. Then, in the example that I have cited, the rate would be in order at 2s. 6d., but the £312 10s. wrongly substituted for the true value of £625 would be quite wrong, and would leave the taxpayer open to appropriate action for fraud. If the alteration that I have suggested were made, sub-clause (2.) would read, in brief : “ The rate at which any trading stock has been taken into account in any year prior to July, 1952, shall be deemed to have been the proper rate to be so taken into account “. My alternative suggestion is that after the word “ shall “ in the next to last line of the subclause the words “ in the absence of fraud “ be inserted. In brief, the subclause would then read: “The value at which any trading stock has been taken into account shall, in the absence of fraud, be deemed to have been the proper value “. As the measure stands at present, there is an opening for fraud. I am sure the Government does not intend that the legislation should permit a practice of the kind that I have outlined. I suggest, therefore, that the adoption of either of the alternatives would meet the case.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– There is some substance in the point that has been made by Senator Wright and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), and I shall not attempt to brush it aside. I discussed the matter with departmental officers during the luncheon adjournment. I suggest that our starting point must be the assumption that if a taxpayer undervalues his stocks, he must eventually become liable for tax at a proper level of profits, assuming of course that he does not add to the under-valuation of stocks concealment of his sales: Stock valuations, whether high or low, must eventually be reflected in profits. The purpose of this provision is to validate - if that is the correct word - the basis of stocktaking up to a certain date. If, prior to that date, a merchant understated his stocks, that matter is closed by the protecting blanket of sub-clause .(2.), but it will not be closed in future. If, to use the illustration given by the Leader of the Opposition, a wine merchant, who has stated his stock at 2,500 gallons instead of 5,000 gallons, continues to understate his stock in future, he will not get the benefit of this protecting provision. So, any taxpayer who continues to understate his trading assets, will be taking all the risks inherent in such action, and will be open to challenge from this date onwards. The departmental view, with which I concur, is that there would be considerable difficulty, if not complete impracticability, in going back over the years to ascertain whether there had been fraudulent practice in the assessment of stocks. The number of taxpayers concerned is not great, and the stock position is subject to review year by year by the department. The department has no reason to thinkthat the practice to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred has actually been adopted by taxpayers. Otherwise, it would have acted before now. The department has had a long experience of this industry the affairs of which have been under close examination as the result of representations. Our view therefore, is that, whilst there may besome substance in the point that has been raised, it does not warrant an amendment of the act at this stage, particularly as the matter has now been ventilated and. the department will pay close attention to it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to make two brief “observations. The first is that any Minister who has a responsibility to the Treasury will live to regret a statement that the nondisclosure of stock, even for one year, can bo condoned. A taxpayer who dies may escape the consequences of the non-disclosure of stock, but I remind the Senate tint executors have their place in the scheme of things and taxpayers eventually will have to meet the demands of the taxation authorities. However, I can imagine many a company director, who has a troubled conscience, welcoming the opportunity to embark on the process of dissolution to-morrow and registration of a new company on the following day s>) that, by virtue of this new provision, the old company may be relieved of all the troubles associated with undisclosed stock. I am not suggesting anything to the Minister. I merely wish to add to The amendments that have been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) one that has occurred to me since I spoke on the measure this morning. Tho position could be met, I believe, if, instead of saying, “The value at which any trading stock . . . has been taken into account”, which is the aggregate figure, sub-clause (2.) stated “The value at which any prescribed unit of a class of trading stock shall be taken into account . . .”. The intention of the provision is to accept the value of any unit of trading stock in past returns, and not to accept the value of a taxpayer’s whole trading stock. If the amendment that I have suggested were made, there would be no loophole for any person to underestimate his stock.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) for the consideration that he has given to the representations of honorable senators in relation to this bill. As the Attorney-General has acknowledged an element of virtue in the arguments that have been addressed to the Government I regret that none of the simple alternatives that have been suggested have been adopted by him. The AttorneyGeneral stated that a difficulty inherent in taxation relating to trading stock was that the taxpayer must pay sooner or later if stock was under-valued in one year. Let us examine that statement in the light of existing circumstances. The heaviest budget that Australia has ever known was introduced in respect of the financial year 1951-52. I think it was described as a horror budget.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– It was so described by the Australian Labour party.

Senator McKENNA:

– It was described in that way by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) himself. He ori ginated the phrase. If ever a wine-maker were tempted to bring his total assessable income down it would have been in that year. Now, taxation concessions have been forecast for the next budget, and as it takes one or two years to mature wine one can realize how the wine-maker who understated his stock in 1951-52 would bc able to benefit from any reduction of taxation that may be made in the next budget. In other words, that class of taxpayer would have an advantage which is not enjoyed by other classes of taxpayers. If it may be presumed from what the Attorney-General has said that taxation authorities have approved the understatement of stock because sooner or later taxation will have to be paid on the actual amount of income, that approval is regrettable. It might lead to an extension of whatever practice there is of undervaluing stock. The AttorneyGeneral said that this clause would only validate the basis of stocktaking. If it only validated the basis of stocktaking I should have no objection to it. But it goes further. It will validate the total value arrived at in the stocktaking. That is the objection of the Opposition to the clause. I hope that the Minister will agree to rectify the matter. If he decides not to do so, the Opposition, having invited attention to the flaw, feels that it has discharged its duty.

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

– Clause 4 was the subject of some criticism during the second-reading debate on this bill. This clause deals with the new self-assessment proposal of the Government. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) spoke rather disparagingly of the fact that the Government now sought to amend the original legislation which gave effect to the system of self-assessment. Surely there is nothing new in a government seeking to amend legislation, whether introduced by itself or by any other government. It is a practice which is frequently indulged in by governments in the light of experience that they have gained since the introduction of the original legislation. The system of self-assessment was introduced because it was found necessary to alleviate the difficulty of those people who were obliged to pay provisional taxation and whose taxable incomes were rapidly declining. In the light of experience which has been gained since the introduction of the principle of selfassessment, the Government now seeks to amend its own legislation. Rather than speak disparagingly of such an effort, 1 think that the committee should give credit to the Government. This measure deserves the wholehearted commendation of every honorable senator and it will receive the commendation of those who are affected by it.

Senator Wright criticized the provision that a person who elects to assess his own taxable income shall furnish a return giving certain details. In other words, he must establish a basis for his selfassessment. The honorable senator suggested that taxpayers would have considerable difficulty in complying with that provision. I suggest that there must be some basis for the assessment which a taxpayer elects to make. He must of necessity involve himself in some trouble and research in order to satisfy himself and the Treasurer that his assessment is a fair and proper one. I was glad that Senator Wright finally agreed that that provision should probably stand. However, Senator Wright criticized the proposal that, having furnished his estimate of taxable income, the taxpayer should assess himself on the -basis of that estimate. I suggest that that work would be the least of his troubles. If the taxpayer is confronted with a difficulty I think that difficulty would be the necessity to provide a basis for the assessment of his income. Having provided that basis surely it would be a very simple matter for him to assess the amount of tax payable on his income. I understand that it is the practice of the Taxation Branch to furnish a taxpayer with a schedule setting out clearly the amount of tax which is payable on any given taxable income. I do not think that the taxpayer would find it difficult to compute the amount of tax for which he was liable. As a matter of fact I think that most taxpayers engaged in business do not furnish their own returns. They obtain the services of a qualified taxation agent

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Does the honorable senator not realize that the taxpayer must pay for the services rendered by the taxation agent?

Senator PEARSON:

– I have been a taxpayer for a number of years and my practice is to engage the services of a registered taxation agent. If it is to the taxpayer’s advantage surely he would not begrudge the sum of two or three guineas for the comparatively small amount of work that would be involved in this process. Any work which is done in providing the basis of self-assessment and assessing the taxable income would not be entirely lost. It would be of assistance when the taxpayer is obliged to lodge his return at the end of the financial year. I know that Senator Wright has had considerable connexions with taxpayers but I suggest that they probably will not experience the difficulty which he imagines that they will experience. This measure will undoubtedly receive the wholehearted approval of those taxpayers who will be able to avail themselves of its provisions.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I think that Senator Pearson has not understood my attitude to this measure. Never at any time have I contested the Government’s right to amend its own legislation or any other legislation. I congratulated the Government on having proposed this change. But I criticized it for its lack of vision in introducing the system of self-assessment of provisional tax on a compulsory basis eight months ago. I criticized it for not having heeded the views of the Opposition at that time.

Senator Wright said that it was wrong to impose- upon the taxpayer who voluntarily decided to estimate his income the additional obligation of calculating the amount of tax for which he was liable. I agree with the viewpoint that the assessment of tax is not a matter to which the taxpayer should have to attend. It is primarily a matter for attention by the tax collector. The taxpayer will have done quite enough when he has presented the tax gatherer with the basis upon which the tax should be calculated. I agree entirely with the viewpoint of Senator Wright on that subject. I disagree entirely with the claim of Senator Pearson that the assessment of the tax will be a simple matter. I wonder how many average or above average taxpayers would understand what they had to do after they have read this hill. The matter is not simple. Under sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 221yda of the principal act the taxpayer is obliged to furnish a return and also to state the amount of provisional tax payable in accordance with the next succeeding subsection. I invite honorable senators to imagine how many taxpayers would know what that sub-section means when they read it. Sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 221yda provides -

Where, in relation toa year of income, a taxpayer duly furnishes to the Commissioner a statement under the last preceding subsection, the amount of provisional tax payable by the taxpayer in respect of the income of that year of income is, subject to sub-section (4.) of this section, an amount ascertained -

by calculating the amount of tax that would be payable in respect of the income of the year of income if that income were an amount equal to the estimated taxable income and consisted of the amounts of income from salary or wages, income from personal exertion not being income from salaries or wages and income from property comprised in that estimated taxable income: and

by deducting from the amount so calculated the estimated amount of deductions under section 221C of this Act as shown in the statement,.

