20th Parliament · 3rd Session
The President (Senator the Hon. A. 21. McMullin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 42
page 42
Senator WILLESEE presented a petition from certain officers of the Commonwealth Public Service, praying that the Parliament take action to halt a proposal of the Postmaster-General’s Department to purchase a new telegraph system called Tress.
Petition received and read.
page 42
– Pursuant to a recent report of the Joint Coal Board, which indicates that the use of coal is declining considerably and that a falling off in consumption of approximately 4,000,000 tons a year is expected, can the Minister for National Development inform the Senate whether consideration has been given to the cessation of opencut mining or the mechanization of existing pits ? Can he also indicate the policy which the -Government proposes to pursue in order to prevent substantial unemployment on the northern coalfields?
– The honorable senator’s question opens up some big issues. It is based upon a report of the Joint Coal Board which contained an expression of the board’s opinion. That opinion may be right or wrong. The Joint Coal Board has not always been right in the opinions it has expressed. On the other hand, any opinion upon the subject of coal coming from that source merits careful consideration. In reply to the last part of the honorable senator’s question, I am informed that, for the time being at least, no further opencut mines can be closed because the very few mines of that nature that are still working are supplying coal that would not otherwise be available. Some of the coal, for example, is sent to a particular locality which could not be supplied from underground mines. The mechanization of existing pits is a matter that goes to the roots of the coal industry- problem.
Competition exists in the coal-mining industry, and to meet competition.it is necessary to provide a good service and reduce costs. For the first time in a long period, the coal industry is able to give good service because plenty of coal is available. Mechanization would reduce working costs. The honorable senator asked what policy would be followed to prevent unemployment in the coal industry. A good answer to that question is that there has not been any unemployment on the coal-fields since this Government has been in office. Probably it would be an overstatement to say that nobody on the coal-fields has been unemployed, but that is so close to the truth that my statement is justifiable. In the past four years, the only unemployment on the coal-fields has been that created by the men themselves by industrial disputes. That being so, why should any honorable senator wish to create an air of excitement about something that may or may not happen in the future? Personally, I have no sense of despondency or pessimism about the future of the coal-mining industry.
– Is it not a fact that one reason for the continuance of certain open-cut mines is that contracts have been entered into and the cancellation of those contracts would necessitate the payment of adequate compensation?
– I think it is true to say that most of the remaining opencut mines are being operated under contract with the Joint Coal Board. That, of course, is quite understandable because large sums of money are involved in providing the necessary organization machinery and other equipment. However, when Ave have considered that an open-cut undertaking was no longer necessary because of the greater output from underground mines, we have not hesitated to face up to the position and pay compensation to the contractor concerned in order to protect the employment of underground miners.
– Does the Minister for National Development agree with the statement contained in the annual report of the Joint Coal Board that was tabled in this chamber yesterday that coal for fuel will be replaced by oil to the extent of approximately 4,000,000 tons a year, or does he consider that that was an exaggerated estimate?
– The competition that has developed between coal and oil as fuel is exercising the minds of many persons connected with the coal-mining industry. I do not think that the statement in the report of the Joint Coal Board, to which the honorable senator has referred, was an expression of the board’s own opinion; rather was it a restatement of an estimate or forecast that had been made by some one else. Only time will prove whether the forecast was well founded. It is true that, to a degree, oil has already replaced coal as fuel for diesel locomotives, ships, and in the generation of power and gas. We do not know the extent to which this replacement will continue. As I pointed out to Senator Arnold, we have entered a competitive period. “We are better off now, competitively, than we were formerly because of the continuity of supplies of coal, which is an important factor from the consumers’ point of view, but we have to try to assess whether unforeseen difficulties may arise in the future in this connexion. There is no dearth of fuel oil in Australia to-day; its importation is unrestricted. Therefore, fuel oil already provides as much competition to coal as it will when, the new refineries now under construction in this country have been completed. Of course, we do not know whether fuel oil will be cheaper then than it is to-day. I doubt whether that will be so, although the discovery of oil in commercial quantities in this country would alter the whole scene. However, disregarding that aspect of the matter, I doubt whether the competition between coal and oil will be keener after the refineries come into production. I take this opportunity to dissociate myself from the opinion that oil will displace coal as fuel to the extent of 4,000,000 tons a year. I think that competition between the two fuels will continue : I do not accept the view that there will be a wholesale changeover from coal to oil. In matters of this kind, the pessimists in the community always overlook the important factor of natural population growth and increasing demand for a commodity, which combine to offset other influences. I shall conclude by repeating what I said in my reply to Senator Arnold, that we should await developments instead of getting into a panic
About possible troubles that might not eventuate.
page 44
– Can the Minister for .Shipping and Transport say when a start will be made with the provision of refrigerator vans on the “ tea and sugar train “, which carries supplies to isolated communities along the TransAustralian Railway?
– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner and obtain a reply.
page 44
– In view of the concern that still exists in the minds of the Australian people about the proposed use of Japanese personnel on the hydrographic survey of the New Guinea zone and the subsequent action taken to exclude Japanese from the survey, can the Minister representing the Prime Minister say whether the Royal Australian Navy is associated with the American Navy in these operations ? “Was the Royal Navy asked to lend a hand in the surveying of New Guinea waters and, in view of the fact that the Royal Navy has accumulated an extensive knowledge of the Pacific by means of hydrographic surveys ever since the days of Captain Cook, will the Minister say whether this great tradition is to be broken by nonparticipation in the present survey?
– I remind the honorable senator that the arrangements for this survey were initiated by a Labour government in 1947. Those who are critical of what has been done are apt to overlook that point. The survey is being undertaken under the terms of a longstanding agreement made between Aus tralia and the United States of America. I’ think the services hold the view that this part of the survey work required in the area can be done more efficiently and expeditiously by the United States naval authorities than by the Royal Navy or the Royal Australian Navy.
page 44
– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether that “ sawdust Caesar “, Premier Cain of Victoria, is still refusing to agree to the wheat stabilization plan proposed to the Australian Agricultural Council and accepted by the Commonwealth and all States except Victoria, thereby destroying stabilization of the wheat industry and striking a serious blow at its future welfare?
– I presided over a recent meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. I regret to say that, although the Commonwealth and the Labour Premiers of other States were in agreement on this matter, Mr. Cain, the Premier of Victoria, refused to fall into line, despite numerous attempts to persuade him to do so.
page 44
– I preface my question to the Minister for Repatriation by reminding the honorable senator that during the last session of the Parliament I directed a question to him .about a man named Hiscocks, who required admission to a repatriation hospital. Mr. Hiscocks was admitted to Concord Repatriation Hospital, remained there for a few weeks and was discharged. A little later, he died. His death was accelerated by a disability caused by his war service. Does the Repatriation Department intend to give a fair deal to ex-servicemen who are suffering from war-caused disabilities? Are such ex-servicemen to be admitted to repatriation hospitals and then to be discharged, without being informed of the reasons for their discharge, because if they died in repatriation hospitals their wives would become entitled to war widows’ pensions ? Is it the policy of the Government to discharge ex-servicemen from repatriation hospitals, and, if they die subsequently, to suggest that death was not caused by war injuries and, on that ground, to refuse war widows’ pensions to their widows?
– I assure the honorable senator that my department gives very sympathetic consideration to the cases of all ex-servicemen who are eligible for admission to repatriation hospitals. I go further and say that, not only while this Government has been in office but also while other governments have been in office, the Repatriation Department has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Repatriation Act, and has administered the legislation with the utmost sympathy for ex-servicemen. The honorable senator knows very well that the persons who are entitled to be admitted to repatriation hospitals and become a charge on repatriation funds are ex-servicemen suffering from warcaused disabilities. He knows quite well, and has known for some years, that widows of ex-servicemen, who receive just as much sympathy from my department as do ex-servicemen themselves, are eligible for war widows’ pensions, provided their late husbands died from warcaused disabilities.
page 45
– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform the Senate of the progress that has been made as a result of conferences which have been held from time to time between the State road traffic authorities and the Commonwealth road traffic authority? What progress has been made in establishing a system of uniform traffic laws for the drivers of motor vehicles throughout the country? What has been done to reduce the alarming number of fatal accidents which are occurring throughout the length and breadth of Australia ?
– Standing committees representing the Commonwealth and the States have been dealing with the matter to which the honorable senator has referred for some time. I know that many suggestions have been made by these committees which have become law. The Senate will appreciate that the power rests with the States to implement the recommendations of the joint committees. I regret that an alarming number of fatal accidents is still occurring every year. However, in spite of the fact that there were more motor vehicles on the road in 1953 than previously, the number of fatal accidents was less in that year than in the previous year. In view of the importance of this matter, I shall have precise details supplied for the information of honorable senators.
page 45
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration any statistics relating to the proportion of new arrivals in this country who are either in tuberculosis sanatoriums or suffering from mental disorders? If these people constitute an unduly high proportion of immigrants is the Minister satisfied with the present method of selecting immigrants in Europe or will he give attention to having the system of selection overhauled in order that large numbers of physically and mentally ill people may not be brought to this country ?
– I think that the figures indicate that the types of persons to which the honorable senator has referred do not constitute an unduly large proportion of the total number of immigrants. When new Australians are implicated in a crime there is a tendency, perhaps, to give it more publicity’ than a similar crime committed by Australian citizens. Some time ago an investigation was conducted into the incidence of crime among new arrivals and it indicated that there was not more crime among new Australians than among Australian citizens. In fact, I think that it was shown that there was less.
– What about cases of tuberculosis?
– I have no information at all concerning the incidence of tuberculosis. I shall direct the attention of the Minister to the matters to which the honorable senator has referred and see whether he can supply specific information in regard to them.
page 45
– (Towards the end of last year I asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation pertaining to the charter of a DC6 aircraft by Trans- Australia Airlines from KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. The Minister informed me that the charter was at the usual rate. In view of the fact that I have no details of usual charter rates for aircraft, can the Minister now inform me of the rate of charter which was paid by TransAustralia Airlines to KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and also the total amount paid, as I understand that the charter has now been completed?
– I shall bring that matter to thenotice of my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation, and ascertain whether the information is available.
page 46
– Some time ago I asked a question concerning the Anzus pact. At that time I asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs whether he would give a guarantee that the pact would not be signed before the Senate had an opportunity to discuss it, and I received an answer which was as evasive as that given to me by the Minister this morning. I hope that a similar situation will not arise on this occasion.
– Order ! What is the honorable senator’s question?
– My question is: Will the Minister give me a guarantee that a similar situation will not arise on this occasion.
Question not answered.
page 46
– In view of recent press notices to the effect that the Australian Government, in certain instances, has been responsible for the granting of concessions for the purpose of exploring for oil, will the Minister for National Development confirm the fact that this matter is exclusively one for the State governments?
– The granting of concessions in respect of oil search, so far as the areas involved lie within the boundaries of the States concerned, is entirely a matter for the State governments. For instance, if the area concerned is in Western Australia, the matter is one within the jurisdiction of the Western Australian Government. The only interest of the Commonwealth is in respect of Commonwealth territories. The Commonwealth has the right to grant concessions in relation to the Northern Territory, the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and other Commonwealth territories.
page 46
– I lay on the table the following paper : -
Reportby the National Security Resources Board on defence and development, 1950-53.
As honorable senators are aware, in May, 1950, the Government set up the National Security Resources Board which consists of an independent group of prominent citizens, selected for their personal qualifications and wide experience, to advise the Government on the best use of Australia’s resources, in the interests of national security. A period of intensive defence preparation ensued. On the 10th September, 1953, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) asked the board to review progress over the three years of preparation. On the 10th December, 1953, the board considered the first draft of its report. The document which it has prepared and which I now table gives a short but comprehensive review of the condition of Australia’s defences and the development of our economy up to the last quarter of 1953.
page 46
– I present a statement advising the Senate that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has forwarded to the Minister for External Affairs a report relating to Indo-China.
page 46
– On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, I present the following paper: -
Thirteenth Report - The form and content of the financial documents presented to the Parliament - Progress Report.
page 46
– No doubt the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs is aware that great consternation has been caused throughout the world by the development of the hydrogen bomb. We are all eager to know what is happening in Indo-China. Some prominent citizens of Canberra held a meeting here last night, and I understand that a similar meeting is to be held in the Sydney Town Hall tonight. As the language of the Anzus pact, to my way of thinking, is very vague, it seems possible and even probable that if the United States of America is inveigled into conflict in Indo-China, Australia automatically may also be involved in such a conflict. Can the Minister give an assurance that no Australian troops will be sent to Indo-China until this Parliament has been consulted in the matter ?
– The question appears to me to be a hypothetical one. and it is not customary to answer such questions. In a few moments I propose to read to the Senate a statement on this and related matters which the Minister for External Affairs delivered in the House of Representatives last night. I suggest, in the circumstances, that perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave unanswered at this stage questions such as that asked by the honorable senator. 1’jiter:
Senator SPICER (“Victoria - AttorneyGeneral). - by leave - The following statement was made by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) in the House of Representatives on the 7th April : -
Honorable members ave aware that a con,ference is to he held at Geneva on 26th April to discuss the “ peaceful settlement of the Korean question “ and also the problem of restoring peace in Indo-China. Both these matters are of great importance to Australia. The negotiations at Geneva may establish whether peaceful co-existence with the Communists is open to us or whether we in Australia will have to live under the continuing threat of Communist aggression and expansion in the strategically vital areas of South-East Asia. The situation in Korea is well known. The task is to convert the armistice into permanent peace on acceptable terms. In Indo-China the trend of events is disturbing. In Vietnam, which constitutes the approaches to Thailand, Burma and Malaya, an organized and powerful Communist force is waging a vigorous war against the forces of France and the Associated States of Tn(10-China. The decisions of the French Government, the will to resist of the people of Indo-China, and the discussions in Geneva, will between them determine whether the approaches to Malaya rest in the hands of friendly independent governments or are swallowed into the Communist orbit.
I wish to speak briefly about the prospects of the conference on Korea and our attitude towards it. The convening of this conference is the end-point of many months of negotiation by the representatives of the United Nations forces with the Chinese and North Koreans about the time, place, and composition of the political conference .which had been provided for in the Korean Armistice Agreement signed in July, 1953. The House will be aware of the difficulties encountered by the negotiators at Panmunjom which have been resolved by this decision of the Foreign Ministers at Berlin upon terms fully satisfactory to Australia. The conference at Geneva will bc attended by almost all the United Nations countries which fought in Korea and by the Soviet Union, Communist China and North Korea. The Republic of Korea has not as yet indicated whether it will participate, but one can only hope it will. Most of the countries present will be represented by their Foreign Ministers. It has been decided that I should attend tha Geneva conference, at least for its early stages.
There is no doubt about the difficulties ahead of the conference, or in the achievement of the declared objective of the United Nations, the unification of Korea by peaceful means, under a democratic government freed of threats to its independence. Communist proposals for the unification of Korea put forward in the past by Soviet Russia have been in such terms as to ensure that before long the whole of Korea would fall under Communist domination! However, this is not the last word. The people of the Republic of Korea have fought courageously against Communist aggression, and have suffered heavy casualties in their armed forces and among civilians. They understandably look forward to a life of peace and freedom and to seeing their country re-united. At the same time, we. on our side, are flatly opposed to the use of force to achieve the unification of Korea, and therefore we would unreservedly oppose thu re-opening of hostilities to achieve this.
The Australian Government has been in consultation with certain other countries which will participate in the Geneva conference, particularly Commonwealth countries, and thi? United States of America. We ha.ve also had discussions with the Republic of Korea. Throughout the course of United Nations intervention in Korea Australia has played a direct and responsible part in military action to resist aggression - in the early post-war efforts to bring about unification - and in thishaping of policy amongst our allies on the United Nations side. We are convinced of thi? importance of the role which countries such as ours have already played and can continue to play in the coming discussions at Geneva. We shall therefore expect to maintain regular, full and direct consultation with the powers most concerned in order that our voice may be heard effectively and at all stages in discussions.
The Australian Government has a number of suggestions to make for proceeding from the armistice to something moTe permanent. 1 do not think that this is the stage to make our detailed views publicly known. They are a matter for discussion with other interested governments and, as I have indicated, on a number of points our discussions have already begun Moreover, when we approach an international conference, we can hardly be expected to place our cards completely on the table three weeks before the meeting opens. Then’ is some hope that the conference itself will lead to some agreement with the Communists. The difficulties are all too evident. Chinese armies occupy North Korea and the whole political and economic life of North Korea is under a Communist government, which itself is under foreign domination. Moscow and Peking will not want the disappearance of this North Korean Communist regime, yet that would be the probable result of giving the Korean people a genuinely free choice in setting up a unified, independent government.
If our efforts to obtain a just and democratic basis for the unification and independence of Korea should fail, we may at least hope that satisfactory temporary arrangements accepted by both sides can reduce the risk of hostilities recurring in Korea, and pave the way for unity later when the bitterness aroused by war is less intense.