That provision is exceedingly difficult to understand, and a taxpayer needs to refer to proposed new sub-section (4.), as well as to section 21C of the principal act. I venture so say that the average taxpayer will not have before him either this bill or the Income Tax Act when he is faced with the duty of assessing his tax, if he decides to exercise his option. The Government erects an additional hurdle to his entering the field by saying, in effect, “In addition to furnishing a. return of income, you must assess your tax “. For an average taxpayer, the provision to which I have referred is neither easy to understand nor easy to put into practice.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New SouthWales · LP

– Apparently I did not express myself very adequately, if what I said earlier has been construed in any way as a condemnation of any taxpayer who understates his estimated income and provisional tax to the department. I believe, as a general principle, that the manipulation of trading stock must eventually be reflected in the level of profits. I have nothing but the utmost condemnation for any taxpayer who seeks to defraud the Commissioner by placing a false value on his trading stock. Every person has a responsibility to pay his income tax, and those who attempt to avoid that obligation deserve the utmost condemnation and the imposition of such penalties as the law prescribes in the circumstances.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has raised a bigger difficulty in relation to the self-assessment of provisional tax than the circumstances warrant. In the first place, under this legislation there is no compulsion on the taxpayer to self-assess his tax. Many taxpayers undoubtedly desire to do so, and there has been a big demand for self-assessment provisions to be inserted in the act. The self-assessment system is operating very smoothly and successfully in relation to salary and wageearners. Where a taxpayer considers that, as the result of a decline Of his income, the department has calculated his provisional tax at a much higher level than is necessary, he has a right to correct that position. He does so by going through the process of making out an estimated return for the year in which he wishes to exercise his option of self-assessment. The Leader of the Opposition has read to the committee sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 221yda. I confess that the wording of the majority of income tax provisions is somewhat involved. If they are read aloud, their verbiage causes a great deal of mental confusion. However, let me state the provision in simple terms. If a taxpayer wants to obtain the benefit of the legislation by making his own assessment - being entitled, in the circumstances, to make a lower payment - it is his responsibility to submit to the department information in support of his claim. That information is, in truth, a repetition of the previous year’s return. Whatever may be the difficulties presented by this measure, by and large they are difficulties which the taxpayer, either personally or through his agent, has to face each year when furnishing his return. Except for a few purists who want to keep their affairs in meticulous order, I believe that it will be worthwhile for a taxpayer to face those difficulties in order to obtain the benefit that will follow. ‘ Under this provision those who self-assess themselves may gain a very material benefit by paying a very much smaller amount of provisional tax than would have been the case if the Commissioner had made the assessment without having before him information of a decrease of income in the subsequent year. There is no greater terror in selfassessment beyond the terror that lies in completing every income tax return. The taxpayer merely repeats the process that he carried through twelve months earlier. I do not think! that it is unreasonable for the Government to expect the taxpayer to do that. On the back of the form there are tables showing the rates of tax. The department’s experience up to the present has been that, by and large, those tables are understandable by the average taxpayer who, when furnishing his return, estimates his provisional tax liability. Let us consider the alternative in a practical world. It is that the department, not the taxpayer, should make the assessment. I point out that already the department is a big organization, and there are millions of taxpayers in this country. I think that we should try to evolve a method of doing what we want to do in a way that will not unduly increase the size of the department. If it were decided that the department should carry out the work, obviously it would be necessary to add to its structure. The next aspect of the matter is that, in those circumstances, the taxpayer would be relieved of paying bis tax until the department had made an assessment. That would establish a Utopian state of affairs. It might be worthwhile for the taxpayer to develop a set of circumstances which would delay the issue of his assessment. I believe that if a taxpayer desires to remould his taxation affairs in order to obtain the benefit of the law he should be permitted to do so.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– The advantages to the taxpayer that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has outlined fall far short of the facilities that I desire to see afforded to every taxpayer. The amounts involved in these matters are by no means small. It is within my recent knowledge that, because of an excessive provisional tax assessment last year - when selfassessment was not in operation - a primary producer could not obtain a refund exceeding £4,000, and the money remained in the Treasury, interest free, for a considerable time, i concede that the obligation on the taxpayer to self-assess his provisional tax extends to the date specified for the payment of tax, or the 31st of March, whichever is the later. It is futile for the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to state that there is no duty or obligation on the taxpayer to take advantage of the self -assessment provision. We should provide facilities whereby that advantage will be available to every taxpayer who wishes to obtain the benefit of it. It is not a matter of whether or not we are imposing a compulsory obligation on taxpayers, but of seeing whether or not the obstacles to bc surmounted will prevent them from taking advantage of the law. Since I addressed the chamber during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill, by courtesy of the Commissioner of Taxation, I have obtained a copy of the notice that will be sent to taxpayers under this provision. Admittedly it is more courteously worded than have been other taxation notices that I have seen. If the taxpayer wishes to take advantage of the self -assessment provision, he is requested to supply certain information. In order to estimate the amount of provisional tax payable the taxpayer must refer to differential rates of personal exertion and property income, and have regard to deductions and rebates of interest on Commonwealth loans to which he may be entitled. Those things really concern, not the taxpayer, but the Taxation Branch. We should ensure that optional selfassessment is made available to the taxpayer upon his estimate of income in accordance with an amount calculated by the department itself. Under the- bill as drafted, we shall, in a vast majority of instances, deny the advantage of self assessment to taxpayers whom, I believe, the Government itself truly intends to benefit.

Senator Spicer:

– Unless the taxpayer calculates his tax, how can he forward his cheque in payment of tax?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I should like to know. But the taxpayer does not send in a cheque in payment of tax when he sends in his return.

Senator SPICER:

– This is not a return, but an estimated assessment of tax.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Despite the simplification of the taxation return that has been effected by the Treasurer, no ordinary person COuld possibly essay the task of assessing his tax when he sends in his return. I shall content myself at this juncture by stating that the Government fails to perceive in its proper focus the difficulty that arises under the bill as drafted. Unless the measure is amended along the lines that I indicated earlier, we shall continue to deny facilities which, I believe, every honorable senator is most eager to see provided to the advantage of the taxpayer. It is simply a question of the form in which the particular provision now stands. Even at this eleventh hour, I urge the Minister to be good enough to place the obligation of making the actual assessment of tax upon the return, not upon the taxpayer but upon the Taxation Branch.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– I am unable to agree with my colleague, Senator Wright, particularly with respect to the form that is now being sent out to taxpayers in explanation of the new selfassessment provisions contained in this measure. This matter was carefully considered by the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, the members of which concluded that selfassessment, would be of no interest to 90 per cent, of the balance of taxpayers to whom, notices have yet to be issued, been ure they realize that their income from salary or wages will be not more than 20 per cent, below or above their income for last year. Of the 750,000 taxpayers to whom assessments have still to be issued not mon; than 10 per cent, will he likely to bc interested in self assessment provision. Of that 10 per cent. at least 9 per cent, always rely on ‘the advice and assistance of tax agents, because, in the main, their income is derived from interests in partnerships, companies or firms. The number of such taxpayers is very small. The persons who will take advantage of t] is provision will be persons whose income is going to decrease. They will adopt the attitude that it would not be fair that they should be obliged to pay provisional tax on a decreased income at the same rate as that at which they paid tax on the higher income that they received in the preceding year.

The form now being sent out to taxpayers in explanation of these provisions is not only clear but is also couched in the most courteous language. In that respect, the form is everything that one could desire. In effect, it simply states that, self-assessment is now to be voluntary. For persons who wish to assess their own tax, the new provisions arc explained in five simple paragraphs and the taxpayer is informed that if he desires to obtain a work sheet as a guide in assessing his tax such a form will be supplied on application to the Taxation Branch or may be obtained at various offices where the taxpayer may collect them personally. If there should still be a small percentage of persons who find, even after being supplied with a work sheet, that the task of self assessment is too difficult for them to undertake, I arn confident that the Taxation Branch would be only too pleased to give them every assistance. The point that is being overlooked is that this is a great advantage to taxpayers whose income is certain to decrease next. year. Such persons should not be called upon to pay tax of an amount equal to that which they paid in respect of the higher income which they enjoyed in the preceding year. The form that is being issued can be described as a courteous letter. It is completely free of the customary departmental jargon. One notices the complete absence of such terms as “ demanding “ or “ requiring “. I believe that taxpayers who are interested in the new provisions will welcome the opportunity to take advantage of them. I cannot subscribe to much of what has been said in the course of this debate and which, in my view, consisted of rather extravagant language designed to play down this great advantage to the taxpayer.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1614

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this bill is to make two changes in the provisions of the PublicService Act relating to furlough, or pay in lieu of furlough, to officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. At present, an officer first becomes eligible for the grant of furlough after twenty years’ continuous service. The tendency in certain State public services and instrumentalities has been to reduce the initial qualifying period. This bill provides for the reduction of the qualifying period from twenty to fifteen years, but without any change in the rate of accrual. In future, an officer of the Commonwealth Service, after fifteen years’ continuous service, will be eligible for the grant of four and a half months’ furlough on full pay. Additional furlough will accrue for each subsequent year’s service up to a maximum of twelve months furlough. An officer retiring, or being retired, from the service after at least fifteen years’ service may be granted in lieu of furlough an. amount equivalent to his salary for the period of furlough for which he would otherwise have been eligible.

Another amendment provides for the grant of pro rata pay in lieu of furlough after eight years’ service to an officer retrenched from the Service because there is no position available for him, in the same way as the act now provides for an officer retired for invalidity or on reaching the prescribed retiring age. It is unusual for any permanent officer to be retired as redundant, but the provision is inserted to cover such a contingency. The effect of the amendment is that, in every instance, in which an officer is compulsorily retired from the Service through no fault of his own, he will be eligible for furlough, or pay in lieu of furlough, according to the length of his service. At present, officers of the Parliament, including officersof the Parliamentary Library, who are required to work on a public holiday, may not receive any extra payment for that duty. The National Library is now open on most public holidays and the members of its staff, whose conditions of service are otherwise identical with those of officers of the departmental Public Service, should not receive differential treatment in the rate of payment for work on those days.

Other amendments in the bill are of a machinery nature. Certain weaknesses in the section on recreation leave are corrected, without any alteration either in the amount of leave or in the conditions under which leave may be granted. Consequent upon the amendment of the Public Service Arbitration Act 1952 to permit reference and appeals, in certain circumstances, from the Public Service Arbitrator to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, an amendment of the Public Service Act is necessary to authorize the grant of leave to attend any proceeding under the Public Service Arbitrator. Provision is also made for the grant of leave without pay to officers serving with Commonwealth Hostels Limited on the same basis as to officers employed by Commonwealth instrumentalities to which the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act does not apply. An amendment to the section providing for appeals by certain temporary employees against dismissal will enable the Public Service Board to appoint an alternative representative to the Appeal Board constituted to hear such an appeal, where the elected representative is unavailable or it is undesirable that he should act.

When the bill is at the committee stage I shall move an amendment in order to give full effect to an amendment made in the House of Representatives.In order to give effect to the spirit of that amendment, other sections of the act also need to be amended, otherwise the incongruous situation may be reached where equal benefits will not apply throughout the service. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Opposition welcomes the bill, although it does not welcome the reasons which have brought it into being at this time. I say at ones that the bill is a vast improvement on the previous legislation, first, because it, proposes to reduce the period of eligibility for furlough from twenty years to fifteen, and, secondly, because it proposes to reduce the period of eligibility, in the case of officers retrenched, from twenty years to eight years. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has stated that he intends to move an amendment in order to bring about consistency. I give notice that I also shall move an amendment to Senator Spooner’s amendment. The effect of the Minister’s amendment will be to take back the date of retrospectivity by six months, that is, to the 1st July, 1952, whereas my amendment will seek to take it back a further twelve months, to July, 1951. At the committee stage I shall state my reasons for proposing the amendment, and I am sure that honorable senators will then agree that those reasons are clear and logical and that the amendment has not been prompted merely for the sake of extending the period. In my opinion, there is a very definite reason why 1951 should be adopted.

I suggest to the Government that it should consider clarifying the definition of “ dependant “ in the case of the death of an officer. The definition is not at present clear. In practice, “ dependant “ usually means some one who is dependent for his or her existence on an officer who comes within the terms of the Public Service Act. I have often thought that the word should be more clearly defined, although I realize the difficulties involved. I do not suggest that payment in lieu of furlough should form part of an officer’s estate, or that it might be willed away to somebody completely outside his family. Because of the sympathetic administration in this respect, I do not even suggest that the definition has given rise to any hardship. I merely raise the matter for future reference when this or any other government should happen to be considering it.

A point which I think is of great significance is that furlough is not given by right to an officer. Of course, provided that the conduct of the officer is good, it is to all intents and purposes a right. At the present moment, an officer must have had twenty years’ continuous service before being entitled to furlough. Because of the conditions through which Australia has passed, particularly between 1930 and 1939, many good and faithful public servants were dismissed through no fault of their own nor, indeed, through any fault of the departments which employed them, but solely because of the economic situation at the time. I suggest that the provisions of this bill could be further improved by including in it sympathetic provision for such people whose continuity of service has been broken. I repeat that the Opposition welcomes the general provisions of the bill and trusts that at the committee stage the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the matters that I have raised.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 - (1.) Sections five, ten, twelve and fourteen of this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-three. (2.) Section eleven of this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two.

SenatorSPOONER (New South Wales - Minister for National Development) [3.23]. - I move-

That sub-clauses (1.) and (2.) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-clause: - “ (1.) Sections five, ten, eleven, twelve and fourteen of this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two.”.

In explanation of the amendment, I point out that the bill at present provides that clause 11 shall take effect from the 1st July, 1952, and the other clauses granting furlough under the principal act from the 1st January, 1953. This difference in the date of effect could have several unfortunate results. First the act as amended by this bill would provide, in respect of the period from the 1st July, 1952, to the 31st December, 1952, for the granting of furlough under section 73 to officers with not less than twenty years’ service, and under section 74 for the granting of extended leave in lieu of furlough to officers with less than fifteen years’ service, that is, officers retiring on reaching the prescribed retiring age or because of invalidity, the dependants of an officer dying within that period after eighteen years’ service would have no eligibility for furlough or payment in lieu. Secondly, as all the amendments of the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act are to have effect from the 1st July, 1952, a temporary employee who resigned after that date, with more than fifteen years’ service but less than twenty years’ service will, by virtue of the amendment, become eligible for the grant of pay in lieu of furlough for almost six months. A permanent officer of the Commonwealth Service retiring after more than fifteen but less than twenty years’ service between the 1st July and the 31st December, 1952, will not be eligible for the grant unless the bill is amended as I have proposed. It is most desirable that conditions of furlough should be uniform for all members of the Commonwealth Public Service, whether they are permanent officers or not.

page 1616

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

(Senator Tate). - I understand that Senator “Willesee has circulated an amendment upon the amendment moved by the Minister for National Development. In order that Senator Willesee may move his amendment, I shall put the Minister’s motion in two parts. The question is -

That sub-clauses (1.) and (2.) be left out.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1616

QUESTION

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

– The question before the Chair now is -

That proposed new sub-section (1.) (Senator SPOONER’S amendment) be inserted.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I move as an amendment upon the amendment -

That in proposed new sub-clause (1.), the words “ fifty-two “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ fifty-one “.

The purpose of this further amendment is not merely to change the figures but to give effect to a principle. The Treasurer (Sir Arthur Eadden) has already said in the House of Representatives that the bill is designed to protect employees who have been discharged from the Service by reason of the necessity to reduce staffs. Because of something completely unconnected with the Public Service, many public servants were thrown out of employment shortly after this Government assumed office. If persons accept employment of a temporary nature and that employment subsequently ceases, they have no moral claim against their employer. But what happened on the occasion to which I have referred was that the Government, in its wisdom, decided that the number of public servants should be reduced by 10,000, not because the work on which they were employed had ceased to exist but in pursuance of the policy of the Government. The twenty-eighth report of the Commonwealth Public Service Board, under the heading “ Size of the Service “ states -

In his statement to the House of Representatives on Public Service retrenchments the Prime Minister emphasized the background against which the decision was made. He said “ I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government’s decision is not a reflection upon the Public Service generally or upon the efficiency of the Public Service Board and the permanent heads of the various departments. Every Minister has on many occasions to be grateful for the way in which he is served by his department. I add my tribute to the Public Service, which is a conscientious and hard-working body with high traditions and which contains many mcn and women of marked ability. As I ha ve said, the Government’s decision is inevitable at a time when our resources of materials, manpower and finance arc not sufficient to do all that we want to do and when great efforts have to be made to restore economic balance and to answer the compelling calls of defence. . . . “

That was the reason that was given. The question is why 1951 was selected. On the other side of page 7 of the report there are statistics showing how the reduction was achieved. On the 31st

May, 1951, the number in employment is ShOwn as 142,589 and on the 30th September, 1951, that number had been reduced by 9,04*7. Those people were thrown out of employment not because of the normal administration of the department in which they worked but, in the terms of the Prime Minister’s statement, for some other reason. The Opposition emphasizes that the correct date should be the day that the Government’s decision took effect. That date can be no other than the 1st July, 1951.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

3.33]. - The Government cannot accept the amendment that has been proposed by Senator Willesee. With due respect to the argument that he has put forward, this matter must be studied on more general grounds. The bill provides an appreciable contribution towards the improvement of conditions in the Public Service. That is beyond the field of debate in my opinion. In the case of improvements or alterations, there must always be a starting date. Whenever that date is fixed, there must always be some group of people who are affected by it and who would have benefited had the commencement date been made a little earlier than the date selected. If the Government met Senator Willesee’s request and made the date a little earlier, another group would arise which would benefit if the date were put back further. Decisions of this kind are made retrospective only in exceptional circumstances. Arrangements such as this always come into operation from the date of the legislation or close to it. That argument may appear a little strange in this case because the Government has introduced an amendment and is making it retrospective to the 1st July, 1952, but it believes that that action is justified. On that date, one of the unions concerned had pressed a request to that effect vigorously. Indeed, it presented a petition which was read in both Houses of the Parliament. I believe that in the circumstances it was reasonable to agree to the union’s request and to make the re-arrangement of conditions operate retrospectively to the time that the petition was presented to the Parliament. The Government does not feel justified in going back a further twelve months from the date that it has selected.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– The explanation that has been given by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) leaves me cold. As Senator Willesee pointed out in his second-reading speech, the Opposition realizes that the bill contains material improvements which will benefit a long suffering section of the Public Service. However, Senator Willesee has directed the attention of the committee to a report of the Public Service Board, which stated that 9,047 employees were retrenched and lost their jobs. Those persons felt the impact of one of the worst blows that could befall them when they lost their jobs. The Government is prepared to make the bill retrospective to a period when the effect would be far less than it would be if it applied to the period between May and September, 1951. 1 have always fought for the temporary officers in particular, and while I admit that the bill proposes to confer benefits upon the Public Service I suggest that it would be only common justice in the circumstances to agree to Senator Willesee’s proposal. I hope that the Government will reconsider its decision.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

.- I suppose that the Government, having made up its mind, that should be the order of the day irrespective of the reasons that caused it to reach its decision. But I have tried to explain that this is not a question of one date against another. The Minister for National Development. (Senator Spooner) gave a reply that was typical of the Public Service. He said that there must be a date and that if it were shifted it would affect another section of employees. The Minister spoke of the Government’s sympathy with the proposal but I should like to know why the bill has been made retrospective at all. It is most unusual to have retrospectivity in such cases. When the Government decided to make the measure retrospective, it must have done so for some reason. That reason was the unusual set of circumstances that arose when a number of public servants were dismissed about

July, 1951. The moment that the Government starts to move on a principle, surely nothing is gained and much is lost if one group of people is penalized by fixing one date instead of another. The Minister will not convince me on that point and I believe that he has not convinced himself. Why has the Government decided upon retrospectivity? The moment that principle is established it must examine the matter further and it cannot accept any date in the circumstances but the 1st July, 1951.

Amendment upon the amendment negatived.

Original amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of bill - by leave - taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1618

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ FURLOUGH BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

.- I move-

That the bill bc now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to improve the conditions governing the grant of furlough to Commonwealth employees who are not covered by the Public Service Act. Corresponding benefits, if not already being enjoyed by permanent officers of the Public Service, will also be provided for those officers. Under existing conditions, furlough may be granted to an employee after twenty years’ service. Alternatively, payment in lieu of such furlough may be granted on retirement or to the dependants of a deceased employee. Where an employee’s service is at least eight but less than twenty years, extended leave or payment in lieu thereof, may be granted upon his retirement at the age of 60 years or above; or on account of ill health, or to his dependants in the event of his death.

The Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act was last amended in 1951 when provision was made to ensure that, where an employee had completed at least twenty years’ service, he would be granted furlough for each year of service. As a further benefit to employees, it is now proposed by this bill to provide that four and a half months’ furlough may be taken after only fifteen years’ service. Furlough will continue to accrue at the rate of three-tenths of one month for each completed year of service as at present. Provision is also made in the bill to protect those employees who, by reason of the necessity to reduce staffs due to diminution of work, are retrenched. Such employees, who have completed at least eight years’ service, but are not entitled to furlough, will now be eligible for extended leave, notwithstanding that they may not have attained the age of 60 years.

The bill also provides for variation of the conditions pertaining to the adjustment of recreation leave following an absence from duty on furlough. The new provision, which is more equitable to employees, is in accord with the conditions applicable to permanent officers of the Public Service. This bill, which will operate from 1st July, 1952,’ further advances this Government’s plan to improve the conditions of employment of Commonwealth employees and I commend it to honorable senators.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Opposition will not oppose this bill because we realize that the measure will improve existing conditions. The purpose of the measure is to extend the liberalized furlough provisions that we have just agreed to insert in the Public Service Act, to Commonwealth employees who are not covered by that act. This measure is probably of greater importance than the preceding bill, because it will affect a much wider range and a greater number of employees. Without wishing to be critical of this measure, but merely to put a beacon on the hill, I point out that in certain Stats industrial legislation, long-service leave is provided after ten years’ service, anl again after a further seven years, whereas under this measure, Commonwealth employees will be required to serve for fifteen years before becoming entitledto such leave. Clearly there is a substantial disparity in those figures. However, I concede that there are certain other industrial conditions that have to be considered. I merely draw attention tothe more liberal provisions of other legislation in order that honorable senators opposite will not consider themselves entitled to wear halos merely because they have introduced this measure. At the committee stage, the Opposition will move again that this legislation be made to operate as from the 1st July, 1951, instead of the 1st July, 1952. I shall not re-state the reasons for that proposal. J have already explained them to the Senate. The need for the amendment is emphasized by the Minister’s words -

Provision is also made in the bill to protect those employees, who by reason of the necessity to reduce staffs . . are retrenched.

The Opposition will seek to amend the bill merely to establish a principle, and an examination of that principle can lead to only one conclusion. We support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

This Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st day of July, One- thousand, nine hundred and fifty-two.

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia) 3.52]. - I move -

That the words “ fifty-two “ be left out with a view to insert in lien thereof the words “ fifty-one “.

As I explained in my second-reading speech, this amendment is identical with that proposed by the Opposition in relation to the preceding measure. However, we believe it to be far more important in this legislation, which covers so many more temporary and exempt employees. We consider that, although the treatment that the bill will extend to employees is sympathetic, it is not generous when compared with certain State industrial legislation.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I regret that, for the reasons that I gave when the previous measure was before the committee, the Government cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of bill - byleave - taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from3.55 to4.23 p.m.

page 1619

QUEENSLAND TOBACCO LEAF MARKETING BOARD GUARANTEE BILL 1953

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Standing. Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to authorize the Australian Government to guarantee the repayment to the Commonwealth Bank of loan moneys advanced by the bank to the Queensland Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board for the purpose of assisting growers of unsold tobacco leaf of the 1951-52 season’s crop. In October last, and again in February this year, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) and I conferred with representatives of the Australian tobacco manufacturers and the chairman of the Queensland Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board on the marketing problems of the Queensland tobacco industry. The discussions revolved round the long term marketing problems of the industry and the failure of the Queensland auctions in 1952 to clear all the available leaf from the 1951-52 crop.