We may expect the Chinese Communists to lay down extravagant terms and conditions for any agreement that they may be prepared to enter into. I need hardly add that discussions with them carry no obligation to recognize that Government, or support its admission to the United Nations. The most that can be said on this point is that the future attitude of United Nations members, including Australia, must be affected by the good faith and reasonableness shown by the Communist negotiators, and their willingness to accept, obligations to respect the independence of their neighbours and conform to the standards of the United Nations Charter.
A further and equally important test of Communist intention will be found in the discussions on Indo-China. When the four Foreign Ministers agreed in Berlin in February that the problem of restoring peace in IndoChina would also be discussed at Geneva, they took a far-reaching decision. The shape and the nature of the Geneva discussion on IndoChina have yet to be decided upon. Nor has the representation at the discussion on IndoChina been decided, and it should not be overlooked that Soviet Russian agreement will be required on this. The Berlin agreement has been welcomed by the Government of France, whose forces have been engaged for over seven years in the struggle with the Vietminh insurgents. During that time, and more particularly since July, 1953, the French and the Associated States of Indo-China have sought to conclude constitutional agreements establishing Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as independent States within the French Union, with stable and effective governments having the support of the people. Unhappily, these objectives., while in sight, have yet to be finally attained; and the war continues.
It is clear that there is a strong opinion in France that this war, with all the loss and suffering it entails, should be ended. The French Government in early March indicated its desire to consider a cease fire under certain conditions, which were set out in the French Parliament by the Prime Minister, M. Laniel It is against this background that discussions will commence with the Communists in Geneva upon the future fate of Indo-China. If there is to bc a cease fire, that is if the attempt to defeat the Communist armies of the Vietminh is to cease, we in Australia must consider the implications of that action. The leaders of the Vietminh movement- are Moscowtrained Communists, and they are using quantities of war materiel supplied by Communist China and other Communist countries. They profess to be nationalists. Perhaps their ranks still include some genuine nationalists, although these have long since ceased to haveany real influence.
But experience in Greece and in eastern Europe must surely be a warning of the danger to the independence and liberties of thesepeople if they are exposed, under the guise of peaceful negotiation, to the subversion and political manoeuvring of aggressive communism, supported by a neighbouring and powerful Communist State.
Indo-China is important to the security of the free world. If Indo-China were to fall tothe Communists, there is no doubt at all that the whole of South-East Asia would bethreatened. The interests of the peace-loving nations, as of the indigenous peoples themselves, lie in the consolidation of the governments of the Associated States of Indo-China, settlement of their remaining issues with the French, and the development of democraticprocesses and a broader basis of popular support. Is it too late to ensure this? It may be that some honorable members will consider that the restoration of peace is a matter for the United Nations. While not dismissing the possibility, I would argue that intervention by the United Nations should be carefully considered. The internal situation is scarcely one to which the United Nations should apply its conciliatory functions. If, on the other hand, it were thought that consideration should’ be given to police action by the United Nations, that is action calling for a possible contribution of forces and aid by all members of theUnited Nations, many complex legal and practical questions would be involved. For example, the question arises of whether United Nations intervention should’ be regarded as interference with the internal affairs of the three Associated States of Indo-China and of France. Against this it could be argued that the military operations inside Vietnam havecontinued so long and have been on such a scale that the situation constitutes a threat to the peace of other countries. In fact theVietnam rebels have made armed incursions into the sovereign territory of both Laos and Cambodia.
I mention these matters merely to illustratesome of the complexities which reference of theIndoChina question to the United Nations would involve. Many practical problems would also arise. I do not, as I have said, rule out the possibility of the United Nationsbecoming seized of this question at some stage. Perhaps it can play a role later on, after peacehas been restored, by observing and policing the situation and giving some support and guarantee to the independence of the Associated States of Indo-China. But in deciding whether the situation in Indo-China should’ be made a matter of United Nations concern, we have to pay particular attention to the attitude of mind of the governments of France and of the three Associated States of IndoChina, and of course special consideration must also be given to the views of those countries which would be threatened by further Communist expansion - particularly the more immediate neighbours of Indo-China. The French Government has in the past been opposed to referring this question to the United Nations.
As honorable members are aware, French forces have been fighting for many years and at considerable cost, and the rest of the world, particularly the people of Asia and the South Pacific, are under a great debt to France for the sacrifices it has borne. For the past few weeks a fierce fight has been going on for Dien Bien Phu, and the outcome is still not decided. I should like to pay a tribute, in which I am sure all honorable members of the House wish to join, to the stamina and courage of the French and Vietnamese forces who have been fighting to retain this position. The monsoon which is due about the middle of May, should, as in the past, bring the campaigning season to an end and so give some respite. This respite should also give more time for the forces of Vietnam to be built up further and for the political life of the Associated States of Indo-China to be invigorated within the framework of independence which will be given new scope under the agreements now being worked out in Paris. We cannot altogether rule out the possibility that, despite the monsoon, some military operations will continue, but the critical question is whether the military and political situation will be sustained during the weeks immediately ahead.
It is on this and related matters that we are in close consultation with the governments of the other countries mainly concerned, particularly those of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand. It has been decided that on my way to Geneva I shall go to Singapore, Saigon and Washington, and I expect to leave Australia on Monday the 12th April. This will give an opportunity to make first-hand acquaintance with the situation in Indo-China, which I last visited in 1951. I shall be able to discuss the situation with the French and Vietnam leaders, and to state Australia’s position to them. The Government believes also that Australia’s interests will be served by the presence of a Cabinet Minister at this time in the places where decisions are being; made and where consultation is taking place.
In this context, the statement made on the 29th March by Mr. John Foster Dulles, United States Secretary of State, is of the greatest importance. Members are no doubt familiar with what he has said, but I should like to refer the House to the final words of his review of the Indo-China situation. He said -
Under the conditions of to-day, the imposition on South-East Asia of the political system of Communist Russia and its Chinese Communist ally, by whatever means, would be a grave threat to the whole free community. The United States feels that the possibility should not be passively accepted, but should be met with united action. This might involve serious risks. But these risks are far less than those that will face us a few years from now, if we dare not be resolute to-day.
Mr. Dulles’s statement clearly implies United States of American readiness to participate in joint action to secure South-East Asia. He has warned the Vietminh that they can no longer base their hopes on a defeat of the French forces, or even a withdrawal of the French forces. That is a most important declaration. I do not propose to dwell upon or to expand upon this matter at present, except to say that Australia cannot but welcome this American interest in preserving the security and independence of the nations of South-East Asia and the South Pacific.
Inasmuch as there has been press speculation to the effect that Australia has already been approached with a view to the extension of membership of the Anzus Treaty, I may say that no such proposal has been made. We must, however, all have in mind the desirability of close working relationships among the countries of the South-East Asian region. It is obvious, however, that the line of thought put forward by Mr. Dulles needs further elaboration and exploration before any new statement of Australian policy can be made on this point. This broad question of cooperation among the countries of the Pacific and South-East Asia is being carefully examined by us and, I have no doubt, by other governments in this region, whose welfare and security are of great concern to Australia. The House will not expect me to enter into detail on the matters being discussed among member countries. There have been reports in the newspapers about a number of proposals. The truth is that a number of ideas are being discussed, but the published reports crystallize them into definite proposals in a way that does not represent a correct picture.
When we consider these questions, we all have present in our minds the threat to mankind from the atomic bomb. The recent ex-plosions in the Pacific have shown the dreadful powers of the hydrogen bomb. The Australian Governmenthas time and again expressed its concern and its sense of urgency regarding the need for international agreement to control its use. Recently, in a public statement, and also in representation to the United States Government, I have, on behalf of this Government, sought an early meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Commission. I was glad to learn last week-end that the governments of the United States of America, Britain and France - which are members of the Disarmament Commission - have also called for such a meeting. I do not intend to say anything more to-night about the hydrogen bomb, because a full statement on the subject will be made to the House by the Prime Minister. I mention it now to indicate that it is an important factor in our thinking about all international problems to-day. Our knowledge of the destructive powers of the atomic bomb, and the sombre prospect that it holds for mankind, must surely reinforce our efforts to solve those disputes, which could extend into wider conflicts which might result in the use of atomic weapons.
I lay on the table the following paper : -
Statement by Mr. K. G. Casey, Minister for External Affairs, in the House of Representatives, the 7th April, 1954. and move -
That the paper be printed.
Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.
page 50
Second Beading.
Debate resumed from the 7th April (vide page 26), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
[12.1 j. - One must acknowledge that this bill deals with a matter of importance. The Opposition does not oppose the provisions of the measure, primarily for the reason that increased benefits are to be extended to people who are unfortunate enough to need the benefits conferred by the Commonwealth workers’ compensation legislation. But we feel that the measure does not go far enough. We feel, too, that there has been too great a delay in bringing it before the Parliament. The last measure of this type was introduced late in 1951. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) pointed out in his second-reading speech that the basic wage has increased very substantially since that time. I invite the Senate to consider the plight of an individual in receipt of a compensation payment of £6 a week from late in 1951 until the present time.
I think it is generally conceded that the workers’ compensation payable - I am speaking now of weekly payments by way of compensation - should be the greatest sum that can be paid, having regard to the need to give a worker some incentive to return to his employment. I doubt that anybody would dispute that that is the minimum proposition in relation to workers’ compensation. Since late in 1951, the basic weekly compensation payment for a Commonwealth employee has been £6 a week. In August, 1951, the basic wage rose by 13s. a week ; in November, 1951, by lis. a week; in February, 1952, by 10s. a week; in May, 1952, by 6s. a week; in August, 1952, by lis. a week; and in November, 1952, by 4s. a week. So it has gone on. I direct attention to the fact that it has been- completely unfair to all persons who have needed workers’ compensation throughout that period of rapidly increasing inflation that their weekly compensation payment, far less than they could have earned if they had been well and following their ordinary occupations, has been pegged. Unquestionably that has inflicted hardship on a great number of Australian workers. This Government let inflation run riot in the period between the introduction of the last compensation legislation and the presentation of this bill. During that time, inflation was running at its highestlevel. I suggest that was the time when the Government should have stepped in and increased the compensation benefits payable to workers. For that failure, the Government must be censured, not only by the Opposition but also by all of those who are concerned with workers in industry.
Throughout that period, the State governments, seeing the trend of events, were far more active than the Commonwealth in looking after men and women entitled to workers’, compensation benefits. The Commonwealth legislation has lagged far behind that of the various States. I suggest to the Senate that, in a matter of this nature, the Commonwealth, which is not only the greatestemployer in Australia but also the authority with the greatest financial resources, should set itself up as a model employer. In the vital matter of workers’ compensation, the Commonwealth should lead Australia. It should not lag behind the States. As the Minister acknowledged in his second-reading speech, what is proposed now will not bring the benefits conferred by this legislation up to the level of the most favorable benefits conferred by State legislation. The Government should do what the Chifley Government did in 1948, when it amended the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act comprehensively and made the benefits payable under it’ the highest in Australia. I suggest that is the pattern that should be followed. The Commonwealth should exercise leadership in this very important matter. The Opposition is depressed to find the Minister placidly acknowledging that, for instance, the sum payable at death under Commonwealth legislation will be £150 less than that payable under the New South “Wales legislation.
– It is £150 higher than in Queensland.
– There are differences. It is higher than the sum paid in some States. But what I am suggesting is that the Commonwealth should lead in this matter. Nothing less than the best should be selected by the Commonwealth. U is an exceedingly mean approach to the problem to look for an average as between States or to seek anything but the best.
I make the further comment that it is rather unfortunate that we have seven workers’ compensation acts in Australia. It is exceedingly unfortunate that the benefits payable to a worker or his dependants should farr according to the location of the worker. I point out that the difference between the payments could he felt very acutely at places in, say, the vicinity of the border between New South Wales and Victoria. A man who lived a mile or two miles from one side of the border would be entitled to certain benefits, and a man who lived just on the other side would be entitled to very different benefits. -I should like to see a Commonwealth Government that had the initiative to seek some kind of uniformity throughout Australia in this matter.
The Opposition deplores the fact that, with this opportunity before it and in the circumstances I have outlined, the Government did not give a lead. I deplore also that, under this measure, the weekly compensation paid to a Commonwealth employee with a dependent wife and a dependent child will still be 7s. a week less than the highest sum paid under State legislation. I think that is mean and deplorable. I shall not move any amendments, because the Opposition desires the bill to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, but I invite the Government, if it gets another opportunity to consider this legislation-
– It will.
– I shall not make any prophecies about that at the moment. If the Government does get another opportunity to do so, I invite it to make a bolder and more generous approach to the problem. There will be general disappointment in industry that this Government has not done what was done in 1948 by the Chifley Government. I shall not canvass to-day the difference in principle between the benefits conceded by the Commonwealth and those conceded by the States. There are differences, and I should like to see the legislation canvassed in that matter as well as in the matter of monetary benefits.
Perhaps the Minister could make a statement on the position of national service trainees under this legislation. I am aware, of course, that members of the defence forces are covered by the provisions of the bill. Unfortunately, in recent times, there have been deaths of national service trainees who were undergoing training. In one State a coronial inquiry it at present proceeding in connexion with the unfortunate and tragic death of a national service trainee. Many trainees are exposed to the danger of injury while handling war implements and weapons. In many quarters there is a great deal of concern about the extent to which the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act covers national service trainees. I think it is unquestionable that if they are injured while on parade undergoing active training they must be covered, and that if they are killed in similar circumstances their dependents, if any, must receive a benefit under the act. I should be glad if the Minister would, if he is in a position to do so, either during the second-reading debate or at the committee stage, inform me whether a national service trainee in camp, whether on parade or engaged in recreation, or sleeping on the camp site, is covered by the act. It must be remembered that a trainee is at the camp by compulsion ; he is obliged to be on the premises at all times. The Opposition does, not oppose the measure; we are glad to see the benefits increased, some substantially, ‘but we consider that the Government could unquestionably have gone farther in this direction. If it has an opportunity in the future to give further thought to the field of workers’ compensation, I hope that it will do so.
– I have much pleasure in supporting the measure. It is interesting to note that during the last 40 years successive Australian governments of various political colours have gradually increased compensation benefits to Commonwealth employees who suffer injury or contract diseases in the course of their employment. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) devoted a good deal of time to reviewing the increases for which provision is made, in the bill, and he took the Commonwealth to task for not leading the field in the matter of workers’ compensation. I was interested to hear that the amount of compensation in Queensland in respectof death by accident or through disease is £1,500, and that an additional £50 is payable in respect of each dependent child. I remind honorable senators that under the bill before us widows will receive 50 per cent, more than is paid in Queensland, whilst dependent children will receive 100 per cent, more than the amount payable in Queensland, in which State Labour governments have been in office for more than a quarter of a century.
It is evident from the provisions of the bill that the Australian Government desires to do more than keep pace with the rise of the basic wage. I do not agree with the contention of the Leader of the Opposition that compensation almost equal to the basic wage should be payable in all cases, although the bill provides for compensation in respect of a man, his wife and one child slightly in excess of the basic wage. W e are enjoying an era of prosperity, and, clue in a measure to the operation of the medical benefits scheme, the majority of disabled employees now return to their duties much sooner than they did a few years ago. The availability of free life-saving and diseasepreventing drugs has also helped to reduce their period of incapacity considerably. The return of incapacitated workers to their duties has also been accelerated by the establishment of rehabilitation centres.
The Government deserves commendation for increasing compensation payments in addition to providing the other services that I have mentioned, and I am glad that the Opposition does not oppose this measure. I agree entirely with the proposed retrospective operation of the legislation from the 1st January last, although I believe that we should always pay special attention to retrospective legislation. In this instance, as. the Commonwealth is the employer, there will be no disarrangement to industry due to retrospectivity.
I was very interested in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to national service trainees. I am of the opinion that national service trainees who suffer from accidents or contract diseases and illnesses of a serious nature are covered by the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. However, I urge the Government to consider making provision for them instead under the repatriation legislation. As honorable senators are aware, army trainees serve for almost 90 days continuously, and air force and naval trainees for a considerably longer period. Should they become ill or incapacitated they are treated by the Repatriation Department. In South Australia they receive such treatment at the Dawes Road Repatriation Hospital. Consideration should also be given to making provision for appeal to a court in matters arising from the payment of compensation under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. It is not desirable that national service trainees should have to take action in court in order to obtain compensation for injuries in the same way as Commonwealth employees. The machinery of the Repatriation Department should be adequate to deal with the payment of compensation to national service trainees. I should like the Minister, in time, to give some consideration to my suggestion, possibly in collaboration with the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who is doing such a distinguished job in his department. I heartily support the bill and commend the Government for its imagination and insight in this matter. ,
– A review of the legislation in Australia relating to workers’ compensation reveals that there are seven governmental bodies interested in workers’ compensation and that there is a lack of uniformity in respect of the relevant legislation. Each State government in Australia has passed legislation in order to deal specifically with workers’ compensation. In some States, insurance companies have the right to do workers’ compensation business, but in Queensland that is not so. In Queensland, the State Government Insurance Office handles workers’ compensation insurance exclusively. Wo private insurance company has lie right to deal with workers’ compensation there. Consequently there are no delays in handling the cases of injured workers. “No costly litigation is necessary on their part, as it is in other States. Frequently I read of court proceedings being initiated in other States by workers who have claimed their rights under workers’ compensation legislation. In Queensland, various questions have to be settled in relation to workers’ compensation, but they are dealt with, not by a civil court, but by the Industrial Court. Proceedings are commenced in the Industrial Magistrate’s Court, and, if necessary, they go, on appeal, to the Industrial Court. Consequently the hearing of these matters is confined to men who know something about them.