Following these talks, the board, with the support in principle of the Queensland

Government, submitted a proposal for an advance by the Commonwealth Government to the board, so that the board in turn could provide loans to the individual growers against their leaf which is in the hands of the board. It was agreed by the board that leaf which could not be regarded as usuable would not be eligible foi- the advance. The board itself excluded about 130 tons as unusable and has since agreed to exclude a further small quantity. The advance will apply to a quantity of about 400 tons. The chairman of the board, in submitting the proposal pointed out that the leaf in question had been held for some time and that many of the growers concerned were in desperate financial circumstances. The matter was considered by the Government, which was satisfied that the plight of growers was as serious as represented by the board. The Government has therefore arranged with the board that the funds provided by the Ooni.monwea.lth Bank, under a guarantee given by the Commonwealth Government, will be used to make immediate advances to growers who have leaf left unsold from the 1951-52 crop which is considered usable.

The Government recognizes that soma of this leaf may be left unsold but this factor was taken into account in fixing the initial advance at 50 per cent, of the board’s valuation of the leaf. The Government has agreed to meet any deficiency between the amount advanced to an individual grower and the total proceeds from the sale of his leaf on which the advance is made. Whether there will be such a deficiency will depend on how much of his leaf is unsold. Tha Government has agreed further that the growers’ advances may be increased to 70 per cent, of the appaised value on suitable grades of leaf. Of course, the unsold stocks will have to be adequately denned as to grade for the purpose of determining the grades eligible to qualify for the additional 20 per cent, advance. The amount that will be required for this extra advance has been allowed for in making £100,000 the maximum sum to be lent to the board by the bank under the guarantee by tho Commonwealth Government. The Government has been impressed by the need in these special circumstances to assist the board in meet- ing abnormal costs associated with the handling of the unsold portion of the 1951-52 crop. It has accordingly decided to relieve the board of such charges up to an amount of £4,000.

The foregoing approach to the problem presented by unsold leaf of the 1951-52 crop has been decided upon against a background of reasonable expectation of achieving a future marketing arrangement designed to ensure full disposal of subsequent crops at satisfactory prices. Both growers and manufacturers have made considerable concessions and negotiations are proceeding. Tho Government aims at having established the sort of marketing arrangements that will result in an expansion of tobaccogrowing in Australia. Many growers, and. indeed some State governments, have felt that a course could be adopted by the Commonwealth Government which would provide a quick and simple solution to all the problems of the Australian tobacco-growers. It has been suggested that there should be a restriction upon imports of tobacco until the Australian crop has been purchased; or that a stated quantity of Australian leaf should be bought as a. condition precedent to the issue of an import permit; or that some wide differential should be established between the costs of Australian and imported leaf by either a. higher customs duty or a. differential excise duty. This is not the occasion on which to examine any such proposals in detail. But I can say that courses of action of this character have had consideration. To some there are obstacles such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or the provisions of the Ottawa Agreement.

The Government has taken one step under the customs power. It has doubled the percentage of Australian leaf which must be blended with imported leaf in order that the imported leaf may become entitled to a lower rate of duty. The percentage on and from the 1st April will be 6 per cent, in the ease of cigarettes, hitherto 3 per cent., and 10 per cent, in the case of tobacco, hitherto 5 per cent. These percentages are kept under continual review with the object of making appropriate increases as soon as the stock position will allow. This

Government believes that the industry will be best served if stability can be achieved by a negotiated arrangement between the parties - growers and manufacturers - rather than by a government imposing arbitrary conditions. This Government does not consider that it should by customs action alone compel the purchase of all Australian leaf, regardless of its quality and regardless of the tastes of Australian smokers.

From what I have said, honorable senators will appreciate that this Government is concerned not merely with relieving the immediate hardships of growers which is the purpose of this bill, but with helping to bring about the long-term stability of the industry, with satisfactory returns for the efficient producer, an increased supply of Australian leaf satisfactory to manufacturers and acceptable to Australian smokers and a progressive relief from the call upon our overseas funds for imports. I commend the bill to the consideration of honorable senators.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– I have no desire to offer any objection to this bill. When I heard that thc Government would introduce a bill dealing with the production of tobacco I was thrilled and greatly interested, because this matter has agitated the minds of many of those who have been- concerned in what is destined to be a great industry. I thought that the Government might at last have decided to take action of a tangible nature which would put the industry on to a businesslike footing. As the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) has stated, the bill will authorize the Commonwealth Government to guarantee the repayment to the Commonwealth Bank of loan moneys advanced by that bank to the Queensland Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board for the purpose of assisting growers of unsold tobacco leaf of the 1951-52 season’s crop. The bill will enable the industry to obtain finance to tide it over its difficulties. The industry has sought the assistance of the Government in order that it might obtain financial help from the Commonwealth Bank. There is nothing of very great moment in this bill. It will enable the industry to obtain some financial assistance which it needs in order to deal with the situation that has developed because of its inability to sell usable leaf of the 1951-52 crop.

While that leaf was being grown the Government was permitting the expenditure of dollars for the importation of tobacco. It is true that some tobacco was imported from sterling areas, but a. tremendous number of dollars were used for the importation of tobacco when usable tobacco was being produced in Queensland. A certain proportion of the produce of every industry is not of a firstclass quality and some of the leaf of” the 1951-52 tobacco crop was not usable.

At the recent tobacco auctions in Brisbane, the only buyers in attendance were the representatives of two or three powerful combines, who refused to bid for the tobacco which the farmers had worked very hard to produce. That caused a great deal of hardship in the industry. The Government has now attempted to assist the industry by proposing to guarantee the farmers for loans with the Commonwealth Bank. Apparently the industry is not sound enough for the growers to borrow money from the Commonwealth Bank on their own account, and they need the backing of the Government. The Queensland Government has already advanced many millions of pounds for the construction of developmental works such as irrigation and hydro-electric schemes. The work that that Government has already done will probably result in the establishment of 1,500 or 1,600 tobacco farms in the Mareeba district. The taxpayers’ money is being used to establish this industry on a fair and businesslike footing, but unfortunately there are very few buyers of the tobacco after it has been produced. Therefore, in spite of the government assistance that will be rendered under this measure next year or the year after, the tobacco-growers may be in a worse position than ever before because the manufacturers may continue to refuse to bid for their product. They will continue to refuse to take Australian tobacco as long as the Government allows them to get their supplies elsewhere. The Government should ensure that the tobacco produced in this country shall be used first, and if any more is required then it should be purchased overseas.

Tobacco-growing is hard and tedious work, and in many cases the wives of the farmers work long hours, especially at night, to help their husbands produce the leaf. Certain land in Queensland is admirably suited for the production of tobacco because rich, highly productive land is not necessary as long as adequate water and fertilizer are available. The Queensland tobacco industry could become a great industry for Australia, but it cannot progress unless it is assured of a market. The production of a commodity does not bring in wealth ; it is only after the product has been sold that wealth begins to flow in. Therefore, I suggest that the Government should initiate an organized marketing scheme for tobacco, similar to the schemes that are operating for wheat, sugar and other products. Negotiation is suggested under the bill. That means negotiation with powerful tobacco combines-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reid).- Order ! The honorable senator is straying rather widely from the provisions of the measure.

Senator COURTICE:

– The Minister has stated that negotiations have taken place between the Government and the industry with the object of putting the industry on a stable basis. He has also stated that he is hopeful that something tangible will emerge from those negotiations.

Senator Scott:

– Is the quality of Queensland tobacco comparable with the quality of imported tobaccos?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. Order! There must be no interjections during this- debate.

Senator COURTICE:

– Some of the tobacco produced in Queensland is better than tobacco produced in any other part of the world. Some is so good that it is too mellow to smoke and has to be mixed with other tobaccos. However, the Government can obtain all the information that it requires on that point from its own officers. There is, of course, a certain percentage of unusable tobacco produced in Queensland, but the growers realize that. In the 1950 season the industry disposed of the whole of its crop, and the manufacturers even bought the tobacco sweepings. The following year, when the manufacturers were able to secure tobacco from overseas, very little of the local product was bought. Now that it has been proved that tobacco can be grown successfully in Queensland, and now that the State Government is heavily involved financially, the industry should be helped as much as possible. Negotiations such as the Minister mentioned will not be of much use, and I suggest that a permanent organization should be established such as that operating in the sugar industry, where an independent tribunal assesses the value of the product as between the different sections of the industry. The tobacco industry will never stand on a firm business footing until something like that is done. The day has gone by when a few people, however influential and powerful, can say to over 1,000 primary producers,. “ We shall give you this price or nothing”, while the producers have noredress. No government’ can stand by and allow such a state of affairs.

The tobacco-growers are handling a. good proportion of their product themselves, but the amount of tobacco required in Australia is eight or nine times more than we produce, and consequently a considerable amount must continue to be imported. The growers dothe hard work in this industry but the manufacturers get by far the best of it. I know that machinery can be set up.. through negotiation with the Queensland Government, to help the growers in thi? industry and to guarantee its security. For instance, a greater percentage of theAustralian tobacco can be included in-, the Australian manufactured product- Prices are not fixed in this industry., tobacco manufacturers being able to charge whatever prices they desire, but we’ must not regard that state of affairs as permanent. Is it that the Government is not taking sufficient interest in the tobacco-growers because there are not enough of them ? ‘ The tobaccogrowers of this country are just asentitled as the wheat-growers to a fair return on their produce. If a tribunal were established in connexion: with the industry it could, with the assistance of accountants, determine, not only the cost of production, hut also the cost of manufacture, and thereby decide on a fair price to the consumers. It is time that such a body was established, in order to stabilize the industry. Many tobaccogrowers have invested as much as £20,000 in the industry. In order fully to equip a tobacco farm a good deal of expenditure is involved in the provision of suitable buildings and irrigation. It is most disheartening for the growers when, after the crop has been sent to Brisbane, nobody turns up at the sale. I am convinced that that state of affairs has been brought about by arrangement. There is ample scope for the development of the tobacco-growing industry in Queensland, and the Government should encourage its expansion. The successful farming of tobacco would lead to the establishment of additional towns in the rural areas of that State. I have heard buyers say to the growers, t: It is your business to grow tobacco ; we will decide what the crop is worth “. Success can be attained in .the tobacco industry only if there is a ready market for the leaf, at a fair and reasonable price. I understand that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) intends to visit north Queensland during the forthcoming recess of the Parliament. I advise him to discuss the problems of the industry with Mr. Short, with whom he is acquainted. Time and again the tobacco-growers of Queensland have sent their representatives to Canberra to discuss their problems with representatives of the Government, and the suggestions that I have made today are in line with their recommendations. I am disappointed that the Government has not yet established a body to protect the interests of the growers and to further the development of the industry generally. Supporters of the Australian Country party should do all in their power to pursuade the Government to take some positive action in this connexion. If the tobacco-growing industry of this country were placed on a sound businesslike footing we would be saved an expenditure of many millions of dollars each year on imported tobacco. In many instances the quality of imported cigarettes and tobacco is inferior to that of the Australian product. There is a definite responsibility on the Government to ensure that the Australian tobacco industry, which is struggling for its very existence, shall receive a fair deal.

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

. - -I regret that this important measure has been introduced into the Senate at a time when honorable senators are eager to return to their constituencies. Had the bill been brought forward earlier in the sessional period there could have been a full and interesting discussion about the tobacco-growing industry, including its problems, and their possible solution. This measure has been introduced because a crisis has developed in the industry. Unfortunately the history of tobacco-growing in this country has been marked by tragedy and recurring crises. The Government should take steps to obviate further tragedy and to avoid a recurrence of crises in the future. Senator Courtice has referred, with great emotion, to the fact- that the bulk of the 1951-52 tobacco crop remains unsold. There is a suspicion that the industry has been the subject of a commercial boycott. That is something that we should not tolerate, either in our primary or secondary industries, but particularly in this industry, which is struggling for its existence. There is no reason why the tobacco industry should not be developed into one of the major industries of this country. It should be capable of supporting a large population.

As this measure seeks to overcome the present crisis in the industry it has the support of the Opposition. This bill makes provision whereby the Commonwealth Bank will provide funds to the Queensland Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board to enable the board to make advances up to a total limit of £100,000, to tobacco-growers, a portion of whose 1951-52 crop remains unsold although considered .usable. Advances may be made to growers on the basis of the individual consignments of usable leaf, totalling about 400 tons, exclusive of about 130 tons which remains unsold, and which is unusable Initial advances will be made on the basis of 50 per cent, of the appraised value of the leaf, but may be increased to ‘70 per cent, on suitable grades of leaf.

I shall now refer briefly to the history of the tobacco industry in Queensland. Following the decline from a pre-war acreage of nearly 4,000 acres to 1,700 acres in 1948-49, the industry has expanded very rapidly in that State. In 1951-52, approximately 5,000 acres were sown to tobacco. Significantly, that expansion followed the establishment of the Queensland Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board in 1948, and until last year no difficulty was experienced by the growers in. disposing of all the leaf. During 1952, however, competition at the sales declined to such an extent that a quarter of the crop remained unsold at the end of the year. As a result an atmosphere of despair has developed in the tobacco industry.

Figures show the extent to which the industry has been disturbed as a result of the collapse of last year’s sales. There has been a decrease of acreage from 5,000 acres in 1951-52 to au estimated 4,500 acres for the current crop. That decrease of acreage is a very serious matter. In terms of percentages, also, there has been a substantial reduction. It has been caused not by seasonal conditions but as a result of the failure of the Government to assist the industry. I remind honorable senators that the tobacco industry is still in the pioneering stage. It should not have to suffer artificial setbacks, because already the growers are faced with many natural hazards. It is estimated that production has decreased from 4,667,000 lb. last season to an estimated 3,900,000 lb. this season. That reduction should give the Government cause for great concern, particularly in view of the fact that the Australian Agricultural Council had set a target of 10,000 acres for Queensland in 1952. That is one effect of the treatment meted out to this industry. Following the collapse of tho sales, protracted negotiations took place between the board, the growers, the manufacturers and the Government. The Australian product is protected by a tariff duty which is extended to importers according to the percentage of Australian leaf used by them in their products. During the negotia- tions the Government indicated that it would increase the protection afforded to the industry but the industry asked for much more substantial protection than the Government was prepared to grant it. In other words, the growers and those who are managing their affairs, who know the psychology of the growers and what they are prepared to do to keep the industry in production, contend that the industry requires much more substantial tariff protection than the Government has been prepared to extend to it. The ordinary tariff is 6s. 6d. per lb. on leaf used for the manufacture of tobacco and 8s. 7d. per lb. for leaf used for the manufacture of cigarettes, with rates 9d. per lb. less for leaf imported from Southern Rhodesia. If manufacturers use the prescribed minimum percentages of Australian leaf in their blends, they qualify for a reduction of ls. 6d. per lb. in those rates on imported leaf. The relevant percentages were 3 per cent, for cigarettes and 5 per cent, for tobacco from 1946 to 1952. After further negotiation the Government agreed to double the percentages. If the industry is to continue the Government will have to give greater consideration to stipulated leaf percentages and to tariff protection. If I have correctly interpreted the Minister’s secondreading speech the Government is not at all keen on assisting the industry by way of additional tariff protection. When we consider tho Government’s attitude in relation to the industry we must consider possible solutions of its problems. We should be told why the industry was allowed to get into its present state. It has been suggested that the reserve price on tobacco which remained unsold was too high. High price could, of course, be a serious obstacle to its sale. We cannot expect processers and manufacturers to pay high prices for a product for which there is no commercial sale. They have to conduct their businesses at a profit to ensure the continuance of their activities. That criticism would be very pertinent if it could be substantiated, but according to information I have received, no cogent arguments have been advanced to support it. It is difficult to believe that manufacturers are not importing leaf of a grade similar to that of the bulk of the Australian crop. The average price paid by manufacturers for imported leaf during the last financial year was 74d. per lb. f.o.b. overseas ports, whilst the average duty was 60d. per lb or a total of 134d., plus freight, whereas the average price paid for Queensland leaf during 1952, was only 89d. per lb. Thus there is a tremendous difference between the imported duty paid price and the price paid for Queensland leaf plus excise. It would be fantastic to accept the manufacturers’ claims that the Queensland price was too high when they already pay almost twice as much for imported leaf. It is fair to assume that the imported leaf is of substantially the same quality as the Australian leaf.

Allegations have been made that the quality of the Queensland leaf is inferior, but I understand that that claim was not substantiated by the Commonwealth committee which investigated it in October 1952. The committee found that 90 per cent, of the unsold leaf was usable, and that at most less than 3 per cent, of the total Queensland crop was unused. It will be seen that both arguments advanced against the Queensland leaf fall to the ground. As Senator Courtice has said, until last year tobacco manufacturers were eager to obtain Queensland leaf and were willing to pay for it a price which many people regarded as too high for an inferior leaf. The tobacco was usable and purchasable.

What should we do to assist the Industry? The purpose of this bill is to meet a particular crisis, but we do not want to have to pass similar legislation every year in order to meet recurrences of the present crisis. The industry should be established on a permanent economic basis which will enable it to take its place with other great Australian primary industries. That should be our aim. The Minister has said that the Government is not eager to use excise and tariff provisions to assist the industry. Many vague generalities have been indulged in with regard to other industries that have been firmly established in Australia. We must remember that the tobacco industry was established 20 or 30 years ago behind a very strong tariff barrier. . When it was destroyed, its destruction was brought about by the removal of that barrier. If a legal barrier can assist in the establishment of an industry, and if the removal of the barrier can completely destroy that industry, there is every justification for relying upon the same means of protection in order to re-establish the industry to-day. The Minister has set his face against such a course. While the Government concedes some protection through this adjustable tariff provision and the percentage basis, it is not happy about having recourse to such means. It believes that this industry can be placed on an economic basis only by co-operation between the sections involved in it. Senator Courtice has asked what parties are involved in the industry. There is, of course, the tobacco monopoly. It is difficult to get co-operation between growers and a monopoly which ultimately is the sole market for the purchase of their products. There may be no practical means by which this industry can be established on the basis of co-operation in the absence of strong legal provisions. We must be firm in our attitude on the subject of protection of this industry.

I could discuss at length many other aspects of the industry, and I am sure that, in different circumstances, honorable senators would welcome my remarks about those phases. At this juncture, I propose to make only a few more points. The total Australian production of tobacco leaf last season was 7,600,000 lb. The point I make is whether the present tariff protection is adequate or inadequate to ensure the development of the industry. After allowing 5 per cent, of the total production as being unsuitable and also allowing for the requirements of manufacturers who use wholly Australian leaf, the balance available for blending with imported leaf represents about IS per cent, of the present total output of cigarettes and tobacco by companies which blend imported and Australiangrown leaf. That difference is so substantial that the present degree of tariff protection will not have any substantial effect in enabling the great bulk of Australia’s production of leaf to be absorbed. Everybody associated with the industry has been urging the Government to increase protection to a considerable degree. Why the Government refuses to accede to that request, particularly as the request is amply justified, remains unknown. What is happening now? According to the Minister, in his second-reading speech, the Government is required not only to guarantee the proposed overdraft, but also the sum of £4,000 to relieve growers of excessive costs involved in the regrading and handling of the -unsold balance of the leaf. Ultimately, that commitment is the responsibility of the people. Although the present situation may be clue to a boycott by commercial interests, the taxpayers, through the Government, are to provide that sum of £4,000 this year, and if Senator Courtice’s suggestion is not adopted, this relief will become a permanent annual contribution to the industry. If that is so, this liability will be placed upon the taxpayers simply because selfish commercial interests arc holding out on the industry. The Government should make sure that it is not providing money from Consolidated Revenue simply because such interests want to gain benefits for themselves and are not prepared to do the right thing by the industry. The provision of that sum of £4,000 should receive the closest attention of honorable senators. I am sure that al1, of us desire to know why the present position has risen. Could it have been obviated ? Who has been responsible for it? What motive has actuated the interests which have been responsible for it? It is important that those questions be answered. Until they are answered, it will be impossible to go ahead and rationalize the industry on a firm basis. At this stage, I should like to trace in greater detail the history of the industry and to deal with its economic potential, investments that have been made in it, particularly by the Queensland Government, its importance to the development of our far north, its capacity to absorb new Australians, the great volume of work that remains to be done, and the hopes and enthusiasms of those who are now engaged in it. Perhaps, when the Senate reassembles after June next I may have an opportunity to deal with those aspects of this industry, which promises to be so important that it warrants our attention in detail. Having made that criticism, I support the bill.

I sincerely trust that the Government will establish a sound marketing scheme for the industry, which is of great economic importance to this country and offers unusual opportunities for the employment of our people with a fair economic return to those engaged in it and, at the same time, fair treatment for the consumers of its product.

Senator O’SULLIVAN (QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs) [5.10 J. - in reply - I am not entirely disappointed with the reception that honorable senators have accorded to this measure. However, members of the Opposition could have been a little more generous in their approach to it because, after all, the difficulties of the tobacco industry in Queensland did not originate only yesterday. They were apparent when this Government assumed office after Labour had been in power for a period of eight years. During part of that period, Senator Courtice was Minister for Trade and Customs. Perhaps I can best give the background of the industry by citing the relevant figures. For the last year in which Labour was in office, production of tobacco leaf in Queensland totalled 1,625,792 lb. from 1,67,8 acres, but in 1951-52 the acreage had increased to 5,038 and the production of tobacco leaf had increased to 4,666,000 lb. It is not quite fair for members of the Opposition to say that there are signs of decay in the industry when its actual production has increased by approximately 300 per cent, since 1948-49, which was the last year of office of the Labour Government. I do not query the interest and enthusiasm of members of the Opposition for the development of this industry, but they will not help it merely by endeavouring to make party political capital out of it. The Government regards the industry a3 being of national importance. I do not desire to play at party politics in this matter. I refuse to do so.

I urge all honorable senators to examine the position of the industry most carefully. If that is done, we can do much to help it. During the last year that Labour was in office - I am not taking credit for this, but am simply giving the facts - the price received for the leaf averaged 57. 6d. per lb., whereas for 1951-52 the average price was from 90d. to 92d. per lb. Senator Courtice strongly contended that the unsold leaf was usable. That is not correct because the marketing board itself has realized that that leaf, in its present state, is unacceptable to the buyers. Honorable senators might ask why it is not acceptable to them ? I point out that the buyer in this instance is a seller. Can members of the Opposition advance one good reason why manufacturers should refuse to buy the leaf if it were usable? In passing, I might mention that the biggest manufacturing company in Australia, the British-Australasian Tobacco Company Proprietary Limited, has expended tens of thousands of pounds in Queensland in developing and experimenting in the growing of tobacco leaf. How can it be said that such an organization desires to destroy the industry? Such a suggestion is paltry and unworthy of the honorable senator who made it. The fact is that the manufacturers in their own interests desire that the industry should prosper. The experts of the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company Proprietary Limited are always available to every tobacco-grower in Queensland. Therefore, the suggestion that the manufacturers are conspiring to destroy this potentially great industry is totally unfounded. As Senator Courtice so strongly affirmed that the great bulk of the unsold leaf was quite usable, let us get at the facts. The unsold quantity of the 1951-52 crop is only 15 per cent, of the total production, or 400 ton3. 1 do not say “ only “ in a belittling way, because I realize that 15 per cent, is a substantial proportion. However, it is not the major part of the crop.