Senator Laught referred to the amount paid in Queensland as compensation, upon the death of a worker, but we cannot gain anything by comparing the amounts paid in workers’ compensation in the various States. The Queensland Government revises almost monthly the payments that are made under the workers’ compensation legislation. Perhaps Senator Laught may find within a week or two that the payments in Queensland will correspond favorably with those of any other State or of the Commonwealth. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to compare the payments that are made in the various States. However, there has been a grave delay on the part of the Commonwealth in making payments under .its workers’ compensation legislation correspond with the cost of living. My main concern at present is the action of the Commonwealth under workers’ compensation legislation. In order to appreciate the responsibilities of the Commonwealth in this regard one must refer to other acts. Under the
Social Services Consolidation Act the Australian Government provides the money for the payment of unemployment and sickness benefits. Therefore, it cannot disregard the injuries which workers receive whilst engaged in their occupations. Some workers meet with injuries which do not involve them in a long period of absence from their employment. They are injured only slightly, and receive compensation which is less than the amount that they earn in employment. After their recovery they return to industry in the same state of health as when they left. But there is another group of workers who meet with serious injury, and who may never return to industry again. It is in respect of that group that I have prepared my remarks. There is no co-ordination in Australia in respect of the authorities who deal with workers’ compensation and the department responsible for the payment of unemployment and sickness benefits. There are State health departments and branches of the Commonwealth health department in every State. Therefore, it would be very easy for the Government, which should beabove reproach in these matters, to set. up an organization which can deal with the case of each individual worker. The representative of the Commonwealth Health Department in each State is ?. medical practitioner. A committee could be established representative of the State departments of health, the Commonwealth Health Department, the Commonwealth Department of Social Services, and the State government insurance offices in order to deal with the cases of workers who meet with serious injury. Such a committee could ensure that those workers receive special attention and that the utmost is done in order to have them cured and returned to industry. If that is not done the Government will be faced with the prospect of many more people becoming dependent on the invalid pension for the rest of their lives. Some men meet with serious injuries which make them permanently incapacitated when they are quite young. They become a drain on social service funds. Every worker wishes to be in industry. The Government should establish an organization of the kind that I have mentioned in order to co-ordinate the administration of workers’ compensation. An examination of the Income Tax Act discloses that the word “compensation” appears in respect of income which attracts income tax. I do not think that it was intended, when the act was framed, that workers’ compensation should attract income tax. In my opinion the word “ compensation “, as it appears in the act, really applies to substantial amounts of compensation awarded to persons in the courts. It seems entirely wrong that a person in receipt of the kind of compensation covered by the bill before the Senate should be obliged to pay income tax on it.
– We have listened to criticism of this bill by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), and whilst that criticism was typical of the Opposition’s contribution to the debates in this chamber it did little credit to the policy of the Australian Labour party and certainly less than credit to the bill. Wherever misfortune is found in a section of the community there will be found also a Labour politician exploiting the misfortune to the full for purposes of pure political expedience. The fact is that this bill is designed to afford a measure of compensation to Commonwealth employees comparable to that enjoyed by employees of other agencies in the States. If the bill is open to criticism it is because it may add to the costs of the industries concerned, which may have a determining, and perhaps a critical, bearing on continuity of employment. In my opinion the Parliament which is responsible for framing legislation such as this should consider these matters in a responsible manner.
The second-reading speech of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) commenced with the observation that since August, 1951, the basic wage has increased by £2 7s. a week. When one analyses the bill it is found that it proposes to increase the compensation payable to injured workmen by £3 10s. a week. It is possible, therefore, to see the utter baselessness of the criticism made by the Leader of the Opposition. The result of this increase will be that a married employee with one dependent child, on a basic wage of £11 16s. a week, will be entitled to compensation of £12 a week. It is obvious that an employee who is injured and stays at home is not put to the same expense as is the man who has to travel to and from work and purchase equipment in connexion with his employment.
If we pay more to employees when disabled than they earn when they are working, I suggest that we have reached the stage when the principle of compensation merits the closest scrutiny. That will he the position under this bill because it proposes to increase to £12 a week the compensation payable in respect of disabled employees. I also wish to make the point that payment is made only to the employee. In the general field of workers’ compensation legislation the employer, in addition to having to provide payment for injured employees, also has to make provision for his own disablement. No one but he contributes to such provision. He must rely on his own energy and initiative. I cannot distinguish between a carpenter on wages and a master carpenter or between a shoemaker’s employee and a shoemaker who earns his living by piece-work at the last.
In my opinion, the Leader of the Opposition, in criticizing this bill, demonstrated the hopelessly out-dated attitude of his party towards workers’ compensation. The honorable senator contended that the Commonwealth should take the lead and set a level of workers’ compensation above that which obtains in the States. That suggestion illustrated the complete disintegration of thought on the part of members of the Opposition concerning co-Operation with the States. Surely it is recognized by all that compensation for industrial injuries is a matter peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the States. What a tremendously destructive disservice we should render if we tried to outbid the States simply in order to curry political favour with unfortunate disabled workers ! The obvious thing for the Commonwealth to do is to watch the movement of compensation in the various ‘ States and to progress step by step in order to remove the heartburnings that occur when Commonwealth employees find themselves in receipt of compensation of £9 a week whilst New
South Wales employees receive £9 5s. a week. Uniformity is essential in matters such as this. The Commonwealth has no right to take the lead. It should endeavour to work in co-operative unison with the States in a matter which is peculiarly their function.
One of the matters with which this chamber should concern itself is the industrial cost of a scheme such as this. In 1949, which was the last year that Labour presided at the Treasury, payments to workmen under this legislation amounted to a total of £161,409.
– What was it in 1909, under a Liberal government?
– The crabwise movement of Senator Hendrickson indicates the calibre of the men who represent Labour in this Parliament at the present time. They cannot see the light of the future or recognize that progress should be made. Four years ago these moaners, who now criticize the benefits which this bill proposes to confer, paid out £161,409 by way of compensation. Last year, under the Menzies Government legislation which has been the subject of the ill-founded criticism of the Leader of the Opposition, compensation payments to workmen were £483,464, or almost three times as much as those made by Labour. Having regard to the fact that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has increased the basic wage to its present dangerous level, perhaps the real question in connexion with this matter is whether this Parliament should follow that rather unwise course.
I conclude by referring to a matter which has never been touched upon in a debate in this chamber in which I have participated. Why is it that the Australian Labour party is not. pressing for a complete revolution in Australia such as that which occurred in England in respect of workers’ compensation legislation in 1947 ? Any one who reads the House of Commons Hansard will see how the whole system, which had been productive of wasteful litigation and heartburnings as between employer and employee, was swept aside in favour of a national insurance scheme under which employers and employees contribute to a fund from which the industrially injured are compensated. In my opinion, Australia is lagging far behind the United Kingdom in this respect. I propose to ask the Parliament to set up, at an early date, a committee to consider this matter. This bill provides an excellent illustration of the dangerous situation which may be reached when an outmoded principle of workers’ compensation is so applied as to exacerbate an undesirable situation, and so exploited as to merit abolition.
– It is not unusual for Senator Wright to claim that he is the protector of industry and that industry cannot stand the cost of workers’ compensation. Also, that recipients of workers’’ compensation and the workers themselves should insure themselves for their own protection against injuries and industrial diseases. Arguments similar to those presented by him were being put forward by persons of the same political complexion when the Australian Labour party was struggling to win recognition of the rights of workers in industry. At that time the point was whether an injured worker could afford to go to a court and, under the Employers Liability Act, attempt to establish his right to any payment at all. As honorable senators may be aware, in those days most injured workers received nothing, although they had been injured in the course of their employment and were unable to continue their_ normal occupation.
Senator Wright interjecting,
– The honorable senator is screaming because he is being exposed as a political hypocrite. The Australian Labour party is always on the side of injured workmen, but its supporters do not trade on that fact. In my opinion, this legislation is commendable only to the extent that it proposes to bring workers’ compensation into line with the inflated standards which have developed under this Government. Despite the higher compensation payments, injured workmen will not be better off than they would have been had the economic stability of the country been properly guarded.
Sitting suspended from 12.^5 to 2.15 p.m.
– It is clear that the amendment before the .Senate is intended to give workers’ compensation the same value as it had when the Labour Government left office. Many other features of workers’ compensation that existed then are unchanged and some are worse. In the opinion of the Opposition, one of the worst features of the Government’^ administration has been its failure, throughout’ a period of intense inflation, to correct the deficiencies of workers’ compensation legislation by making the compensation that is payable adequate. Senator Wright showed personal spleen when he misquoted, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in that connexion. Actually, Senator McKenna made the point that during two and a half years if raging inflation, injured workers received less and less compensation in relation to the basic wage. During that period, the Government ignored the workers’ plight. There is no basis for Senator Wright’s charge that whenever workers suffer misfo’rtune, the Labour party is waiting to make capital out of it. Those same arguments have been used by the party that Senator Wright supports ever since the Labour party began to work for adequate protection for the workers by way of compensation for injury or sickness. It is absurd to use that .argument now because both employers and employees agree that workers’ compensation is necessary in industry. In Australia, 99 per cent, of employers agree that their employees should have proper protection.
In his splenetic attack upon the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wright overlooked the fact that workers’ compensation legislation requires payment for accidents, injury or disease arising in the course of employment, but it does not take away the workers’ right to sue where negligence is proved or when higher compensation is claimed. Action can be taken in the courts for compensation, and when the plaintiff is successful in such cases, the court always awards damages far in excess of the minimum that is set by the provisions of workers’ compensation legislation.
The essence of the matter is that the Commonwealth, as an employer with a full realization of its duty to its employees, should have a standard of workers’ compensation that will encourage the workers in its employ to have confidence in their employer. We should ensure mutual consideration of each other’s interests between employer and employee, and a proper appreciation by the employee of the fact that he can apply himself fully and efficiently to his work in the knowledge that he has complete protection if he is injured or becomes physically impaired by his labours. The Leader of the Opposition was misquoted by Senator Wright when he implied that Senator McKenna was trying to differentiate between the Commonwealth and States in provisions for workers’ compensation. The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition said that the Commonwealth provisions should be not less than the most favorable provisions made by any State of Australia. That does not involve any question of outbidding the States. Admittedly, when the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act was brought down by the Chifley Government, it was better, both in its provisions for the payment of compensation and the amounts provided, than most of the existing State legislation, but no attempt was ever made to suggest that the Commonwealth should try to outbid the States.
– What is the difference ?
– Senator Vincent is most disorderly because he objects to correction. I am correcting the statements that have been made by another honorable senator on the Government side of the chamber. This bill is intended to bring to a proper monetary level, in some cases, the compensation that is payable to an employee of the Commonwealth. Honorable senators should not accept Senator Wright’s suggestion that employees should protect themselves in industry by means of insurance in one form or another. We should approach the matter with a full realization of the responsibility of the Australian Government through the National Parliament to its employees. Certain provisions have been embodied in workers’ compensation legislation as a result of continuous advocacy by the
Australian Labour party. They are admirable, but in some cases they are capable of further development. I refer in particular to persons who suffer from progressive deterioration physically because of the gradual onset of disease, failure of vision or nervous prostration in the course of their work. If Senator Wright and his colleagues want to stop litigation arising from such disabilities, they should include that phase of workers’ compensation in the relevant legislation. A man might work under conditions that destroy his eyesight gradually over a period of fifteen years. In such a case, it might be possible to prove that the man would have retained his eyesight had be worked in another industry. If Senator Wright accepted a brief in litigation of that nature, I am sure that he would gain his pound of flesh from it. Workers’ compensation has been accepted as fair, equitable and desirable by employers and employees, and the applicable legislation should be improved in relation to industrial diseases and deterioration of health and vigour by the gradual onset of disabilities. If that were done, national health and relations between employers and employees would be improved. Every employee should be sure that he will not be thrown on to the industrial scrap heap if he suffers an injury or disability while working in industry. The employers have a responsibility to protect the welfare of employees. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the conditions laid down by the Commonwealth Parliament for workers’ compensation for Commonwealth employees should not be less favorable than the best conditions applying in the States of Australia.
– I wish to refer briefly to some of the statements that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). He said that he believed the measure that is before the Senate did not go far enough. I presume that he means that the compensation payable will not be adequate having regard to the circumstances prevailing in this field of workers’ compensation. He also said that in the matter of the amount of compensation payable, the Commonwealth should take the lead. I join issue with him on that statement. In Australia there are seven responsible parliaments, the Commonwealth and six sovereign States, all legislating for workers’ compensation. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition will agree that in every respect, all seven bodies assume an equal degree of responsibility in respect of the employees covered by the various acts. Why, then, should, any one sovereign body be obliged to take the lead ? Would Senator McKenna advocate in the Sydney Trades Hall that payments under the New South Wales act should be lower than those of the Commonwealth? To be consistent, he should be prepared to do that. Would he argue in this chamber that compensation payable to landowners whose land is repossessed or compulsorily acquired by the States or the Commonwealth should be higher when the land is acquired by the Commonwealth? The same argument that is applicable to workers’ compensation applies to the compulsory acquisition of land within this particular context. It is a dreadful proposition to suggest that because the Commonwealth is the Commonwealth or has more money or, perhaps to be more truthful, because we are on the eve of an election, the Commonwealth should be prepared to go one better than the States in circumstances where the States have equal responsibilities in every respect.
The Commonwealth is no different from any other employer of labour. Honorable senators should not accept the suggestion by implication from the Opposition that the Commonwealth should be a public benefactor to its employees as well as an employer. That would be manifestly unfair. The only way to argue the merits of this case is to accept the fact that the Commonwealth is no different from any other employer of labour and must conform to the principles underlying this particular type of legislation. In discussing these principles, I make the point that it is not a mere matter of getting an injured worker as much compensation as possible without regard to any other factor. It is not a matter of paying him the actual amount of his losses. Those are not the questions at issue at all. I believe’ that the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me on that point. The factors that have to be taken into consideration with regard to the assessment of compensation are many. They include various social and economic factors and legal principles. First, the employer must accept the responsibility to pay up. He must accept that obligation whether he likes it or not. He cannot contract out of it. It is an absolute responsibility. Secondly, we must take into consideration the economic needs of the workman. For example, the present act provides for assistance to dependants of workmen in certain circumstances such as death, or permanent or temporary incapacity. Those are the economic needs of the workman, and they must be taken Into consideration in assessing compensation. Thirdly, we must also consider loss of earning capacity which is not necessarily the same thing as the economic factor. In the third schedule, honorable senators will find that lump sum payments are specified for certain injuries. They relate to the third factor that I have mentioned. For example, a workman receives £2,350 for the loss of both eyes. If honorable senators will examine that schedule, they will see that every lump sum payment has relation to loss of earning capacity. No lump sum payment is prescribed for a workman who may suffer some facial disfigurement but whose earning capacity is not impaired. For instance, if Senator Cooke were a workman and had his cheek badly gashed with a resulting loss of manly beauty, he could not claim a lump sum payment for that disfigurement. Thus, the third factor is I03S of earning capacity.
The fourth factor is that the scheme covers all accidents. That is a circumstance that must be taken into consideration. For example, it covers injury arising out of an accident caused foolishly, stupidly, or even deliberately. In respect of any accident at. all there is an absolute responsibility on the part of the employer to pay up. The fifth factor is that workmen’s compensation legislation throughout the world is framed in such a manner that compensation should be paid promptly to an injured person and also so that payments shall be made, so far as possible, without expensive litigation. Before the days of workmen’s compensation legislation, most claims went to the courts, and the ensuing litigation was often expensive both to employer and employee. Our legislation has been framed to avoid that expense and to ensure prompt payment of claims.
The sixth factor that I have in mind was entirely overlooked by the Leader of the Opposition. The amount of compensation, I suggest, must be such that neither the employer nor the employee will feel aggrieved. Let me illustrate that proposition : If compensation is too high the employer is likely to kick. That has happened before. If an employee can recover all the wages that he has lost and damages as well, the employer will be hostile and claims will be fought. On the other hand, if compensation is too low, the hostility will be transferred to the employee. The act was never intended to provoke resentment between employers and employees, and obviously if compensation payments are too high or too low in relation to, say, the basic wage such resentment is likely to be caused.