The highest price paid in the 1951 selling season was I72d. per lb. The average price was between 90d. and 92d. per lb., which is not a bad figure. I remind honorable senators, in relation to the unsold portion of the crop, that there are over sixteen manufacturers in the tobacco industry in Australia. Some of them are only small operators of the kind that we want to keep in the industry because we realize that, the greater the competition amongst manufacturers, the better will be the prices obtained by growers. Why did the small manufacturers decide that they would prefer to pay 12s. 6d. per lb. for Rhodesian tobacco if, as honorable senators opposite have said, the quality of the unsold Australian leaf, which they could have bought for 7s. 6d. per lb., was just as good as that of the imported leaf? It does not make sense. Honorable senators opposite have said that the’ tobacco combine is a world-wide organization. Be that as it may, they have not explained the refusal of small manufacturers to buy the unsold Australian leaf when they could obtain it much more cheaply than Rhodesian leaf.

Senator Courtice:

– At that rate, there is no hope for the Australian industry.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– There is hope for it, because there was keen bidding for the good-quality leaf, which was sold for I72d. per lb. ‘

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

– That was only for the “tops”.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– An acceptable price was paid for 85 per cent, of the crop, which could scarcely be described as the cream of the market. Most of the crop, not just the tops, was sold at an acceptable price. I am not suggesting that there is no problem to be solved, but I do suggest that the criticism of honorable senators opposite is not helping the Government to solve the problem that confronts us.

The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) and I have been able to bring the conflicting interests together in conference. Senator Courtice, who has had a life-long association with the sugar industry, will recall that the bitterness which developed in that industry prior to 1915 was dissipated by such methods. The problems of the sugar industry were solved largely with the help of Senator Annabelle Rankin’s father and a member of my family. They were not solved by arbitrary action on the part of the government of the day, which, incidentally, was the first Labour government of Queensland.

Senator Courtice:

– They were solved by government intervention.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Not by the Government saying to the growers, “ You must take the price that the millers offer or to the millers, “ You must pay the price that the growers ask “. They were solved by the establishment of an independent tribunal.

Senator Courtice:

– Hear, hear! That will do me.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am glad that I am converting Senator Courtice. My impression of his advocacy this afternoon was that we should force the manufacturers to pay a set price regardless of equity, quality, and their estimation of a fair price, and even regardless of the wishes of the ultimate consumers, the Australian smoking public. The Opposition lias said that the present situation has developed as a result of government inaction. As all Queenslanders know, there were special circumstances in relation to the 1952 tobacco crop which, I hope, will never recur. There was a drought, the crop was attacked by grubs, and there was a flood of imported tobacco. Some growers decided at one stage that, as they had grown the tobacco, they knew what it was worth and the buyers should be made to pay their price. Honorable senators opposite now suggest that the Government should compel manufacturers to pay the growers’ price regardless of the value of the leaf. However, the position has developed satisfactorily in recent years, especially during the last few months, and the Government believes that an understanding will be reached, with its blessing, between the growers and the manufacturers. “Both sides of the industry want to be fair to the Australian people, and they are trying their best to solve their problems. We hope, therefore, that a situation will soon arise in which all usable tobacco leaf will find a satisfactory market in Australia. Nevertheless, it would bc idle for the Government to attempt to establish that desirable state of affairs by arbitrary action, against the wishes of either or both parties in the industry. If we are to build on a permanent basis, we. must contrive to establish a state of affairs in which there will be no bitterness. Both growers and manufacturers must be assured that their interests will be given fair consideration, and the Australian people generally should be made to feel that their wishes and interests will notbe overlooked. The Government has power to take wild and silly actions, but it also has a sense of responsibility. It would be futile for it to take arbitrary action against the wishes of both sections of the industry which would lie upset again if, God forbid, there should bc a change of government. If the industry is to be placed on a solid basis, the arrangements made for the marketing of the crop must have the blessing of both parties and be accepted philosophically and cheerfully. Honorable senators opposite could have been a little more cooperative and could have made constructive suggestions. Our minds are open to such suggestions, because we want the tobacco industry to prosper and expand. I hope a day will come when this industry will be not only self supporting but also capable of competing in the markets of the world.

T have noticed from a press report’ that another Queenslander, who should know better, although I realize that he is ageing, has either forgotten, which is understandable in view of his years, or has not yet realized that we are not still operating under National Security Regulations, which were repealed in 1946. I refer to the honorable member for Leichhardt in the House of Representatives, Mr. Bruce, who, according to press reports, has complained that agents of the tobacco manufacturers, particularly the BritishAustralian Tobacco Company Limited and W. D. and H. 0. Wills (Australia) Limited, go to cafes and fish shops to ask the proprietors to apply for quotas of tobacco and cigarettes and then, with these applications in hand, approach the board, which was abolished in 1946.

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

– Quotas are still in force.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The distribution of tobacco since 1946 has been entirely in the hands of the industry and has been free of any government interference. According to the honorable senator’s colleague in the House of Representatives, these people go round to fish shops and cafes asking persons to sign application forms which they take home and deal with themselves. That is the height of absurdity. The statement is evidence of senility, and is not designed to assist the development of the industry.

I am sure that Senator Byrne was under a misapprehension when he suggested that the target fixed by the Australian Agricultural Council was 10,000 acres by 1952. I think that his figures were a little confused.

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

– My figures are official.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– So are mine, but the honorable senator referred to the wrong years. I am sure that what the honorable senator said was stated in good faith, but I point out that the target of 3 0,000 acres for Queensland was set for 1957-58, the end of the five-year programme. I think that perhaps the Senate may have understood the honorable senator to mean that that target was fixed for achievement by 1951-52.

Senator Byrne stated that the acreage under cultivation last year had declined from 5,000 acres to 4,500 acres. That, I believe, is true. Many of the growers themselves have said frankly, and with a keen interest to get to the bottom of the trouble in the industry that on account of the extraordinary prices paid for the 1950- 51 crop - the average price was more than 106d. - much of the lowergrade leaf was sent to market even against the advice of their experts, and good prices were paid for it. The growers themselves did not expect that it would be even saleworthy. When that happened, many other people said, “ This seems to be very easy. We will have a go at growing tobacco, because apparently it is easy to make money from it”. A great disservice was thus done to ti i e industry, and to the traditional full-time growers. The aftermath of that is another element which has caused such dislocation in 1951- 52. I am satisfied that with the practical assistance that the Queensland Government and the Australian Government arc giving to the industry, and above all, with the better and happier understanding between grower and manufacturer, the tobacco industry in Queensland can look forward to an era of great and growing prosperity. I thank the Senate for the manner in which this more or less short term measure of assistance to the industry has been received by it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

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

– I should bc obliged if the Minister would explain the meaning of the words, “ The Government has agreed to meet any deficiency between the amount advanced to an individual grower and the total proceeds from the sale of his leaf on which the advance is made “, which occur in the early part of his second-reading speech. In my opinion, those words are capable of two interpretations.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– As I sec it, the idea is that at the present time the board has physical possession of the tobacco. It knows from whom each lot has come and will pay out so much to each. It may be that the assessment will be higher than the price realized by the tobacco. Fifty per cent, is to be paid forthwith, with a possibility of it rising to 70 per cent. Assuming that the price is assessed at £100, the board advances £70 of the Commonwealth guarantee, and the tobacco realizes £65, the Commonwealth, not the industry, carries the £5 difference.

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

– The amount is not repayable?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– No. It is the difference between the amount guaranteed and the amount realized. The Commonwealth is taking the risk.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1629

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1953

Message from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 1630

LEAVE OE ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator 0’ 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 1630

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator 0’Suixivan) 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 1630

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL . SERVICES

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 18th March Senator Tangney asked the following question : -

I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by informing him that I raised this matter in the Senate last October and that I wrote to the Minister for Health during the recess, but have not received a satisfactory reply. Is the Minister aware of the magnificent contribution to national health that is being made by the Red Cross blood transfusion service? Is he aware that blood transfusions are now an integral part of curative medicine? Is the Minister aware of the multiplicity of humanitarian activities that are undertaken by the Red Cross Society, which is enabled to exist by public subscriptions and the honorary, self-sacrificing work of its members? Is the Minister aware that the task of financing its other activities in addition to its extremely costly blood transfusion service imposes a terrific financial strain on the Red Cross Society? If he fully realizes the worth of the work that is done by the society, and particularly by its blood transfusion service, will the Government consider undertaking full financial responsibility for blood transfusion services as a vital part of the national health scheme, as this service would transcend in importance other services such as the distribution of free milk?

The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply : -

I am fully aware of the very excellent work being done by the various State branches of the Red Cross in conducting the Blood Transfusion Service in conjunction with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. At the present time negotiations are being conducted with the Red Cross consequent on a change-over in the process whereby the Commonwealth Government is providing, through the Commonwealth

Serum Laboratories, free of charge, a most modern blood fractionating treatment for the purposes of the Blood Transfusion Service. The question of capital and current expenditure of the Red Cross in maintaining its Service is at present under negotiation with the Red Cross and the State governments concerned and I have no doubt that a mutually satisfactory arrangement will be made.

page 1630

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Senator LAUGHT:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

What portions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945 are still operative and of benefit with respect to those who took part in World War II., and whose discharge took place shortly after the conclusion of World War II.?

Senator COOPER:
CP

-Some forms of assistance instituted by the Reestablishment and Employment Act 1945 can no longer be taken advantage of because the time within which it was necessary to apply for them has expired. Those which are still in operation and are adadministered in my department are re-establishment loans and business re-establishment allowances. These benefits are available to eligible members of the forces, who took part in World War II., for a period of five years from the date of their discharge provided that they were discharged not later than the 30th June, 1949. An exception was made in the case of those who undertook vocational training after discharge. They are entitled to apply for these loans and allowances at any time within five years from the termination or completion of their training. Other benefits for which provision is made under the act are administered in various other departments. Some of these are still in operation and for information regarding them I would refer the honorable senator to the Ministers concerned, namely the Attorney-General, the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Labor and National Services and the Minister for the Interior.

page 1630

QUESTION

COAL

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that there is a considerable amount of coal accumulating in stock at grass at the coal mines at St. Mary’s, Tasmania.?
  2. Will the Minister give some indication as to what guarantees the Commonwealth Government is prepared to give to the miners that their employment in the mines is secure?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following reply -

  1. Conditions in the coal-mining industry in Tasmania are primarily the responsibility of the Tasmanian State Government. The stocks of coal at St. Mary’s total only 7,500 tons and the Tasmanian State Government is financing the cost of stockpiling this quantity until the end of next June.
  2. The Commonwealth Government’s objective is to see continuity of employment maintained in the coal-mining industry in Tasmania as elsewhere in Australia but the circumstances do not appear to call for any immediate action on its part in furtherance of this objective.

page 1631

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator ROBERTSON:

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

  1. . ls it a fact that the Canadian Government has invited and made it possible for the flood victims of Holland to enter Canada, and make a fresh start in life?
  2. Has Australia made any such approach, not only to those desirable migrants from Holland, but also to those from Great Britain?
Senator COOPER:
CP