The next two or three factors are perhaps the. most important of all, but they have been ignored by honorable senators opposite who have spoken in this debate. They are entirely economic and they also have some social implications. The measure of compensation must be such that it doe3 not provoke malingering amongst employees and workmen’s compensation laws have been designed with that need in mind. Then, the payments should be such that they do not discourage the employee from returning to work. Obviously if an employee can receive by way of compensation approximately as much as he would normally get in wages, he has no incentive to return to work. That is a very important social and economic principle and one that has been accepted by all governments in this country, Liberal and Labour alike. It has been accepted, also, in most other countries, and its merit will not be contested, I am sure, even by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. However, that important factor apparently has been lost sight of in the course of this debate.
Finally, another very important factor is that the legislation should be so framed that accidents will be prevented if possible. There should also be provision for the rapid rehabilitation of an injured workman so that he may return to his employment. Here again, if payments are out of proportion to the basic wage, difficulties may arise. Perhaps I can sum up what I have been saying by reading a short passage from a book by Professor Dodds on the workmen’s compensation problem. At page 696 he says -
The whole cost o£ industrial injuries cannot and should not be imposed upon the employer individually or upon industry as a whole. If such a cost were sought to be imposed, the employee’s incentive to return to work would be destroyed, malingering and fraudulent claims would be encouraged, and the effectiveness of a plan for the indemnification of industrial injuries would be destroyed. Workmen’s compensation is and must remain primarily a ‘means of indemnifying for industrial injuries. Prevention of accidents is more important than indemnification for accidents, and rehabilitation of thu injured worker is much more important than continued compensation to a disabled worker; The purpose of workmen’s compensation originally was, and still is, thu indemnification for such disabilities, but, in accomplishing this purpose, the prevention of injuries and the rehabilitation of injured employees have become increasingly important.
The factors that I have mentioned must all be considered when determining the measure of compensation. In short, the measure of compensation must be such that justice is done to employers and employees having regard to those factors. It is not simply a question of how much money an injured workman can get. The principles to which I have drawn attention have guided the framers of compensation legislation in many countries. Workmen’s compensation is not insurance against sickness, unemployment or injury. It is an indemnity against loss sustained through injury. That indemnity is assessed in legislation, arbitrarily in some instances, and apportioned between employer and employee. I agree entirely with Senator Wright that we are getting very close to the stage when many of those important factors will he overlooked entirely. In deciding whether or not we have already arrived at that point, we should ask ourselves whether we are preserving a just balance between employer and employee. .There can be no doubt that, in our legislation, justice is done to the employee, but I am not prepared to say that the employer enjoys the same measure of justice.
Let us look at what other countries are doing. In the United States of America, the legislation of most States fixes weekly compensation payments at not more than 50 per cent, of the average weekly earnings of the employee. We have long since departed from that principle. We have paid 85 per cent, of the average weekly earnings of the Australian workman.
Another very important difference between American legislation and ours is that whereas in the United States of America compensation is not payable unless an injury has arisen both “ out of and in the course of “ employment, here the all-important word “and” is omitted and replaced by the much more generous word “ or “. So, accidents arising out of or in the course of employment are the subject of compensation. Let me illustrate that briefly. A man knocks off from work and on his way to the amenities hut for lunch, he stumbles, falls, and breaks his leg. Under our legislation such an accident is compensable,’ but under the American law it is not. We also have great advantages over British legislation, but I have not time to go into that fully at this stage.
In asking whether we are preserving a just balance between employer and employee I should say that, comparing Australian legislation with American and British legislation, the answer is “ Yes “. But let us examine what is happening in Australia, and then answer the same question. In 1949, the basic wage was £6 9s. a week and the compensation payable to a totally incapacitated workman with a wife and one child was £5 15s. a week, or 88 per cent, of the basic wage. That was the best that the Chifley Government could do. In 1951, the basie wage had risen to £9 9s. a week and the compensation payment to £8 10s. a week, or 89 per cent. In 1954, however, with the basic wage at £11 16s. a week, a totally incapacitated workman receives £12 a week, or more than 100 per cent, of the basic wage. That is what this Government has done for employees of the Commonwealth. It has increased the ratio of the compensation payment to the basic wage from 88 per cent., at which it stood under the Chifley Government, to over 100 per cent.
The Leader of the Opposition has said that the bill does not go far enough. How far does he want it to go ? I should be most interested to hear him on that point. During the three years that I have been a member of the Parliament, I have not on any occasion heard one member of the Labour party rise in this chamber and suggest that payments made under this legislation were too low. I remind honorable senators that this measure has not been introduced because of pressure from the Labour party. This is the first occasion on which we have heard a member of the Opposition say that compensation payments to Commonwealth employees have been too low. When the act was amended previously, the only speaker for the Labour party was Senator Benn, and he did not say one word to suggest that the payments were too low. The only remark that the honorable senator made about the payments was that they were not properly related to the basic wage. We have related them to the basic wage. We have gone far beyond what the Chifley Government did. We have gone over the 100 per cent. mark. After Senator Benn spoke on that measure, we did not hear one complaint from the Labour party about the rates of payment until Senator McKenna said to-day, just prior to a general election, that we should beat the States. That was the real criticism he offered. We do not propose to beat the States or enter into competition with them on a matter such as this. Each State government is responsible to the workers within that State. This is not a question of competition. If it were, we could beat the States handsomely, because we have more money than they have. It is a dreadful thing for any honorable senator to suggest, in relation to a matter which does not involve party politics, that we should set out to beat the Labour governments in the various States.
– It is a question of setting an example.
– It is not even a question of setting an example. In determining the quantum of compensation, all that we should have regard to in arriving at a just conclusion are the factors I have mentioned. What any other State or country does is immaterial. We should do what we consider to be just, having regard to the factors involved. Incidentally, I do not agree with the suggestion of some honorable senators that we should seek uniformity of compensation payments. A man who lives in Perth can buy a great deal more with £1 than a man who lives in Sydney. We in Western Australia do not want uniform workers’ compensation rates - at least, not rates uniform with those that obtain in Sydney.
This measure was introduced, not because of pressure from, anybody nor because of suggestions by the Labour party that the rates were too low, but because the Government believed that the quantum should be reviewed, having regard to the factors I have mentioned. It was not introduced for any other reason. I suggest that the measure is in line with accepted principles of the administration of justice in regard to workers’ compensation. It preserves the rights and obligations of employer and employee alike. In that respect, it is a just measure. I suggest that neither employer nor employee wants anything but justice in these matters. For the first time in the history of this country, weekly compensation payments to workers will exceed the amount of the basic wage. For those reasons, I support the bill.
– I apologize for the unavoidable absence of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), who has been called to an urgent meeting of a Cabinet sub-committee. In his absence, I shall reply to the debate. Senator McKenna raised a rather important point. It was whether a national service trainee would be covered by this measure in respect of an injury that he sustained while he was in camp but not on duty. As I understand the position, he would not be covered. The purpose of the bill is to increase compensation payments rather than to widen the scope of the legislation. The section of the principal act under which claims for compensation are decided is section 9, which was incorporated in the legislation in 1948 by the Chifley Government.
This measure does not seek to alter that section, which states -
If personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth is caused to an employee, the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Act, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the schedule.
We are not seeking to widen the scope of that section. The question whether a national service trainee would be entitled to compensation in a given set of circumstances is, in my view, a question of fact to be determined in the light of those circumstances.
– Is not provision made in the National Service Act to entitle trainees to compensation under certain circumstances?
– I understand that the question whether special provision should be made for national service trainees is being examined. If there were negligence on the part of the Commonwealth, and that negligence can be established, a person who was injured as a result of the negligence, whether in the course of his employment or not, could claim compensation. I have nothing further to add. On the whole, I appreciate the manner in which the measure has been received by the Senate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
Senator COOKE (Western Australia) 1 2.53.] - Clause 3 proposes the amendment of a section 9a of the principal act by omitting from paragraph (5) of subsection (1.) the words “medical, surgical or hospital treatment” and inserting in their stead “ medical treatment “. Is there anything in the definitions section that clarifies the proposed amendment?
– That is purely a drafting amendment. The substitution of the words “medical treatment” for the words “medical, surgical or hospital treatment “ is designed to make section 9 conform with other sections of the act.
– Do the words “medical treatment “ cover medical, surgical and hospital treatment?
– Yes.
– I should like to know whether any payment made under the provisions of section 9a of the principal act, which relates to injuries sustained while travelling to or from employment, would be made in addition to any payments made to the employee concerned through an ordinary insurance scheme.
– Such a payment would not be made in addition to any sum paid by the Commonwealth as the result of a successful action by an employee in a court of law on the ground of negligence. It would be made in addition to anything recovered from a medical benefits fund.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 61
Debate resumed from the 7th April (vide page 24), on motion by Senator o’sullivan-
That the bill be now read a second time.
– I do not think that there will be much opposition to this bill. The tariff proposals have been scrutinized carefully and exhaustively by the Tariff Board. I take the view that, because of increased production costs and various other factors, these slightly increased duties are necessary. I feel sure the Senate will approve of them.
I want to make a brief reference to what I term the almost anti-Australian attitude of this Government to Australian secondary industries. During the last few years, the Government has frequently referred to Australian industries as inefficient, and has stated repeatedly that our economy is out of balance. It has done many things to discourage the establishment and growth of manufacturing industries in this country. The story of those industries is a remarkable one. The economy of this country is largely dependent on them, and the Australian people have a great deal for which to thank them. I deprecate the constant criticism of our secondary industries by this Government and suggestions that their expansion should be curtailed. In my opinion, the Government’s approach to the problem of ensuring the stability of our economy is negative and unreal. It has not attempted to expand the production of our rural and food industries or to secure the general development of the country. It has been satisfied to direct criticism at Australian secondary industries. I do not think the people of Australia are very happy about the present position in this country. There is to-day, as there has been for a number of years past, a feeling of insecurity in industry and business.
– I rise to order. I submit that any honorable senator who rises to speak to the bill should confine his remarks to the bill. This is irrelevant drivel.
– If Senator Wright does not like what I am saying and does not want to listen to it, I have no desire to labour the point. There will be another opportunity to raise this matter when the Appropriation Bill comes before this chamber.
There is considerable unrest in business circles in Australia as a result of the Government’s attitude towards industry. It will be remembered that the present Government suddenly banned imports of many articles that were basic to our secondary industries, which greatly disturbed the economy of this country, particularly its business and industrial life. If Australia is to he made secure it must grow up ; it must double its present population within as short a period as possible. That cannot be achieved by the discouragement of secondary industry. I deprecate this Government’s attitude to secondary industry, and I am convinced that the people of Australia will demonstrate their views in this matter in no uncertain manner before long. The Australian Labour party stands four-square behind the industries that have done so much for our economy. Australia will not be able to support a greatly increased population unless industry generally is encouraged as much as possible.
The proposals contained in the measure before the chamber have been subjected to a very close examination by the authority established for that purpose, in whose recommendation I am sure honorable senators have every confidence. As I know the situation fairly well, I endorse the measure in every respect. The costs of manufacturing have increased by 100 per cent, since 1949, when the present Government came to office. As a result, Australian manufacturers are finding it difficult to compete with the manufacturers of other countries. Although considerable quantities of the products of secondary industry were exported during the Chifley Government’s regime, our exports of those commodities are now relatively low. Unless the Government adopts a more Australian attitude in this matter we shall not be able to keep thi? country for ourselves and the people who have been encouraged to settle here. Had not governments of the past adopted a more realistic attitude towards this subject, the people of this country would not now he enjoying such a high standard of living. I support the bill.
[3.5”. - in reply - I appreciate in great substance some of the words that have been spoken by Senator Courtice, but I think that he has allowed his enthusiasm and his party loyalty, rather than his judgment, to rule him in some respects. He stated that the Menzies Government had a bias against the development and extension of Australian secondary industries. Nothing could be further from the truth”. I remind him that during World War II. an overwhelming majority of the members of the Government parties fought to maintain and preserve not only Australia’s free institutions but also the standard of living in this country. It is ridiculous for the honorable senator to suggest that we will let down our colleagues, the boys with whom we fought side by side. We intend to see that they benefit to the full from the victory which preserved our wa.y of life. In order to show how inaccurate was the honorable senator’s statement about the position of the secondary industries of this country, I shall compare Australia’s secondary industry production and employment in 1938-39 with the position to-day.
– Why not make the comparison with the figures for 1948-49?
– That would be even more in our favour; I want to be fair to the Opposition. During the period I have mentioned we were engaged in warfare for about five years. Of the remainder of the period, Labour was in office for about four and a half years, and we have been in office for about a similar time.
– Too long!
SenatorO’SULLIVAN.-It has not been long enough for us to do all that we wish to do, but I believe that we shall have ample time to carry the country forward to permanent prosperity. Never again shall we allow theblight of socialism to dampen our will; having had it once, the people are far too wise to allow themselves ever to suffer from another dose. But I shall not allow the displeasure of honorable senators opposite to cloud the facts in relation to the progress that has been made by Australia under this Government. In 1938-39 there were 26,941 registered factories in this country, compared with 45,843 in 1951-52. Does that look as if this Government has stifled secondary industry?
– It demonstrates the will of the Australian people to overcome all difficulties.
– In 1938-39 there were 565,000 persons employed in those factories, compared with 977,000 in 1951-52. There are many more persons employed in secondary industry now; I have merely cited the latest figures available to me. The value of factory production has increased from £203,000,000 in 1938-39 to £1,023,000,000 in 1952-53. These figures demonstrate conclusively that both capital and employees are thoroughly satisfied with, and feel secure under, this Government’s administration. They believe that there is a bright and secure future ahead of them.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 63
Debate resumed from the 7th April (vide page 25), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 63
Debate resumed from the 7th April (vide page 25), on motion by Senator O’SULLIVAN -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– As Senator Courtice has already pointed out, the Australian Labour party is pledged to a policy of protection and development of Australian industry. Of course certain disabilities can arise. The previous Labour Government helped to establish in this country an industry to make gear wheels, pri marily for the automobile industry. As the gear-making industry is an integral part of the automobile industry, its development should be encouraged. In the automobile industry companies such as the Ford Motor Company of Australia Proprietary Limited, General MotorsHolden’s Limited, and Chrysler Australia Limited, in addition to supplying large numbers of motor vehicles, manufacture in Australia hundreds of separate units of motor cars. Then we have the small importers, who import a relatively small number of such units. The companies most affected by the proposals contained in the bill are the manufacturing companies, Coote and Jorgenson Limited, and Sonnerdale Limited, both of New South Wales. They are confronted with many difficulties and problems in connexion with the manufacture of relatively small numbers of gear wheels. The Tariff
Board understood this position and allowed those companies that bring in no more than 80 units a year to be relieved of the necessity of having their gear assemblies made in Australia for the time being. But the trouble is that certain companies import up to 300 gear assemblies a year and there is no immediate possibility of the Australian industry supplying them because not only do gear assemblies differ from one make of car to another but they differ in the one make of car from year to year. Consequently, Coote and Jorgenson Limited will have difficulty in handling the demand. I think that if would have been wise to have limited the provisions of this bill to companies which import very large numbers of gear assemblies in the first instance. The making of gears presents a difficult production problem. I think that Coote and Jorgenson Limited should concentrate on the manufacture of big quantities of units and then gradually extend their activities by making lesser quantities of units that are in smaller demand. I have received complaints from smaller importers regarding the possibility of having insufficient transmission gears to keep them in business.
I mention this matter for the benefit of manufacturers who may read the speeches that are made in this chamber so that they will approach the matter in a way which will maintain friendly relationships amongst those engaged in the industry and avoid a bad reaction to the proposals of the Government. “We should seek to establish goodwill in this tremendous industry, the defence value of which cannot be overestimated. I think that the object of the Government and of the Opposition is to build up secondary industries so that if this country is ever left to defend itself again we can do the job completely without depending on overseas manufacturers. I congratulate the Government on this measure, which is a good one. I wish only to suggest that the manufacturers proceed slowly and do the job thoroughly in order to avoid undesirable repercussions which could effect not only the industry but also the Government. Firms, having been given this protection, might get indigestion by biting off more than they could chew.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without requests; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 64
Debate resumed from the 7th April (vide page 26), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 64
Debate resumed from the 7th April (vide page 31), on motion by Senator McLeay -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- The measure now before the Senate is a bill to extend to seamen who are engaged in interstate trade the same workers’ compensation benefits as were extended to Commonwealth employees in the measure that this chamber dealt with earlier today. Although additional benefits were given to Commonwealth employees in 1951, no increase was given to the seamen until 1953, nearly two years later. I think that that was a bad oversight. I congratulate the Government upon the fact that, in giving increased benefits to Commonwealth employees it has, at the same time, extended similar benefits to seamen who come within the Commonwealth jurisdiction. I trust that, in future, when any benefits are given under compensation legislation to Commonwealth employees they will be immediately extended to seamen.
What views I had to express on the subject of compensation I expressed to the Senate in speaking on the previous bill. Most of the comments that I made then apply to this measure. I note one divergence between the two bills. The bill relating to Commonwealth, employees is to take effect as from the 1st January of this year. I applaud that provision and know that it was done pursuant to a promise that was given to public service organizations last December. But the bill now before the chamber will take effect on the day upon which it receives the Royal Assent. No doubt that will he some day in the proximate future. ! can, perhaps, understand the reason for the difference. In the case of Commonwealth employees no question of insurance premiums is involved and no employer but the Commonwealth is concerned. In the case of seamen’s compensation many employers are concerned. Insurance premiums have been paid on the basis of existing benefits and some adjustment may be necessary to insurance policies. I assume that to be the reason why the benefits have not been made retrospective in this case. If that is so it may well be a good enough reason for the difference between the provisions in the two bills. However, I suggest that if there is a practical way of making the benefits for seamen retrospective to the 1st January, as in the case of Commonwealth employees, that ought to be done. The Opposition appreciates the fact that substantial increases are provided for in the bill and supports the measure.
– I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), an honorable senator from Tasmania, allow the debate on the second reading of a bill of this sort to go by without adverting to the possible effects on shipping freights of this addition to the cost of shipping services. For not only do we wish to be completely fair and equitable in our treatment of seamen in relation to other bodies of workmen, but we should also, consider the effect on the industry of the charges involved. One has only to look at the Annual Report of the Tariff Board that was issued last year in order to see that the interstate freight rates have risen considerably. The example of freight rates between Melbourne and Sydney can be regarded as typical of Australian interstate freight rates. In 1939 the freight payable on each ton of cargo consigned from Melbourne to Sydney was £1, but in 1953 it was £6 15s., an increase of 600 per cent. In 1939 the freight on cargo consigned from Melbourne to Brisbane was £1 10s. a ton, but in 1953 it was £7 17s., an increase of 500 per cent. Anybody who lives in Tasmania is thoroughly alive to the threat which mounting shipping freights represent to the Tasmanian trade, and the first question that I wished to consider with regard to the proposal to increase seamen’s compensation was the impact that these increases would have upon freight rates. I was happy to find that the item of workers’ compensation was comparatively unimportant in its effect on freight rates because the whole of the compensation’ paid under this legislation during the twelve months ended the 30th June, 1953, was only £6,368.
– That is why the Leader of the Opposition did not mention it. It was so unimportant.
– I am just bringing to the attention of less perspicacious members of the Senate than Senator Sheehan that during the year ended the 30th June, 1953, the amount paid in seamen’s compensation was £6,368. For that reason I believe that the Senate is entitled to approve of the bill without further discussion. But an examination of the whole of the conditions under which seamen work is overdue because their rapidly increasing rates of pay have been the greatest contributing factor to the increase of freight rates which is threatening to destroy the Australian interstate shipping trade. I felt it desirable to draw the attention of the Senate to that fact. I shall now resume my seat so that if other honorable senators have contributions to make to the debate of greater significance than that of Senator Sheehan they may do so.
– I think it appropriate to say something in reply to Senator Wright, because I have noticed that on every conceivable occasion, both in this chamber and in public controversy, it is said, ex cathedra, that prices and costs have increased enormously. That is a half truth, and many people contend that a half truth is really a deliberate lie. It is true that costs have increased enormously in terms of paper money. That process has been going on ever since we went off the gold standard in 1931. But economic or real costs, which are assessed in terms of labour time, commodities, or gold as a measure of value, were never lower than they are to-day. I have challenged quite a few economists, particularly university economists, on this point. As a result of technical developments, work can be done to-day in less labour time than it was possible to do it previously. That is so in the case of handicrafts for which the craftsmen make their own mouldings, and it is also true in the case of my own trade, that of plumbing. We used to make our lead traps by hand.
– I rise to order. ; Che bill before the Senate relates to compensation, and for that reason I submit that the remarks of the honorable senator are entirely out of order.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reid). - Order! Senator Cameron may continue.
– Senator Wright stated that costs had increased. If I may be pardoned for repeating myself, that is only half true. That statement has been made deliberately in order to mislead unfortunate people who are the victims of uncontrolled inflation of our currency. The result is that those responsible, the private banks acting in collaboration with the Commonwealth Treasury, are receiving millions of pounds worth of goods and services for mere scraps of paper. When costs are assessed in terms of . paper money it should be borne in mind that the currency has been deliberately and fraudulently inflated, so that it appears to unsophisticated persons that costs have increased enormously. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I challenge any one to prove that I am wrong. There is an old saying that figures cannot lie but liars can figure. I suggest that that is the position in regard to costs. It is important that the people should be given some idea of the real position, because a dangerous state of affairs is developing. Its development is being assisted by certain gentlemen who are learned in law but very ignorant outside it. Most property laws based on precedent are bad. The really intelligent legal man realizes that fact and acts accordingly. I offer that advice to Senator Wright without any fee.
Quarterly cost-of-living adjustments of the basic wage and margins for skill are being disallowed on the ground that our economy is unstable. Of course it is unstable. Every economy in which inflated currency is used is unstable. That is why, in countries overseas, millions of people have been reduced to the breadline and additional millions are unemployed. The economy of those countries has become unstable as the result of uncontrolled inflation. There is nothing new in the process.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.Order ! I have given the honorable senator considerable latitude. I suggest that he now confine his remarks to ‘the bill, otherwise he will have to resume his seat.
– I am dealing with a point that was raised by Senator Wright.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.Order! In my opinion the honorable senator has gone beyond that point. If he is wise he will confine his remarks to the bill.
– I shall try to be wise, with your assistance, Mr. Deputy President. I felt it incumbent on me to say what I said in reply to Senator Wright because I would not like the public to think that I am so easily misled. The people should know that at least we on this side of the chamber understand the process by which costs are being increased. I have replied on those lines to Senator Wright, and I hope I have done so effectively. I also hope that I have given honorable senators opposite, who have very little knowledge of economics, something to think about.
– I have been provoked into speaking on this matter of compensation by the remarks that were made by Senator Wright and Senator Vincent, who are both lawyers. Both honorable senators attempted to prove that the improvement in the rates of compensation proposed by this bill will result in an unreasonable charge on industry. I suggest that if a worker who had been injured engaged either Senator “Wright or Senator Vincent to plead his cause before a court of law a completely different argument would be presented to the court. I know from my experience that the honorable senator who so appeared, would draw a very vivid picture of the pain and suffering which the injured worker had undergone and the inconvenience from which he was likely to suffer for the rest of his life, lt is obvious that the compensation payments envisaged by this hill will still fall far short of what they should be, bearing in mind the sums that arc being awarded by the courts every day of the week in respect of injuries. Generally speaking, compensation costs the employer nothing. It is merely a matter of insurance. The wise employer insures his employees against injury. I appreciate that, because of the large number of employees in the service of the Commonwealth, it is cheaper for the Government to accept responsibility for compensation in respect of injuries to officers or employees rather than to insure each individual.
Senator right endeavoured to suggest that compensation paid to seamen had an effect on freight and other shipping costs. I happen to have before me a copy of the Melbourne Argus of Tuesday, the 6th April, which indicates that the profits earned by Howard Smith Limited last year were considerably higher than they were in the previous year, despite the necessity to meet workers’ compensation payments. As honorable senators who are engaged in primary production know, one of the greatest problems which confront our primary industries to-day in their search for overseas markets is shipping costs. Yet Howard Smith Limited made a profit of approximately £380,000 the year before last and approximately £413,000 last year. Its dividend rate has been maintained. That company is, therefore, doing very well. I do not think we need worry about the effect of workers’ compensation on its financial position.
– I have been encouraged to make a contribution to the discussion on this bill by the attitude and remarks of Senator Wright. If my recollection is correct, Senator Wright spoke in the debate in 1953 when the relevant measure was previously amended. On that occasion, he demonstrated the same bitter approach to the question of compensation that characterized his statements in the Senate to-day. I believe that he completely opposed the principle of compensation cover for workers while travelling to and from their place of employment. That principle was embodied in the legislation by the Chifley Labour Government, and is accepted to-day by the most conservative of political opinion. In fact, J would go so far as to say that even in a government of conservatives, Senator Wright is still a political anachronism. His thoughts go back many years to a time and a set of circumstances that have been abandoned by most of his colleagues.
For years an economic situation has been developing in Australia for which the Government, of which Senator Wright is a supporter, is materially responsible. During those years there have been staggering increases in the burden of costs and charges upon industry and governments, and this Government must accept the responsibility for a great many of those increases because of its economic policy. In plumbing the political depths, Senator Wright suggested that the responsibility for workers’ compensation should be placed on the shoulders of the sick and disengaged workers. It is fantastic, as Senator Wright himself admitted, that a mere charge of £3,000 should be considered in any sense an effective contribution to the cost structure that is crippling Australia and for which this Government must accept responsibility. I do not believe that the Commonwealth necessarily should go into competition with the States in the matter of workers’ compensation benefits, but a fantastic position has now arisen. On the very day that this Parliament has chosen to do something about altering the rate of benefits to employees who require compensation, a bill has been introduced into the Queensland Parliament raising the compensation levels in that State far above those that are contemplated in the legislation now before the Senate. The Government has put this Parliament into a ridiculous position. It cannot he said that the Australian Government is less affluent than the Queensland Government, or that this Government is -wiser than the Queensland Government. All we oan say is that the Commonwealth is less generous than the State of Queensland. From the moment this measure becomes operative, it will be obsolete and will lag behind the most recent legislation passed by the Queensland Parliament.
– Nonsense ! The provisions for workers’ compensation in Queensland are £500 below those of the Commonwealth.
– I have been speaking about a bill that was introduced into the Queensland Parliament to-day.
– When was the Queensland legislation previously amended ?
– I am not referring to previous amendments. I am discussing levels of compensation. This Government proposes to lift the amount of compensation in certain cases to £2,350. The corresponding rate in Queensland under the new legislation will be £2,500. In other circumstances in which this Government proposes to raise the level to £2,350, the Queensland Government will lift it to £2,800. Even before the legislation before the Senate becomes operative, it is behind the times. We shall lag behind a State that is much less affluent that the Commonwealth.
– Is the honorable senator suggesting that the Queensland Government will pay for the proposed compensation out of its own funds?
– No. I am saying that this Government has been less generous land considerably less just than the Queensland Government.
– What is the weekly rate of compensation that will be paid in Queensland?
– It will be almost on the same level as the Commonwealth rate.
– What is it?
– I have only received my information by telephone, but I believe that the compensation for a man with a wife and five children will be the same. For a man with a wife and three children, the rate of compensation will beapproximately the same, but I believethat the level in Queensland will behigher. Periodical amendments of legislation such as that which is now under consideration is a reflection of the continuing inflation of the currency in Australia. They provide Senator Wright with an opportunity to vent his unsympathetic feelings towards all employees.. I am astonished to note that he receivessupport for his anachronistic ideasfrom other honorable senators on theGovernment side of the chamber. I assure him that he will continue to receive opposition from honorable senatorson this side of the Senate. It will not be long before we shall have an opportunity to do more, and we shall do anything we can to put the Commonwealth ahead of the States so that it can give a lead and a challenge to them in providing justly and generously for employees who are injured in the course of their duties.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– The legislation as it applies to seamen, will come into operation on the day that it receives the Royal assent. The Government has been claiming that it will give justice to the workers and I presume that it means all workers. Why are not the seamen to be given the same retrospective treatment to the 1st of January as they received under the previous bill? Over the past two and a half years of inflation, all employees have been penalized equally. The Government should be fair to all in amending the legislation.
– If the clause to which the honorable senator has referred had been worded differently, the bill would not have become effective until 28 days after it received the Royal assent. The clause provides that it will become operative as soon as the Royal assent is given. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has mentioned the reason why the provisions are not retrospective in the case of seamen. The situation of persons engaged in the shipping industry is different from that of persons who are generally employed in the Commonwealth Public Service, particularly in regard to residential qualifications. Matters affecting compensation for seamen have been adjusted. For practical purposes, the Government does not propose to make the bill retrospective and in that respect it has followed the procedure that was adopted when the legislation was amended by previous governments.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 69
Debate resumed from the 7th April (vide page 33), on motion by Senator McLeay -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This important bill has been introduced at a critical transitory period in the history of one of Australia’s most important primary industries. As honorable senators have been told by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) in his second-reading speech, Australia has had no trouble during the past fifteen years in disposing of its dairy produce through the United Kingdom. During that period, Australia’s butter and cheese were sold under government contract, but conditions in the United Kingdom have now altered. The rationing period has ended and the Government of the United Kingdom desires to return to the pre-war basis for the purchase of dairy produce. Consequently, the Australian dairying industry will be called upon to meet fierce competition from other countries. The bill that is now before the Senate possibly will help to solve the problem. I am pleased to note that it is the result of discussions with representatives of the dairying industry.
I had to smile when the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), in addressing the Senate upon another matter, said that the people of Australia had removed the Labour Government after one dose of socialism and would ensure that it was not returned to office. I invite honorable senators to study this bill and to note that the Government proposes to establish a board to market dairy produce. Honorable senators have often listened to government criticism of “ the bureaucratic boards “ that were set up by the Labour Government. Honorable senators on the Government side have stated that the people want to be rid of such boards. Yet this Government will set up a board to market our dairy produce. I am not finding fault with that. I believe that it is necessary, in this transitory period, that an organization such as that contemplated should be set up.
The dairying industry is Australia’s third largest export industry. Although, for various reasons, our exports of dairy produce abroad have not been as large as they were previously, they were considerable last year. Australia exported 28,000 tons of butter valued at about £11,000,000 and the value of cheese exported was about £5,000,000. As there is no market outside the United Kingdom where Australian dairy produce will meet a big demand, it is essential that Australia should retain the good name that its produce earned there during the war period. I was in Great Britain at the end of the war, and I was informed by officers and members of the Ministry of Food that Australian butter had won the respect of the British consumers. They were hopeful that Australia should retain that favorable position. Therefore, the Opposition believes this measure to be essential and will not oppose it. It is important that Australia’s good name should be maintained in Great Britain , and that, I assume, will be one of the responsibilities of the board. It will have to make certain that the standard of our butter and cheese shall be high. Unfortunately, in the years when the overseas demand for foodstuffs has been almost unlimited, some Australian manufacturers have adopted the attitude “Anything will do”. That attitude has caused untold harm to some of our exporting industries. I trust that this will not happen in the dairy industry and that the board will be able to ensure that our butter and cheese shall be of first quality.
We are not the greatest exporters of butter to the United Kingdom. New Zealand exported 150,000 tons of butter to Great Britain last year, and Denmark exported 100,000 tons. We can expect keen competition from both of those countries. That is why there is a need foi” some authority such as the Australian Dairy Produce Board to make sure that our products reach Great Britain in first-class condition. Exactly what is proposed to be done in that regard is not disclosed in the bill. I do not know whether Australian butter will be sold overseas in future under one brand as was done during the war when “ Kangaroo “ brand Australian butter became known as a choice produce of Australia, or whether the various butter manufacturers of Australia will market their butter in Great Britain under their own brands. Presumably we shall be informed about that later. Perhaps the Department of ‘Commerce and Agriculture or the butter producers themselves have not yet made up their minds about it. But whatever is done, I hope that us a result of this legislation the demand for Australian butter overseas will be maintained in the face of the keen competition that will come from other countries. Until now, of course, the British people have been demanding all the butter and cheese that we could send to them. There have been some discussions about prices, but that was inevitable. The British Ministry of Pood, on behalf of the hard-pressed people of the United Kingdom, naturally endeavoured to obtain Australian butter as cheaply sis possible. The Australian butter producers on the other hand, naturallysought increased prices to meet rising production costs. Those days of assured markets have gone. Free competition has returned. I understand that the price at which Great Britain will buy butter and cheese will not be fixed, and that each exporting nation will have to do the best it can on the open market. I hope that the board will be of great assistance to this very important primary industry, and for that reason the Opposition wishes the bill every success.
.- I cannot let this bill pass without saying a few words about it, although, as
Senator Sheehan has said, the Opposition wholeheartedly supports it. It is gratifying to find that after all the criticism that we listened to about the regimentation of industry by the socialist Labour Government, this so-called “ private industry” Government, is following precisely in Labour’s footsteps. It was the socialist Labour Government which first took an interest in the dairy-farmers of Australia and helped them out of their difficulties. When we assumed office we found that previous administrations had clone nothing whatsoever towards putting the dairying industry on an economic basis. Most honorable senators are aware of conditions ‘that prevailed in that industry in the 1930’s. There was a regular cycle of gluts and shortages. When a. glut occurred, prices dropped and dairy herds were sent to the slaughterhouses. Then, when prices rose, shortages resulted because of the deple-tion of the herds. That cycle continued” until the socialist Labour Government came to the rescue.
– As the Queensland Government is doing with margarine.
– I shall have something to say about margarine, too. By establishing control authorities, fixing guaranteed prices, and providing financial assistance, the Labour Government brought the dairying industry on to an even keel. . Not for fifteen years have we seen the slaughter of dairy herds. Towards the end of the war, I predicted that Australian dairy produce would have an assured market overseas for at least ten years. It was obvious that the slaughter of dairy herds in Europe during the war would lead to a shortage of butter and cheese when the war ended, and that that shortage would continue at least until the herds had been restored. Therefore, it was clear that Australian dairy products would be in strong demand on overseas markets for at least ten years after the war ended. Now, the dairy herds of the European countries have been built up, and production is increasing rapidly. Australian dairy-farmers will have to face a free market, and they will need all the assistance that governments and marketing authorities can give to them. In spite of what Labour’s political opponents have had to say about the regimentation of industry and labour under socialist administrations, it is interesting to note that the proposals for the organized marketing of butter have the full support of the dairy-farmers, the butter factories, 80 or 90 per cent, of which are owned by the dairy-farmers themselves, and the exporters. All three are in full agreement with the idea of having the export of Australian butter controlled by a board. I point out, too, that the board was first established by the socialist Labour Government - that “ bureaucratic “ administration of which we heard so much in those days. I note, too, that the scheme is to be financed by another socialist instrumentality, the great Commonwealth Bank. Obviously, this Government is only too happy to follow the lead of the socialist Labour Government in that direction also.
I come now to margarine. As Senator Sheehan has said, Australian butter exporters will have to be sure that their butter is of the highest possible standard. Undoubtedly margarine is a great danger to our dairying industry. That is why some controlling authority such as the board is necessary to ensure that the standard of our butter does not deteriorate. Otherwise, there would be an “ open go “ for margarine. The threat of margarine exists not only in Australia but also in other countries. This synthetic butter “ if I may use that description, has not the ingredients of real butter, but clever manufacturers are able to prepare it in such a way that to tell the difference between margarine and butter is sometimes very difficult. There will be a responsibility on any future Commonwealth government - I have little fear that it will be a non-Labour government after the 29th May - to protect the Australian dairy industry. I do not suggest that the price of butter should be reduced because I know only too well that even now the dairy-farmer is not receiving a return high enough to meet production costs, which have increased substantially under the regime of the present Government. In Tasmania, the purchasing power of the basic wage is £1 a week below that of the basic wages of the mainland States: That will be evened up, and higher production costs will result. Do not think for one moment that if costs do not come down the Tasmanian Labour Government will stand idly by and leave the purchasing power of the’ Tasmanian worker substantially below that of his colleagues on the mainland. There is- a need to keep costs down so far as possible by pasture improvement and cheaper farm machinery without depriving the dairy-farmer of some of his already inadequate return. I believe, therefore, that whatever party takes over the reins of government will have a stiff task in front of it. The dairying industry, not only in Australia but also in other countries, could be seriously affected by a decrease of butter production and an increase in the output of margarine. This could happen if the price of butter were to become too high.
The dairying industry would slump all over the world. In such circumstances, it might be necessary in this country to prop the industry up temporarily as has been done before. Any country that could sustain its dairying industry for, say, a couple of years in the face of such conditions would come out. the winner, because a serious fall in the demand for butter would result in the slaughter of dairy herds and eventually a world shortage of butter. If something of that nature began to occur, steps would have to be taken to prop this industry, up for a short time until it could stand on its own feet again. I commend this private enterprise Government for following so closely the example set by a Labour government.
– I am not at all downhearted about the future of our dairying industry. There are two reasons for my optimism. Thanks to improvements in medical science, the population of the world i.= increasing. In addition, there has been an improvement, however small, of the standard of living of people throughout the world. The emphasis is on the production of foodstuffs. I suppose the foodstuffs with the highest food value are dairy products such as butter and cheese, but throughout the world the emphasis is on meat. Many countries which formerly were vitally interested in dairyfarming are having trouble with rising production cost3 and shorter hours of labour, as we are. They are finding it much more profitable to turn to the production of meat, and it seems to me that that trend will continue, at any rate for some time.
Senator Aylett referred to what Labour governments did to assist our dairying industry. It is pertinent to inquire where the subsidy came from that those governments paid to the industry. I say it was derived chiefly from the difference between the price at which they sold our dairy produce to Great Britain and the price that was received by the dairyfarmers.
– It came from the taxpayers of this country.
– I repeat that the subsidy that was paid by the Chifley Government and the Curtin Government to Australian dairy-farmers was derived from the difference between what was paid for our dairy produce by the British Government and what the Australian producers received. If Senator Aylett wants to try to convince the dairy-farmers that that is not so, he has the job in front of him. We are not here to argue about who paid this or who did not do that, but I thought it proper to refer to the source of that subsidy. There is another matter in which the dairy-farmers are very interested. Butter and other dairy products are perishable commodities. The dairy-farmers strongly object to their produce being held up on the wharfs because somebody refuses to load it on to ships. The dairy-farmers do their job.. Why should they and the consumer overseas he penalized because, owing to some real or imaginary grievance, other people refuse to load the produce into ships?
– Where is this happening?
– In Australia.
– At which ports ?
– I am referring to Australian ports. It is useless to tell the dairy-farmer that he is a good chap and urge him to produce more if, when he has done so, he is handicapped and put to extra expense because his products cannot be loaded into ships for despatch overseas.
– Tell us where this is happening to-day.
– I am not talking about to-day only. I should havethought Senator Aylett was betterinformed about labour conditions and; about what is happening on our wharfsthan I am. I am very glad he agreeswith me that there have been fewer hold-ups on the wharfs under this Government than under Labour governments. I think we shall be able to overcome the difficulties that now loom ahead of us. There is no country better prepared to meet such difficulties than Australia. Never before in our history have our primary producers been as prosperous as they are to-day. Despite all the stories we hear about heavy taxation, theprimary producers of this country havenever enjoyed such prosperity as they are enjoying to-day. If there is one primary industry that deserves our support, it is the dairying industry. I milk a few cows myself.
– The honorable senator looks like a milker.
– I do not milk my fellow men, as some people do. I milk only dairy cows. The dairy-farmers were never as successful as they are today. I do not say that they can sit back and take things easily, because, compared with other industries, the dairying industry has always been a Cinderella. Very few people want to work in it if there are other jobs available. That is because dairy-farmers have to work seven days a week. However, if a man is prepared to work, the price of dairy products to-day is such that he can expect a reasonable return for his efforts. Now that the Government has seen fit to safeguard the dairy-farmers’ produce after it has been produced, all is well for the industry. I have pleasure in supporting the bill.
– I have risen, first, to commend the Government for introducing a marketing plan for the very important dairying industry, and secondly, to point out to honorable senators opposite how they have altered their views since the time they paraded the country, condemning in the most distorted fashion the objectives of the Australian Labour party and our policy for putting, not only primary industries but all Australian industries, on a sound basis. The Labour party sought an alteration of the Constitution to give the Commonwealth power to institute organized marketing schemes. This proposal is an example of an organized marketing scheme. There is no doubt that the Government parties have adopted, almost in its entirety, the policy of the Labour party in relation to organized marketing. I commend their common sense in swallowing so many of their untrue statements about our motives and policies. “We are more confident than ever of the soundness of our political philosophy when the course of events proves that the policies we have advocated are soundly based and are in the best interests of Australia. This measure confirms our beliefs.
There is no doubt that Australia is facing very difficult times. Our difficulties are not so great as those of other countries, because our wool industry has kept us prosperous. There has been a keen demand for Australian wool at very high prices. The merino wool industry is an exclusive Australian industry, but the dairying industry has competitors in other parts of the world. The policy of this Government has been, to leave the field of prices open to free enterprise. The catch-cries of honorable senators opposite are, “ Prices will find their own level “ an4 “ Let the great law of supply and demand prevail “. Our dairying industry is facing very keen competition. Because the Commonwealth has been denied the power to control prices, the industry may meet the fate that threatens some primary industries in the United States of America and other countries. In the last few weeks, we have read reports to the effect that there is a glut of wheat in the United States of America. Senator Mattner has spoken about the great need for food. There is no doubt that a big proportion of the people of the world are hungry and need more food. Under the free enterprise system, known as the capitalist system, it appears to be impossible to get food to them, because the greed of profit-seekers prevents it.
I have endeavoured to show how necessary it is to develop our great natural resources and for the Government to pur sue a policy similar to the policies that former Labour governments applied. The present Government is interested, not so much in the future stability of markets, as it is in the field of profit. On the other hand, the Australian Labour party believes that there is enough food for every one in the world, provided the available supplies are shared equitably. Organized marketing is the secret of prosperity and progress. I commend the Government for the initiative that it has shown in this matter, even though it has been a little late in doing so. Having come to the end of its agreement with the British Ministry of Food, it’ has shown that at least it has enough sense to stick to a good bandwagon.. It is very gratifying also to see that the dairy-farmers are now in a mood to change the views to which they gave expression at the last two general elections after they had been fed with untrue propaganda about the allegedly bad points of organized marketing.
– I am glad of this opportunity to lend my support to the bill, which is designed to maintain the prosperity of our very important dairying industry. As I have been engaged in that industry during almost. all of my life, I claim to know a good deal about the problems with which it is beset. The plan that the Government has advanced for the continuance of orderly marketing of our dairy products in Great Britain is highly commendable. Senator O’Byrne stated that many supporters of the Government were opposed to orderly marketing. I doubt very much whether that is true. I, personally, have subscribed to the principle of orderly marketing during practically the whole of my political life, because I consider it to be essential to the development of this country. The plan now being considered provides for a continuance of the orderly marketing of one of our important primary products. It has the endorsement of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, the manufacturers and the exporters. Remembering the days when our various primary industries were unorganized, I am glad that, over the years, they have become organized.
As the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) pointed out in his second-reading speech, the proposed board will either purchase the products and subsequently sell them to the English people under its own name, or act as an agent. Furthermore, any person who asks the board to market his products will have the right to withdraw them subsequently before sale.
The dairying industry poses a great many problems for legislators, by reason of its many complexities. Senator Aylett stated that many persons engaged in the dairying industry were finding it difficult to carry on. Although I do not contend that all dairy-farmers are reaping huge profits, by and large the dairying industry throughout Australia is being carried on at a very prosperous level,’ due in no small measure to the sound legislation of this Government. I do not claim that only this Government has enacted legislation for the good of the dairying industry, but rather that the legislation that we have placed on the statute-book has done the industry a great deal of good. It is prosperous to-day because of the advantageous prices that we have been able to obtain overseas for dairy products. Of course, we have had no difficulty in selling those products overseas. It is true that, as some honorable senators opposite have stated, it has been necessary to subsidize the industry. Nevertheless, it has been no mean task for the Government to maintain the industry- at a prosperous level.
I come now to margarine, to which Senator Aylett has referred. I consider that there is an ample demand in the world for both butter and margarine. The consumption of margarine has increased considerably in both Australia and Great Britain. If margarine should displace butter to any appreciable extent, there would be a danger of its cost rising. As honorable senators are aware, whale oil and vegetable oils are used in the manufacture of .margarine. Consequently, if its consumption should increase additional supplies of those basic materials would become necessary and, due to the operation of the law of supply and demand, the price of raw materials would ultimately rise. In due course, the price of margarine would increase correspondingly. While butter and margarine continue to be in active competition, reasonably cheap supplies of both commodities will be available for the people of the world.
I think that the plan before us is a good one. As I have said, I believe in orderly marketing, and I hope that Great Britain will continue to absorb our exportable surplus of dairy products. However, we must keep a close eye on costs of production in the dairying industry, in order to combat the competition offered by Denmark and other continental countries. I hope that, as a result of this plan, Australian butter will continue to be placed on the British market, and thus ensure the continued prosperity of our valuable dairying industry.
– The Opposition has already indicated that it supports this measure. I rise merely to advert to two subsidiary aspects of the bill. I take it that this bill has been rendered necessary by the desire of the Government of the United Kingdom to vacate the field of price control and the controlled distribution of dairy products in the United Kingdom. In other words. I presume that the initiative has flowed from the United Kingdom Government. That government has decided to abandon the rationing of butter and cheese from the Sth May. But the arrangement between the two governments for the sale of dairy produce will hold good as a firm contract until the 30th June, 1955. The two governments are bound contractually. I noticed that in the course of his second-reading speech the Minister said -
The current bulk contract with the United Kingdom does not expire until the 30th June. 1055. An Australian delegation will open negotiations with the Ministry of Food in London this month regarding the respective obligations of the two governments during the balance of the contract period. But, subject to those negotiations, the ordinary processes of commercial buying will be resumed in the United Kingdom as rapidly as circumstances permit.
I infer from the Minister’s use of the words “ subject to those negotiations “ that unless the negotiations are satisfactory to Australia the bulk marketing arrangements between the two governments must continue for the term of the contract. It is on the subject of the negotiations that are taking place that I now wish to speak. Having regard to the unfortunate experience of the eggproducers when the Government abrogated the bulk egg contract last season, I suggest that great care should be taken before the butter and cheese contract is lightly put on one side. I see two elements in the situation. Fi rst. if the United Kingdom is going to open up the dairy produce market it is highly desirable that Australia should be represented a t the commencement of operations under the new market conditions. It is highly desirable that Australia should make special efforts to present its produce in the best form with the utmost publicity. I can understand Australia’s desire to start off with everybody else in that field but it must be remembered that Australia has a firm contract with the United Kingdom which is operative for more than a year. If it is the wish of the United Kingdom to be released from that contract Australia is in a position to dictate the terms of the release. I do not suggest that the United Kingdom would invite Australia to sell on the open market at any price and be prepared to compensate Australia for any amount that it receives lower than it would have received under the bulk agreement. That would be too loose an arrangement for the United Kingdom to contemplate because it could result in complete laxity and carelessness on the part of Australia in making sales. But the United Kingdom might be held to its contract price and the debacle that occurred in connexion with egg marketing might be avoided if the United Kingdom Government were given ii n opportunity to oversee sales effected by Australia on the United Kingdom market.
I should like the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to tell the Senate the personnel of the delegation that is representing Australia at these negotiations. I should also like the Minister to give the Senate a broad outline of the instructions that have been given to that delegation to preserve Australia’s interests if that can be done without damaging the result of the negotiations. It would be very easy to make a mistake in such a matter as this, by completely liberating the United Kingdom from the contract. Australia might then run into difficulties in a market that is not easy, as the Minister himself admitted in his second-reading speech. That is the first of the two matters to which I wish to advert.
The second matter relates to the Minister’s comment that the bill will enable the Australian Dairy Produce Board to purchase in its own name butter and cheese intended for export to the United Kingdom, although purchases by the board will only be made when the owner of the produce requests finance from the board. The terms of purchase will provide that the owners may re-posses their produce prior to export upon repayments of the finance made available to them by the board. In other cases the board may act as an agent. I perused the hill with care but found nothing in it or the existing act which conferred on a vendor of dairy produce to the board the right to redeem his produce and participate in pooling arrangements when he makes repayment of the amount paid pursuant to the sale. Gould the Minister for Transport and Shipping tell me whether it is a fact that power to take this action is not included in the legislation and that, it is only a. matter of administrative procedure ?
– That is so.
– In the course of their remarks on this bill, Senator O’Byrne and Senator Aylett impudently informed the Senate that the measure represented an adoption of some socialistic scheme which broke the egg- shell in the first year in which Senator Aylett sat in this place. Senator O’Byrne thumped the fresh air, finding great difficulty even in penetrating that, and said that the Liberal Government now had learned by experience to follow socialist practice and he conveyed the impression that this bill indicated a delayed repentance on the part of a free enterprise government and an adoption of the ideas of the late Mr. J. B. Chifley. In view of the allegations of bad faith that fell from Senator O’Byrne and Senator Aylett in regard to the policy on which the Government was elected and with regard to this bill, perhaps it is appropriate to remind them that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), in making his policy speech in 1949, declared that the Liberal party policy was to foster schemes for organized marketing of which the producers had expressed their approval. In the minds of those who could even read, there has never been any doubt whatever as to the inclusion of that plank in the platform of Liberal party policy. In reply to the allegation that this legislation is socialistic I remind the Senate that the dairy export control legislation had its origin in 1924 during a period of unprecedented prosperity when the Australian Government was led by the present Lord Bruce. If honorable senators will turn to page 4407 of Hansard of 1924 they will find that the present Lord Bruce, then Prime Minister, made the following statement in introducing the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill :-
This bill is introduced because the Government realizes the necessity for taking action to provide for the control of the export of Australia’s surplus production of dairy produce. The purpose of the measure is to establish a board to organize the overseas market for Australian butter and cheese. All who study our present national circumstances must realize that the marketing of our surplus production is one of the greatest problems that we have to face.
If honorable senators will then turn to page 4507 of the same volume they will find that Mr. Paterson, the then honorable member for Gippsland who was accustomed to oppose to the last ditch the doctrines of socialism, advocated cooperative marketing by the producers and supported the legislation to set up a board of a regulatory, but not of a trading, nature. Under the legislation, the board was given absolute control of the conditions upon which the produce should be exported. Then, by an evil wind of 1941, the socialists came into power. They saw Sir Hugh Dalton and his socialists commence government importing in the United Kingdom. In 1947 those with whom Senator Aylett sat mesmerized, brought in legislation which, by some mirage, he imagined was the genesis of this scheme of export control It was merely legislation to arrange a board in Australia which would correspond with the Government import agency in the United Kingdom so that government-to-government trading could be arranged for the first time.
If I do not misunderstand this measure it is nothing but a bill to authorize the Government to buy and sell the produce of the dairying industry. This bill, so far from conferring upon the Government the right to trade, simply adopts a request from the industry itself which I understand emanated from the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation and the Joint Dairying Industry Advisory Council, the two bodies in which the industry has organized itself for the purpose of expressing its policy. Those agencies, representing all interests in the industry, have asked the Government for legislation to create a board which will have the right to trade in dairy produce. Those who have made the representations to the Government hope, by the use of their experience, to manage marketing arrangements so that they will be able to promote the best market for dairy produce in the United Kingdom. Then we hear idle chatter about that being a socialist enterprise. If there are people who have that idea of socialism, I can spare no more time on them. I rose simply to point out that in 1924 the industry with which we are concerned was put under the control of a dairy export control board. It was one of the first industries to organize itself in this country. The bill before the Senate is simply legislation whereby the Government adopts an industry recommendation so that a board, representative of, and established by, the industry itself a3 an expression of its co-operation, energy and enterprise, may market dairy products in an overseas country to the best advantage of the producers. If that is an infringement of free enterprise principles, then I do not begin to understand the term “ free enterprise “. Those who claim it to be a socialist notion are so misguided by the policy with which they are infatuated that they should go back to the preparatory class in political science.
– Senator Wright’s apology is accepted. The fact is that a board was set up in 1924 to control marketing, but at no time prior to the 1947 governmenttogovernment arrangement was there any co-ordinated marketing as far as prices and deliveries were concerned. Since this Government has been in office the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) has been to the United Kingdom to request that Australia be relieved of the necessity to supply a quantity of butter under the governmenttogovernment trading system. It is well known that he hawked butter round France and then offered it to the United States of America, but was unable to sell it in either country. It is also well known that he then went back to the United Kingdom and asked the government to take the quantity of butter which he had asked it to forgo under the contract. He sought readmission to the governmenttogovernment trading system, which has been so criticized by this Government, in order that he could escape from an embarrassing situation. We now have before us legislation to continue the contract with the United Kingdom Government until 1955. But, is the Government really eager for that system to continue? Will it endeavour to arrange a reasonable price and to seek inter-dominion trade on an agreed government-to-government basis. I suggest that the reason for this legislation is that the Government has failed in its efforts to establish a merchant trading system under which the producers would have been out in the cold, as they were before government-to-government trading came about.
– My purpose in rising is to put Senator Wright on the right course. It is evident that he has taken his ideas on this matter from text-books. The honorable senator referred to events which took place in 1924, but he obviously has no knowledge of what happened before that time> nor has he any appreciation of the hard work performed by primary producers in order to attain the right to corporate marketing. He seems to think that that right was handed to the farmers on a plate and that the Liberal party, and those associated with it, were responsible for all the reforms of the dairying industry. If he knew anything about such matters he would be aware that a Queensland government was the first government in the world to pass legislation of this kind. Its passage was opposed tooth and nail by the political forbears of the Liberal party. I assure the honorable senator that these reforms have not just happened. I have been associated with people who fought very hard for a voice in deciding the method by which our primary production was marketed. The interests of primary producers have always been sponsored by the Australian Labour party.
I do not think that it is possible ever to attain great success in these matters until we have constitutional reform in relation to marketing our exportable production. It has been a matter of disappointment to me that no effort has been made over the years by any political party to tackle this matter. It is essential that the Commonwealth should have adequate power to dispose of our surplus primary production. In my opinion, the people would support a reform of this kind. Honorable senators may be aware that the Commonwealth Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has no power to bind Australia at international discussions concerning marketing of primary products because State rights are involved. When overseas representatives speak of our primary production they refer not to that of Tasmania or Queensland, but to that of Australia as a whole. They wish to know what Australia can do. Power to handle and dispose of the surplus production of this country should be in the hands of the Australian Government.
.- I wish to comment, first, on the remarks of Senator Courtice and Senator Cooke. Labour senators from Tasmania who spoke on this matter obviously knew little about this subject and were dealt with effectively by Senator Wright. I point out to Senator Courtice that the side of politics which I represent introduced legislation for co-operative marketing 30 years ago. The honorable senator stated that Senator Wright knew nothing about butter. It may interest him to know that Senator Wright was born and brought up on a farm. Obviously ho has had much more to do with farming than have the honorable senators who have criticized him.
I found Senator Cooke’s remarks most amusing. He criticized the Government for seeking markets for our butter in other countries. I suggest that anybody with the progress of primary production at heart would seek every profitable market for our primary products in order that those engaged in such production might obtain the best return for their labour. It is common sense to seek overseas markets. A country which has all its eggs in one basket is hi great economic danger. Our dependence on the United Kingdom as a market for our butter is one of the weaknesses of oar dairying industry because if anything interfered with that market a great blow would be dealt to our dairy-farmers. That is the position which we must face now.
– Is it proposed to disturb the existing contracts with the United Kingdom Government ?
– The honorable senator is obviously interested to know whether we propose to continue the government-to-government trading system, because Great Britain is the only country in which we can sell our butter. At the time that the arrangement was made there was a government purchasing authority in Great Britain and we were obliged to deal with that authority. We had no alternative. Thank goodness the British people since had sufficient intelligence to get rid of the socialist regime and entrust the government of the country to private enterprise brains. We have a contract with the United Kingdom which has twelve months to run. It has been necessary for us to make up our minds whether to continue for the balance of our contract and watch, for a period of twelve months, foreign traders approach the British market with their products and endeavour to establish their brands whilst we are selling in bulk to the British Government. The great British margarine manufacturers are obliged to give away spoons, stockings and things of that kind in an effort to introduce their product to British households. Under bulk purchasing we oan do nothing towards marketing our butter on competitive terms in Great Britain. We need to spend money to develop that market, but it cannot be developed while there is bulk selling to the United Kingdom on a governmenttogovernment basis.
– lt can be done in war-time.
– Exactly, but of course then there is no competition. The socialists detest competition. They prate about monopolies, yet do everything possible to establish them. They are great friends of monopolies and great opponents of private enterprise, and of individual effort for reward. They foster monopolies wherever possible. They would like to see the primary products of Australia chased out of the United Kingdom. We are up against the problem of deciding whether to continue to sell on a basis of government-to-government marketing at a price which, for 1955, would be a payable price for the producer, or of seeking to establish trader-to-trader marketing. It is necessary to hear in mind that while we are selling on a government to-govern ment basis and enjoying temporary security and a temporary profit, we are leaving the market wide open for people to walk in and establish their brands and chase Australian butter off the market. I speak with some authority in this matter because for a number of years I have been a member of a co-operative butter factory. I was amused to hear Senator ‘Cooke state that the Government was endeavouring to damage the butter export trade by seeking markets elsewhere. In other words, he did not agree that we should spread our risks and endeavour to get a profitable return for producers of Australian butter on any market that is available. If any honorable senator believes that the dairyfarmers do not earn the money they receive, I suggest that he should say so now so that the dairy producers will know who he is and to which party he belongs.
– in reply - I thank Senator Wright for replying to Senator Aylett on an important aspect of this bill. I was interested to hear Senator Aylett trying to secure praise for himself for having established orderly marketing. Then he tried to take the matter further by indicating that orderly marketing was synonymous with the Labour Government’s policy of nationalization. Senator Wright settled that argument for me. The points that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) were relevant. In connexion with the negotiations for trade during the final year of the contract with the United Kingdom ending in June, 1955, Mr. C. Sheehy, the chairman of the Australian Dairy Produce Board, who is regarded as a man of outstanding ability, will go to London with a representative of the producers to discuss that matter. Senator Courtice suggested that the Commonwealth should be given more power to control the marketing of surplus produce. The great danger in giving the Commonwealth such power is that authority may be put into the hands of inexperienced politicians. I remember vividly that Senator Courtice had to display his usual skill when he tried to extricate a former prominent member of the Australian Labour party from a difficult position after he had sold Australian wheat to New Zealand for 5s. 4d. a bushel when the price on the free market was £1 ls. That is the great danger of inexperienced control of important industries and of allowing them to become the plaything of party politics. Provision is to be made for the changeover of the dairy produce trade from a government-to-government to trad er-to- trader basis. That has the support of practically the whole of the dairying industry. I believe that the industry has done exceptionally well in difficult circumstances in the past fifteen years. I do not propose to say any more upon the measure because honorable senators on the Opposition side, apart from a little frolic when they got into deep water, have been generous enough to support the bill, and there is no reason to delay its passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– Now that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) is in more tranquil mood, I wish to ask him whether the Government intends to continue government-to-‘government trading with the United Kingdom at the prices previously arranged for the full term of the current contract? Will any surplus butter be available during the remaining period? If so, will any of it be sold in Great Britain on a tradertotrader basis? Are honorable senators to understand from the statements of Government supporters that the Government would accept release from trade on a government-to-government basis if it were offered by the United Kingdom Government? Does the Government consider that Australia is suffering a disability by exporting butter to Great Britain on a contract basis?
– I cannot give Senator Cooke a complete answer to his questions. Mr. Sheehy, who has conducted the dairy produce trade for fifteen years, is to go to the United Kingdom to negotiate terms and conditions for the sale of dairy products and to prepare the way for the trader-to-trader business, which is full of complications and difficulties. Until Mr. Sheehy reports back to the Government, we do not know whether the tradertotrader operations for the sale of butter will begin before the contract period expires. The Government has every confidence in the Australian representatives who will conduct the negotiations. Honorable senators can be assured that producers’ interests will be adequately safeguarded.
, - I have listened to the debate carefully and I can assure the Senate that the Australian Dairy Produce Board as at present constituted has the” full support of the dairy-farmers of Australia.
– Order ! The honorable senator cannot make a secondreading speech, as the bill is now in the committee stage.
.- I thank the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) for the information that he has given the committee in reply to my questions. Will the Minister inform me whether the Australian Dairy Produce Board will have power over export butter only, or will it have control also of butter that is to be sold in Australia? “Will an equalization scheme operate in connexion with the sale of butter for Australian consumption? Does the Government contemplate any action to protect the Australian people from exploitation through the. homeconsumption price, and ensure at the same time that the dairy-farmers will receive a payable price for butter sold on the Australian market? If there is to be an equalization scheme, how will it operate?
– The chairman of the Australian Dairy Produce Board is also the chairman of the Australian Dairy Produce Equalization Committee. I anticipate that the equalization scheme will be continued. Practically the only change for which provision, has been made is the changeover from governmenttogovern.ment to trader-to-trader selling at the expiration of the current contract. At the present, I am unable to give any further details.
– Is the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) opposed to a. long-term agreement between the Australian dairying industry and the United Kingdom because the present contract is on a governmenttogovernmen(. basis ? Would he abandon the idea of a trade agreement over a lengthy period at a set price because, as Senator Henty has said, Government supporters believe that it is socialistic and the Government wants to deal on a tradertotrader basis? la that the attitude and the policy of the Government ?
– The Government believes that it should be advised by the Australian Dairy Produce Board, on the best terms that can be reached for the sale of Australian butter overseas. Senator Courtice will understand, fully that while a nation is at war and there is a world shortage of primary products, it is easy to arrange for government-to-government selling. As a commercial man, Senator Courtice knows that the question now is whether the United Kingdom Government is prepared to guarantee a price that is acceptable -to Australia. If we could get a price for our butter as favorable as the sale of wheat to New Zealand, to which I have referred, in reverse, the Government would accept it. Honorable senators must realize that world markets are now highly competitive and the problem is to obtain a contract. The United Kingdom Government has stated quite plainly that it is not prepared to give Australia a contract for the purchase of dariy produce over a period of years beyond the present agreement. The entire scene has changed.
– When the dairy produce trade is placed upon a trader-to-trader basis, is there any possibility that the present subsidy will cease, or will the subsidy be continued in those circumstances if the industry needs it, in accordance with socialist Labour policy?
-. - That is a question of Government policy for the future. The dairyfarmers have had such a good deal from this Government, which has provided a subsidy double that given by the Labour Government, that they are- not prepared to change over for anything that Senator Aylett may promise them. The matter is one of policy that will be decided1 from time to time.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 80
Debate resumed from the 7th April (vide page 35), on motion by Senator McLeay -
That the hill be now read a second time.
Senator MeKENNA (TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition) [5.29). - The bill that is now before the Senate seeks to amend the Egg Export Control Act 1947. That act was passed by the Labour Government to set up the Australian Egg Board and the necessary machinery to implement the terms of the contract for the bulk export of eggs from Australia to the United Kingdom. It is inevitable that the matter should be reviewed now because the contract with the United Kingdom expires in May, 1954. Accordingly, in the absence of any agreement between the governments to renew the agreement, it becomes a matter of open market trading in the United Kingdom. The original board set up under the act was largely a producer board. There were ten members. They included one from each of the six States to represent the producers in each State, two members with commercial experience, one who represented the growers in the industry and one who represented the Australian Government. So, the board was producer controlled. The legislation now before us envisages a board of an entirely different kind. The composition provided for in clause 4 is as follows : -
– Yes, but they also include representatives of commercial interests.
– They are not in the majority.
– No, but any member of a State board may be appointed to the Australian Egg Board upon the nomination of the appropriate State Minister. Clearly there is nothing to prevent a State Minister from selecting as a member of the Australian board, a
State board member who is not a producer. The Minister must appreciate that the emphasis has shifted from producer control to what one may at least term board control.
– With Labour Ministers in office in the States the honorable senator surely would not expect any trouble on that score:
– I should not expect them to do anything wrong whatsoever. At this stage I merely draw attention to the different basis upon which the new board is to be constituted. I should now like to advert briefly to the circumstances in which the change has been brought about. It has been quite dramatically presented to the Senate by the Minister in his second-reading speech and I do not think I could do better than quote his words. He said -
Although the current contract with the United Kingdom Government does not expire until May, 1954, it was agreed–
He was very careful not to say between whom it was agreed - . . that instead of establishing fixed contract prices for last season’s exports of shell eggs, open market prices should apply. The Australian industry was quite unprepared for the shock it received over the behaviour of the market. Due to a number of factors, but especially to the unusually favorable production conditions in the United Kingdom and Europe, prices fell to disastrously low levels - at one stage the wholesale price of Australian eggs was1s. l0d. sterling a dozen - with the result that instead of improved prices the average price for the season was no less than 25 per cent. below the price received in the previous year under the contract with the British Ministry of Food.. The. loss might well have been greater but for the fact that the Australian Egg Board, as the sole marketing authority was able to regulate sales to ensure the best possible returns.
Then, in a final pessimistic note, he said -
As a foretaste of the future this experience was anything but reassuring.
Here was a contract in which the Australian Government had the United Kingdom firmly held; yet, apparently at the request of the Government of the United Kingdom, the Australian Government - no other authority could agree to a cancellation of the contract - agreed to waive the contract in respect of last season’s eggs. The result, as the Minister confessed in his second-reading speech, was a disastrous fall in price and wholesale losses. I have no doubt that the Government and the Minister acted upon the advice of the Australian Egg Board as it was then constituted.
– It was producercontrolled at that stage.
– I agree, but unquestionably the Government must accept full responsibility for the disaster that occurred. It had the officers of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture to assess the position and, with its representatives in the United Kingdom, was probably in a far better position than the board was to determine the likely trend of the egg market in that country. Putting the position in the kindest possible way, I can only say that there obviously was a grievous error of judgment, not only on the part of the Australian Egg Board, but also on the part of the Australian Government. In these circumstances, it is little wonder that egg producers in Australia called for blood. They decided that the Australian Egg Board had to go, after making such a grievous blunder. I have no doubt also that they will not be very well disposed towards the government which sponsored the move that led to the disaster. It is perfectly certain that this upheaval in the egg industry - not a highly organized industry such as the dairying industry - forced the Government to yield to a. demand for the overthrow of the board. The arrangement that we now contemplate is a very poor example of organized marketing.
After referring to conditions in the egg market in Great Britain, the Minister concluded his speech by pointing out that there were many competitors in the field, that the market was highly unpredictable, and that Great Britain was not prepared to take bulk egg supplies for the next two years. His final words were as follows : -
In to-day’s conditions of trading the strengthening of marketing methods by the coordination of selling .policy must be regarded as imperative.
In other words, this industry calls for a higher degree of organized marketing than any other Australian industry. But what has the Minister presented to us in this bill ? Provision is made for a board composed in the manner to which I have already referred. It is to include representatives of the boards of the five eggexporting States, but any State board has the right to withdraw its representatives at any time and to market its products independently. Is that the state of affairs that should exist at a time when there is a greater need than ever before for organized marketing? Conceivably, the Australian Egg Board could, within a short space of time, be left with only one or two representatives of the State boards, or perhaps none at all. Then, having no eggs to dispose of, the board would exercise purely regulatory functions in relation to export. One clause of this bill denies expressly to the board the right to prohibit the export of eggs. I refer to clause 11, which states - (4.) This Act does not authorize the making of regulations prohibiting, or authorizing the Board to prohibit, the export from the Commonwealth, except by the Board, of eggs either generally or to a particular place.
That is the complete reverse of the provisions of the measure with which the Senate has just dealt relating to the wellorganized dairying industry. In that measure there i3 a complete prohibition on the export of primary products without a licence. Now we pick up this bill which is supposed to set up an organized marketing scheme, and we find a complete prohibition on any restrictions on exports. In other words, what the Australian Egg Board has envisaged in the bill is merely a skeleton so far as organized marketing is concerned, and even the bones may fall away by State after State withdrawing.
The Opposition certainly does not admire this bill, and I shall be surprised if honorable senators opposite, some of whom already to-day have shown themselves to be enthusiastic supporters of organized marketing, have very much admiration for it. The only reason why the Opposition will not oppose the bill but will content itself with criticizing it, is that we accept the Minister’s statement that the State governments have accepted it and that the industry itself has accepted it. Without going into detail I say again that the whole scheme is but the barest skeleton of organized marketing. However, apparently it is what the producers want, what the State governments want, and what the State egg boards want. We can only hope that the scheme will be successful, and that it will ensure the efficient handling of this very important product during the particularly difficult period ahead. I understand from the Minister that our export of eggs is limited virtually to the United Kingdom, and that even on that market Australia meets with plenty of competition. I trust that this pitiful specimen of organized marketing will, nevertheless, be able to do a good job for the producers. We wish it well. The Minister himself obviously regards it as a trial effort. It is the best machinery he can evolve after the horrible mess that the Australian Egg Board and the Australian Government caused in respect of last season’s products. That is the reason for this weak compromise proposal, and it is one reason why New South Wales, the main eggproducing State, is to have two representatives on the board while the other States are to have only one each. I say, more in sorrow than in anger, and certainly not viciously, that the Government must plead guilty to the charges that have been levelled against it as a party to the contract with the United Kingdom. This situation would not have arisen but for the deplorable fate of last season’s export eggs. Organized marketing in this important industry has been disrupted, and the Government has found it necessary to set up a board with the structure of the kind to which I have referred. We of the Opposition will watch developments in this industry with great interest.
– For the next three years.
– Once again, declining the role of the prophet, I say that I am prepared to watch those developments from either side of the chamber although, of course, I should prefer a change. We shall follow with great interest this experiment of a board which has been virtually emasculated so far as real powers are concerned. I shall be pleased, although rather surprised, if it succeeds. That is all I desire’ to say about the bill at this stage.
We do not oppose it, but we do not fall down in admiration of it.
– m reply - I appreciate the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) who indicated that he spoke more in sorrow than in anger. I have devoted considerable time and energy to this problem. In my opinion, the departmental officers are to be congratulated on evolving what one may call a compromise arrangement. The New South Wales Egg Marketing Board, which handles 50 per cent, of the eggs thai we export, wanted to be out on its own. That was a difficult obstacle to surmount. Finally, after negotiation, the States and the Commonwealth were able to read) agreement. We realized that the export problem was so serious that an orderly marketing scheme was of great importance. This scheme is not ideal, but 1 think we shall find that the various boards will work together to tackle the problem. It is natural that people who represent egg producers will do the best they can for the egg industry. The fact that in all States with the exception of South Australia the members of the State egg marketing boards are elected by the egg producers will ensure, adequate producer representation.
There has been considerable unfair criticism of the Australian Egg Board. I remind the Senate that, in terms of value, 80 per cent, of the eggs exported were sold in the United Kingdom at the contract price - the best price we have received since we began to export eggs. The net proceeds from sales of eggs in bulk were £5,700,000. Those eggs were sold at the contract rate. For eggs in shell, which were sold on the open market, we received £1,600,000. This competent and experienced board expected that the price of eggs would rise, but in fact it fell. However, we cannot expect even the greatest genius to be 100 per cent, correct in judging when a market will reach its peak. I want to remove the dreadful slur that has been cast on the board in connexion with the sales on the open market. Proceeds from those sales represented only £1,600,000, compared with £5.700,000 received from sales under contract.
Senator McKenna lias said that the State boards will have the right to establish their own pooling arrangements. It is obvious that one pool might be conducted by the New South Wales board, which would handle 50 per cent, of the eggs exported, and that the Australian Egg Board would act as the pooling agent for the eggs of the other four States concerned. This arrangement was made, not because we liked it, but because it was the only way in which we could get reasonable agreement and act together. .1. point out to the Senate that under this orderly marketing arrangement the Australian Egg Board will have power to specify certain conditions that must be observed -by all exporters. If there were two pools in operation, there still would be co-operation in making shipping arrangements, fixing minimum prices to avoid cut-throat competition and appointing people to negotiate sales of eggs on the other side of the world. This policy has been adopted by the Australian Dried Fruits Board and, according to people in the industry, it has worked very efficiently.
I hope that honorable senators, when they are criticizing the old board, will remember that SO per cent, of the money received for the eggs handled by the board was derived from sales at contract prices and that only 20 per cent. wa3 derived from a risk that the board took. I do not want to say any more about that matter except that we cannot expect people to be 100 per cent, right all the time. We should realize that during a war, when there are shortages of every commodity, it is easy to negotiate sales because there are plenty of buyers and the seller can get the price he wants, but when there is a great surplus of a number of commodities, whoever is entrusted with the task of selling a particular commodity has a very much more difficult task. I hope, as does Senator McKenna, that under this arrangement we shall do better than we should do under chaotic and disorderly arrangements for marketing eggs overseas in the highly competitive conditions that we shall have to face for the next few years.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– If,- as the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has said, a State has the right to withdraw from the pool at any time and compete with the Australian Egg Board in the sale of eggs, we might as well throw the bill into the wastepaper basket. What could be more chaotic? We are apparently saying that we shall establish a board to sell eggs overseas, but if any State- thinks it can do better by acting alone, it will be permitted to withdraw. The whole thing is a waste of time.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
Silting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 8 p.m.
page 84
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
FIRsT Reading.
Motion (by Senator Spooner) proposed -
That the bill be now read a first time.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 84
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
– I move-
That the hill be now read a second time.
This measure appropriates an amount of £31,128,000 to enable Commonwealth works in progress at the 30th June, 1954, to be continued until the 1954-55 budget is passed by the Parliament. Programmes for capital works are in operation in the major Commonwealth departments, including the Department of Works, the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Department of Civil Aviation. To enable these programmes to be continued without interruption, funds must be available for the purchase of materials in advance, and also to ensure continuous employment on the many projects. The bill, therefore, provides for four months’ expenditure on works included in the expenditure programme of £94,998,000 provided for in the Capital Works Estimates 1953-54. In accordance with the usual practice in submitting a Supply Bill, no provision has been made for any new services.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 85
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 (pn motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 85
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
.- I move-
That the bill be now read a second time.
In addition to the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1953-54 for ordinary services an additional appropriation for capital works and services is also required. This bill will effect that appropriation.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 85
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Motion (by Senator Spooner) pro posed -
That the bill be now read a first time.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 85
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
– 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 1952-53 amounted to £106,436,000. The actual expenditure was £98,301,000, that is, £8,135,000 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 £1,035,415. 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 85
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to provide £40,000,000 out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of war pensions. It is necessary to submit a measure of this nature to the Parliament from time to time for the purpose of appropriating from revenue an amount for payment into a trust account, to enables pensions to be paid in accordance with such rates as are approved by the Parliament. The amount of £40,000,000 now requested will cover approximately a year’s expenditure at present rates. The bill has no relation whatsoever to the rates or conditions under which pensions are paid. It merely authorizes the provision of funds for the trust account from which war pensions are paid.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 86
Motion (by Senator Spooner) agreed to-
That the Senate, >it its rising, adjourn to Monday next, at :i p.m.
page 86
In do-China.
Motion (by Senator Spooner) proposed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
.It is with some trepidation that I detain the Senate now that the motion for its adjournment has been moved, but, in view of what is to happen within the next fortnight, I think that I should draw the attention of the Senate to a statement that was printed in the Canberra Times this morning under the name of various eminent citizens of Australia. This statement attempted to show that the movement in Indo-China with which the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) and others will be concerned is not a Communist movement but a nationalist movement, and, therefore, one with which we should not tamper. I suggest that the statement by these citizens is particularly dangerous. It contain? a very high proportion of truth, but it also contains a distinct proportion of untruth, and it has ignored yet other truths in order to reach a conclusion that is completely wrong. A professor, in drawing a conclusion of this sort, must make one think that he is neither objective nor possessed of scholarly approach to this matter. I should like to examine the statement before me because on the decision that we make on this question may depend the security of Australia, and on it may depend whether John Smith, an apprentice in Perth, or Bill Jones, who is at school in Melbourne, will be brought up in a totalitarian state or will be called upon to shed his blood in order to avert a totalitarian state. The first paragraph of this statement reads as follows : -
There is increasing evidence that the British Government as well sis the governments of the Asian members of the Commonwealth aru becoming deeply concerned about the recent developments in American policy towards Asia.
I have studied this matter in some detail and I do not believe that there is any indication that the British Government is in any way disturbed at American policy towards Indo-China. Every statement that has been made by spokesmen of the British Government, from Sir Winston Churchill to Anthony Eden, has emphasized and re-emphasized the importance to the whole British Commonwealth, and particularly to Malaya, of not allowing Indo-China go Communist. It is true that Nehru has called for a cease-fire. But this statement by expert? and scholars alleges that the British Government has evinced concern. Yet every statement that the British Government has made has shown that its only concern is to ensure that Indo-China does not fall under the control of the Communists. The statement continues : -
It is often forgotten that the Vietminh movement led by Ho Chi Min rose in Indo-Chinn long before the Communist government had come to power in China and was, in its original form, not a Communist but n nationalist movement, aiming at the total independence of the Vietminh from French rule.
That is the sort of statement that I have characterized as dangerous because it contains a great deal of truth.
– It is the truth.
– It is not. The Vietminh movement was composed of many nationalist movements in a part of Indo-China.
– It was not Communist.
– It was composed of many nationalist non-Communist movements, but it was not led by Ho Chi Min at that time he was leading the P.C.I, or Communist party of Indo-China. There were then numerous small independence movements in one part of Indo-China. The Vietminh movement was made up of them, but Ho Chi Min then had no connexion with it and it is misleading to say that the Vietminh movement, led by Ho Chi Min, arose in Indo-China long before the Communists came to power in China. On the other hand the Vietminh party - the present party - has been Communist since its inception in May, 1941, by Ho Chi Min and the central committee of the Communist party of Indo-China. The article goes on to say quite correctly that the Chinese Nationalist forces occupied the northern parts of Indo-China at the end of “World War II. That is perfectly true. But the statement as a whole is quite definitely not true. It said that the Chinese Nationalist troops occupied the northern part of Indo-China and the British, the southern part, and that the Nationalist Vietminh movement, led by Ho Chi Min, then representing nationalism in IndoChina, came to power. A total of 60,000 Chinese troops went into the north of Indo-China and put Ho Chi Min in power, but at no stage did he have any right to say that he was put there by the IndoChinese people as their representative. At this time, 1945, there had been a coagulation of the various genuine nationalist movements in Indo-China. The IndoChinese Communist party, known as the P.C.I., which was led by Ho Chi Min, came into this united front under its new name of Vietminh party. The leaders of the other parties were quite simply killed. Of important leaders the Communists only were left. They then led the Vietminh movement, but they were put into power by Chinese troops who occupied north Indo-China, and at no stage did those leaders attain their positions as a result of an expression of the will of the Indo-Chinese people. After that, the French returned to north Indo-China and recognized the de facto government of Ho Chi Min which had been installed by the Chinese. They signed a modus vivendi with him. Then in December, 1946, the Indo-Chinese rose under Ho Chi Min, the French were massacred and the war has gone on ever since.
But the last sentence of the statement to which I have referred is the one to which we should give most attention. It says that the Minister for External Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition in another place (Dr. Evatt) described the Vietminh movement as Communist, and the statement says that the description is not in accordance with the facts. It is important that we should ascertain whether or not it is in accordance with the facts because if there is only a nationalist movement in IndoChina then there is no reason in the world why we should be concerned with keeping the French there and stopping the nationalist movement from coming to power. But if there is a genuine Communist movement there, which is part of the world revolution, and which is told what to do by Russia or China, then that fact is of great significance to Australia. It is, perhaps, pertinent to consider the career of Ho Chi Min, who is supposed not to be a Communist. He was born in 1892. He went to France and became an associate of the left wing party, which was at that time the socialist party in France. He broke from the socialist party and proclaimed his Communist allegiance in 1920, and his career from then on was devoted to applying Stalinist theory to the people and the situation in Indo-China. He spent much time with other colonial peoples and founded an organization called the Inter-Colonial Union and became a newspaper editor. In 1923 he went to Russia as a representative of the French colonies at the International Peasants Congress and after the congress he remained in Moscow and studied at the University of the Toilers of the East. In 1925 he went to Canton and worked with Borodin, who went to China in order to bring about the first abortive Communist revolution. After Borodin had been sent out of China in 1927, Ho Chi Min returned once more to Russia. Then he went back to Siam and organized a Communist group amongst the Vietminh minority in Siam. Through the war years he returned to China in order to lead the Communist party in Indo-China.
I suggest that those facts indicate that whether the Vietminh movement in Indo-China is nationalist or not it is at least led and controlled by a man -who has gone through the mill of the Communist party from top to bottom, who has studied in Moscow and who is completely sold on the idea of the general Communist world revolution which is inculcated there. The career of the present Vietminh movement shows that his influence and that of his associates have completely dominated this movement and that it is not representative of nationalism, although there is in Indo-China strong nationalist and anti-French feeling.
There are many instances of the Vietminh openly proclaiming its complete subservience to the Communist bloc. On the 1st July, 1950, Ho Chi Min made a statement concerning celebrations for the anniversary of the Vietnam August revolution, in the course of which he stated that the revolution should be identified with the world revolution movement. From then on the Vietminh have followed the twists and turns of the party line. They changed their name to the ““Workers’ party”. In February, 1951, Ho Chi Min made a public statement in 5he following terms: -
The party recognizes that the Vietnam revolution is an integral part of the world revolution led by the Soviet Union.
Nor have they gone without recognition by those who lead the world revolution. The central committee of the Chinese Communist party, calling him “Dear Comrade Ho “, proclaimed that he guided the Indo-Chinese national revolution with great success along the lines of Marxism, and, on the 19th May, 1953, Moscow noted that this was the result of campaigns led by Ho ‘Chi Min and the Communist party of Indo-China.
– Has the honorable senator a copy of Bao Dai’s statement ?
– I am not concerned with Bao Dai. I am trying to show that Ho Chi Min is a Communist. Let the honorable senator attack Bao Dai, if he wishes to do so. My purpose is to bring out the truth concerning Ho Chi Min on the evidence available. That does not mean that I* have to support Bao Dai or any on.e else. On the evidence available before us there is no question whatever that for a professor or a number of professors to come to the conclusion that it is wrong for the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) or the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) to call this a Communist movement, is, to say the least, a completely non-objective and non-scholarly conclusion on the facts.
As I said at the beginning, it is of the greatest importance in the confused situation in Indo-China to know, at least, that there is nationalist feeling there and always has been, and there is also strong anti-French feeling and always has been, but this particular Vietminh insurgent movement is a Communist dominated movement, and is subservient to Moscow and to Communist China. If further evidence is needed to support that contention, and if any honorable senator still thinks that it is a nationalist movement, let me point out that recently, during the present fighting at Dienbienphu, two paratroop battalions were dropped to assist in keeping back from the perimeter of that beleaguered fortress the Vietminh forces. Both battalions were composed entirely of native Vietnam troops fighting against Communism and against the Vietminh. I have no doubt that those Vietnamese have no great liking for the French either, but they like communism even less. I take it they know what is going on in. their country. There arp. more defections from the Vietminhcontrolled area to the Vietnam-controlled area than there are defections in the opposite direction. There again, I suggest that those who live in that country realize which is the Communist movement and which is the nationalist one.
I know that this is a most confused and difficult situation. I have insufficient time to-night to debate the subject ,as I should like to debate it and to elaborate on the statement which was made to us to-day by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), who represents the Minister for External Affairs in this Chamber. I believe that there is quite a reasonable solution open to Indo-China, one which would do full justice to true nationalist sentiment. That solution does not lie in handing over to ruthless, organized Communist ride full control of that country. 1 suggest that the statement to which I have referred, by saying that this insurgent group is not Communist eontrolled, could lead the people of Australia to think that that is the solution.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 89
The following papers were presented: -
Report by the National Security Resources Board on Defence and Development, 1950- 1953.
Bankruptcy Act - Twenty-fifth Annua) Report by the Attorney-General, for year ended 31st July, 1953.
Broadcasting Act - Australian Broadcasting Control Board - Fifth Annual Report, for year 1952-1953.
Lands Acquisition Act - Laud, &c, acquired for Postal purposes - Mount Eliza, Victoria.
Life Insurance Act - Eighth Annual Report of the Insurance