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

  1. I have been advised that on the 4th February, the Canadian Minister for Immigration announced that flood victims who might desire to move to Canada would receive assistance under the normal assisted passages programme which in their cases would, as a special gesture, be extended to apply to dependants as well as to heads of families and would also be liberalized to eliminate certain normal requirements relating to passage costs and the repayment of financial assistance advanced by the Government.
  2. All of the advantages embodied in thu Canadian gesture are already available to Dutch migrants under the NetherlandsAustralia migration agreement in that contributions are made to the costs of dependants’ passages and no repayment of the Australian contributions is required from the migrant. The Netherlands emigration authorities were informed at the time that not only would flood victims be welcomed if included amongst the many Dutch migrants to come to Australia this year, but that everything possible administratively would be done to facilitate their transportation to and reception in Australia. British migrants are always welcome in Australia, regardless of their number, and in fact we have taken since the war more than have gone to all the other Dominions combined. Apart from those in a position to meet their own travelling expenses, financial assistance is available under the assisted passage scheme to those families rendered homeless by the floods who have been able to arrange sponsorship from Australia. Apart from the specific assistance being rendered through the Immigration programme, the honorable senator is, of course, aware of the special financial measures which were taken by the Commonwealth Government to relieve the plight of the flood victims in Great Britain and in the Netherlands.

page 1631

QUESTION

MYXOMATOSIS

Senator LAUGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the efficacy of myxomatosis as a medium of exterminating rabbits in Australia is less than a year ago?
  2. If so, what steps are being taken to make available another virus for the extermination of rabbits?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has supplied the following reply: -

  1. Over vast areas last summer the virus disease myxomatosis was as lethal as previously. There is evidence, however, from certain areas in the field that the virus disease myxomatosis is now less lethal to the rabbit. High percentages of recovered rabbits have been found in these areas.
  2. The presence of recovered rabbits following an outbreak of myxomatosis can be accounted for by either the development of (a) a less lethal strain of the virus, (6) resistance to the disease in the rabbit. Both aspects of the problem are being investigated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and the Australian National University. At present it is considered that a change in the virus is the most likely explanation and research is under way in an endeavour to preserve the fully lethal strain as the dominant one in the field. It is considered most unlikely that another virus could bo found to replace myxomatosis; every effort is being taken to ensure the continued efficacy of myxomatosis which has proved itself of outstanding value in reducing the rabbit population over the last two or three years.

page 1631

QUESTION

SOIL CONSERVATION

Senator COOKE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that in Western Australia grave concern is being shown in many areas at the’ loss occasioned on account of the soil becoming salt?
  2. Is it a fact that this menace is progressive in its encroachment, and that large areas of arable land have gone out of production by the gradual onset of the salt coining up each year and adding to acreage of land destroyed. Also, that many wells and other sources of water supply have become unusable as a result of salinity?
  3. If so, will the Minister treat this problem as one of a serious nature and instruct his Organization to fully investigate the subject of land and water supply destroyed by salinity and report to the Government on the following points: - (a) The area, extent of the damage caused, and location of land affected by salinity; (b) methods recommended for the prevention of salinity of soil; (c) the correction and cure of salinity of soil where it has become established; (d) the effects of salt encroachment on water supplies; (e) methods recommended to prevent extension; (f) action required to be taken for the correction of effects of salinity on water supply?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has furnished the following reply: -

  1. Yes.
  2. The increase in the extent of the most serious form of salinity - that due to valley waterlogging - appears to be appreciable, mainly in years of high rainfall. Such years have not occurred in the Western Australian wheat belt since 1945 and 1946.
  3. At the request of the Western Australian Government, an officer of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization investigated the problem in 1950. His report to the Western Australian Government covered the points mentioned in the question, and his main conclusions were as follows: -
  4. . The most important occurrence of salting in the Western Australian wheat bolt is associated with the increasing waterlogging of relatively flat valleys containing much of the best wheat land.
  5. The area of this land already destroyed by salt probably totals over 100,000 acres. Once salted, it is unlikely that this land can be reclaimed.
  6. The area of valley land threatened by salt is probably between 700,000 and 1,000,000 acres.
  7. The reasons for this waterlogging are known in general outline, but not in sufficient detail to show the relative import ance of the various sources of excess water or to assess the rate at which waterlogging is increasing.
  8. Insufficient data arc available on which to base advice on the effective control of waterlogging.
  9. Investigations are required to elucidate the nature of the problem and to determine its treatment. These investigations should also give a clearer understanding of other important aspects of salting in Western Australia such as the destruction ofland by hillside seepage and the increasing salinity of surface and underground water intended for stock and domestic purposes. The position calls for an immediate start on these investigations and justifies considerable expenditure.

It is understood that the Western Australian Government has appointed a committee to review the position and an officer to work specifically on this problem.

page 1632

REPATRIATION

Senator COOPER:
CP

– Speaking on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate on the 17th March, Senator Aylett brought to my attention the case of an ex-serviceman who served in World War II. I have made inquiries and have ascertained the position. It is not correct to say that the man was “ granted a totally and permanently incapacitated pension”. The facts are that the soldier was discharged from the forces on the 24th October, 1945. He was granted war pension at 15 per cent, rate with effect from the 13th December, 1945, and the pension was increased to 25 per cent, rate from the 22nd June, 1950. On the 14th April, 1952, the ex-soldier was admitted to Repatriation General Hospital, Hobart. On the 23rd April, 1952, an extra-articular arthrodesis of the right hip was performed. He was discharged from hospital on the 28th July, 1952, for re-admission on the 1st October, 1952, for orthopaedic review. On the 26th May, 1952, the Repatriation Board increased the pension with effect from the 14th February, 1952, to the full general rate provided in respect of total incapacity. The board granted an additional pension from the same date, as it considered the pensioner to be temporarily totally incapacitated. On the 1st October, 1952, the member was admitted to hospital for orthopaedic review, and on the 17th October, 1952, he was discharged. The clinical notes of the 16th October, 1952, read -

Is very comfortable and is still improving - fit to go home. Recommend review by Dr. Parker (orthopaedic surgeon) in four weeks’ time. Suggest admission 12th November, probably for two nights only. Recommend continuation of T.T.I. rate of pension until above review.

The ex-soldier was admitted to hospital on the 11th November, 1952, for review, and waa discharged on the 14th November, 1952. The clinical notes of the 14th November, 1952, show -

Has been reviewed by Dr. Parker, who cOnsiders patient should commence light work fairly soon. Recommend continuation of present pension for four weeks, after which he should be reassessed at 60 per cent. Recommend review by Dr. Parker in about four months’ time - preferably when Dr. Parker is visiting the north-west coast, as the trip to Hobart is unnecessary.

The Repatriation Board considered the case on the 1st December, 1952, terminated the additional pension and reduced the general pension to 70 per cent, rate from the 15th January, 1953. On the 19th February, 1953, the member was examined by the orthopaedic surgeon who had performed extra-articular arthrodesis. The surgeon’ assessed the degree of incapacity at 70 per cent. My inquiries do not support the statement that the ex-soldier is “ a complete invalid and cripple”. On the 2lst January, 1.953, the member lodged an appeal to an assessment appeal tribunal. I have arranged for his appeal to be heard at the earliest date practicable.

page 1633

QUESTION

IRRIGATION

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, owing to the shortage of water in country districts in Western Australia, large numbers of sheep have to be sold annually, frequently at financial loss to their owners t
  2. Does the Government realize that completion of the water supply scheme to serve the Narembeen-Kondinin areas would prevent the forced sale of the majority of these sheep, thus enabling their owners to market them as fats in the autumn, and so adding materially to meat supply?
  3. In view of the fact that the Commonwealth Government is a .party to an agreement to install a water supply system in these districts, what action is it proposed to take to carry out the agreement?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

  1. I have no personal knowledge that the facte are as stated by the honorable senator. It is well known, however, that in dry areas throughout Australia stock have to be moved or gold during periods of water scarcity. 2 and 3. The Narembeen-Kondinin area comes within the comprehensive water supply scheme which is being carried out by the Western Australian Government. The Commonwealth Government has undertaken to meet half the cost of the scheme, subject to .’< maximum Commonwealth commitment of £2,150,000. This undertaking was given legislative force by Act No. 52 of 1948. The Commonwealth contribution towards the scheme up to date has been £645,521. The rate of progress of the scheme as a whole, or the according of priority to selected portions of it, are entirely matters for the Western Australian Government. Commonwealth responsibility is limited to meeting half the cost of actual expenditure, and payments are made promptly on receipt of claims certified by the State Auditor-General.

page 1633

EDUCATION

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– On the 19th March, Senator Sandford asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, whether Commonwealth scholarships could be made available to students undertaking a university course on a part-time basis. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer: -

Commonwealth scholarships are available to both full-time and part-time students on exactly the same conditions. Part-time students’ arc required to undertake a minimum number of two subjects in each year. The living allowance, which is payable according to a means test, would naturally be reduced, and may bc not payable at all in the case of a. student who is working full-time and doing a part-time course.

page 1633

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator PALTRIDGE:

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

  1. What amount of .profit has been made by sales of meat to hard currency areas since the inception of the Meat Board?
  2. What are the profits’ for lamb, mutton and beef, respectively?
  3. What is the number and locality of research stations and the like bought by the Meat Board, and for what purpose arc they to be used?
  4. Were any of the surplus lamb funds used in the -purchase of these properties?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

  1. Profit made by the Australian Meat Board on gales of meat to hard currency areas up to the 20th March, 1953, was £457,265.
  2. Profits made to that date on lamb were £442,9!):”) and on beef £32,385. Sales of mutton resulted in a loss of £17,627, while there was also a loss of £488 on offal.
  3. The board has purchased two properties iii Queensland for research purposes, viz. :- - “Belmont”, near Rockhampton, and “Brian Pastures”, in the Gayndah district. The former is to be used by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization for cattle-breeding work, and the latter by the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock for pasture research. In addition, the board has a one-third interest in two properties in the Camden district which have been purchased as part of a proposal which had as its objective the development of the Sydney University veterinary school into a national veterinary school. Other contributors to the cost of these properties are the Australian Dairy Produce Board and the Interdepartmental Committee on Wool Research.
  4. The Australian Meat Board has advised that none of the profits made on hard currency meat sales were used in tho purchase of these properties.

page 1634

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

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

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

  1. What constructional adaptation of existing capital airports is anticipated for the reception of jet aircraft?
  2. Is it anticipated that the advent of jetpropelled commercial aircraft will cause public inconvenience to residents living in the vicinity of airports?
  3. If so, is it proposed to reconstruct alternative airports for use by commercial jet aircraft?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished me with the following information: -

  1. No constructional adaptation of existing capital airports is anticipated for the reception of jet aircraft.
  2. The noise level of jet power plant is compaiable to that of piston engines, but the pitch is noticeably higher and may be the cause of more complaints from residents in the vicinity of the airports than at present.
  3. It is not yet technically possible to operate air transport services without noise, nor docs there appear any prospect of doing so in the foreseeable future. Consequently although all possible steps are taken to reduce the noise nuisance, persons residing in the vicinity of airports will be subject to it. in varying degrees according to operational conditions. The noise from jet-propelled aircraft may be more annoying than at present, but it is not practical on finance grounds alone to construct other airports for jets, and such is not proposed.

page 1634

QUESTION

FRUIT

Senator MORROW:

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

  1. . Is it a fact that the financial position of iia berry fruit-growers, of Tasmania, par ticularly those in the Lachlan Valley, is precarious? Further, that because their crops arc unsaleable, some growers have already left their farms and are seeking work elsewhere?
  2. Is it a fact that berry fruit-growers, in the main, are forced to sell their fruit to the firm of Henry Jones and Company, jam manufacturers, Hobart?
  3. In view of the perishable nature of berry fruits, will the Minister consider the establishment of deep freeze units in order that berry fruits will be available to the public during the whole of the year, or, alternatively, make the necessary money available to the farmers federation at a low rate of interest?
  4. Will the Minister consider the launching of a campaign to publicize and encourage the sale of berry fruits?
Senator McLEAY:
LP

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

  1. I am aware that the berry fruits industry in Tasmania has experienced some difficulty in connexion with the marketing of its products. In December last the Commonwealth Government made a special grant of f 100,000 (supplemented by assistance from the funds of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee up to a maximum of £50,000) to the Tasmanian Government to bc used by that Government at its own discretion in the best interests of the industry.
  2. There are several processors of berry fruits in Tasmania in addition to the company mentioned by the honorable senator. I do not know that growers are forced to sell their produce to any particular processing interests. As the minimum prices that manufacturers are required to pay for fresh fruit, for the purpose of obtaining domestic sugar rebates, are declared from time to time by the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, I would assume that growers would be free to make disposals to any firm willing to purchase supplies. I am not prepared to disclose details of the purchases of individual processors. 3 and 4. The responsibility for these matters rests with the Tasmanian Government.
Senator MORROW:

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

  1. Is it a fact that it has been officially stated that the cost to produce raspberries, black currants and other small berry fruits in Tasmania is 10di per lb.?
  2. Is it a fact that the price for the sale of berry fruits is fixed at 7d. per lb.?
  3. Is it a fact that the Government is asking for more production?
  4. Is it a fact that large quantities of small berry fruits cannot be sold and arc rotting inthe Tasmanian fields?
  5. Is it a fact that the high cost of production of primary products is preventing the sale of these fruits?
  6. Is it a fact that the cost of a 1½ lb. tin of raspberry jam is approximately 3s. 3½d., although it only contains approximately 4d. worth of raspberries?
  7. Is it a fact that sugar has increased in price, and that manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers are receiving increased margins of profit, while the farmer is on the verge of bankruptcy. If so, will the Minister take action to find a market for small berry fruits, and also arrange that the farmer be paid a price for his fruit that will cover the cost of production, plus a margin to compensate him for interest redemption and his own labour, and in addition provide compensation at market price for the fruit that is now rotting?
Senator McLEAY:

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answers

  1. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics’ assessment of the cost of producing the Tas- manian berry fruit for the 1951-52 season, with yields adjusted to normal, was as follows: - Raspberries 8.8d per lb, black currants 10.4d., loganberries 9.4d., gooseberries 3.7d. and strawberries 16.2d. The bureau has found that the percentage changes in costs from year to year in the various types of berry fruits, with the exception of strawberries, show closely similar movements, since the pattern of capitalization and expenses is generally similar irrespective of the variety grown. Accordingly, the examination of costs for the 1952-53 season was confined to raspberries, these being taken as typical of the berry fruits as awhole. The examination disclosed a rise of 12.2 per cent, in the cost of production of raspberries for the 1952-53 season as compared with 1951-52, so that, on a normal yield basis, the estimated cost of production for the crop just harvested becomes 9.9d. per lb. As indicated above, the percentage increase in costs for the other varieties of fruit could vary somewhat from that quoted for raspberries. No study has been made of the increase in strawberry costs since the 1951-52 season.
  2. The minimum prices fixed by the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee for berry fruits of the 1952-53 season’s pack are -
  1. Yes; but the targets set by the Australian Agricultural Council are confined to essential basic foodstuffs such as wheat, meat and dairy products. 4.I am not aware that this is in fact occurring. However, while the industry is so greatly dependent upon the ability of processors to take their fruit there is always that danger if the processors themselves are in difficulty with the sale and distribution of the processed products.
  2. A survey of possible oversea markets for berry fruit products has shown that the Australian lines are not now competitive in price with producers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
  3. A 24-oz. tin of raspberry jam contains about three-fifths of a pound of raspberry pulp.
  4. It is a fact that the price of sugar has been increased, but I am not aware of the profit margin enjoyed by the manufacturers of berry fruit products or by the wholesale or retail distributors throughout Australia. My department has’ been ‘examining overseas marketing possibilities for berry products but on recent prices quoted the Australian article is not competitive and while that position obtains the market prospects in oversea countries are by no means bright. The Commonwealth Government has no power or authority to determine the prices to be paid to berry-fruit growers. The Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee determines minimum prices each season and processors must pay at least that price to growers in order to qualify for domestic sugar rebates. The Commonwealth agreed in December last to make an emergency grant of £100,000 to the Government of Tasmania to be used by the State in the best interests of the berry fruits industry. I understand that a plan was developed by the State authorities in consultation with the industry as to how the grant should be best utilized. The Commonwealth has no authority in its own right to enter the field of internal marketing in Australia.
Senator MORROW:

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

  1. Did the Minister or any of his officers receive a letter, dated1 the 17th July, 1952, from the council clerk, New Norfolk, pointing out that the farmers, in particular small berry fruit-growers, were making a drive for increased production, and his council wished to learn the true position regarding markets for the new season’s crops; if so,why was a reply not sent?
  2. Is it a fact that the farmers, owing to not having received the information requested, have lost considerable money, fertilizer, time and work in increasing production, and now, since there is no market, the fruit is rotting?
  3. To prevent a similar occurrence and to safeguard the farmer and to enable him to plan ahead, will the Minister state what markets are available and give an estimate of the amount of small berry fruit required for the next three seasons?
Senator McLEAY:

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

  1. . The letter referred to did not reach my office, nor can it be found in the department. lt is a mutter for regret that the absence of a reply was not followed up between July, 1!)G2, and January, 1953.
  2. Growers were aware that there was still on hand a considerable quantity of berry fruit products of the 1951-52 season. In the case of most varieties of berry fruits, new plantings take two to three years before any appreciable production is realized. In addition, operations normally commence in May and growers would have completed a very substantial amount of fertilization and cultivation work by the time that tho letter referred to was originated and a reply received in the normal course.
  3. Towards the end’ of lost year my department made a surrey of oversea markets and I shall be glad to forward the information available to the honorable senator. However, I am not prepared to firmly forecast the volume of demand for Tasmanian berry fruits for the next three years. Too many variable factors could affect the marketing situation at home and abroad in that space of time for specialized items such as berry fruit products, which are not bread’ and butter lines.

page 1636

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

.- I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I am sure that I express the heartfelt wish of every honorable senator when I say that I hope that the little respite that we shall have between now and the time when we re-assemble will give you an opportunity, Mr. Deputy President, completely and fully to- regain your health. I express our appreciation of the manner in which you have discharged the very onerous and, I am certain, very tiring duties of Deputy President.

As it is quite possible that the Senate may be constituted slightly differently when we meet next, I take this opportunity to wish success to those of my colleagues who have to face their masters, the electors. To those honorable senators to whom I cannot, in my heart, wish success at the forthcoming election, I can wish every happiness, and I do so with all my heart.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I join with .Senator O’sullivan in conveying to you, Mr. Deputy President, our appreciation of the way in which you have discharged the duties of your office during the unfortunate illness of the

President. We wish you well in the period that will intervene before wo meet again. I thank Senator O’sullivan for his kindly reference to honorable senators on this side of the chamber who will seek reelection at the forthcoming election. He has wished them happiness. We hope for a. great deal more than that. I. and my colleagues look forward to a hard and fair conflict in the weeks that lie ahead. I must express the hope that Government senators will return fewer in number, but I say in all sincerity that, if there is to be a reduction of their number, I am glad that it is the duty of the electors to choose between them. Quite frankly, I should not know where to begin or where to end. That remark must not be interpreted as meaning that I think Government senators are all as bad as one another. In my view, they are all as good as one another. I thank Senator O’sullivan and his associates for the courtesy that they have extended generally to the Opposition. I express to my own colleagues my very sincere thanks for their ready co-operation, support and mateship. I trust that, not only will they all return, but that they will bring a few new faces with them.

I express to the Clerk and his immediate staff our very keen appreciation of the efficient and courteous services that they give to us. I convey my thanks to the Senate attendants, who are invariably efficient, helpful and courteous to all of us. I do not know how the Senate could be run without the Clerk, his assistants and the staff who attend us so well in this chamber. I look forward to a very interesting conflict during the next few weeks and to seeing again most, if not all, of the present members of the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - 1 thank you for the very kind words that you have spoken about me. Whilst I cannot agree entirely with Senator McKenna’s remarks about a reduction of the number of Government senators, 1 say that I hope that none of my good friends in the Senate will be amongst those who will bc slain soon. I hope that when we meet again the President will be in good health and able to resume his duties. I trust that, in the forthcoming election, there will be as few casualties as, possible among honorable senators,so long as the parties that I believe should hold the balance of power in the Senate continue to hold it. I wish you all a very happy time during the recess. Some of you are going to England for the Coronation. I am certain that you will have a wonderful trip, and I hope that you will return full of vigour and energy, and determined to do your utmost for this country and the Empire.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1637

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Bankruptcy Act - Twenty-fourth Annual Report by the Attorney-General, for year ended 31st July, 1952.

Commonwealth Bank Act - Appointment - A. J. McIntyre.

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1059, No. 22.

Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1953, No. 23.

Defence Transition (Residual Provisional Act - National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations-Orders - Inventions and designs (3).

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Department of Social Services purposes- Jordanville, Victoria.

Life Insurance Act - Seventh Annual Report ofthe Insurance Commissioner for 1952.

Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Crown Lands Ordinance - Reasons for resumption of recreation reserve, Darwin.

Public Service Act - Appointments - Department

Civil Aviation - J. L. Carey, H. T. U. Pember.

Defence Production- J. E. Dent, G. Frohlich, E. Jamieson.

Interior - F. E. Mattox, V. A. Peeler.

Works - C. S. Brown, R. F. Campbell. H. R. Cartwright, R. L. Chipps, B. J. Doherty, W.J. Forbes, A. Fried, N. Hajos, R. B. Irvine, R. G. E. Lodge, W. S. H. MacLachlan, P. F. McNamara. R. Mainwaring, E. F. Melville, N. G. Overmyer, G. F. Parke, L. N. Seton, K. S. Speirs:

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1953 -

No. 6 - Repatriation Department Medical Officers’ Association.

No. 8- Hospital Employees’ Federation of Australasia.

No. 9 - Commonwealth Works Supervisors’ Association.

No. 10 - Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association.

No. 12 - Federated Clerics’ Union of Australia.

No. 13 - Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association of Australia.

No. 14 - Amalgamated Engineering Union and Others.

No. 15 - Amalgamated Engineering Union ; and Others.

No. 16- Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.

No. 17 - Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia.

No. 18 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 19 - Commonwealth Storemen and Packers’ Union of Australia and Others.

River Murray Waters Act- River Murray Commission - Report for year 1951-52.

Services Trust Funds Act - Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund - Annual Report for year 1951-52.

Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act - Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority - Third Annual Report, foryear 1951-52.

Sirex Wood Wasp - Report of Special Committee on Quarantine Precautions.

Stevedoring Industry Act - Australian Stevedoring Industry Board - Third Annual Report and financial accounts, for year 1951-52.

Superannuation Act - Superannuation Board Twenty-seventh Annual Report, for year 1948-49.

Senate adjourned at 5.43 p.m. (Friday) to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 March 1953, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1953/19530326_senate_20_221/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant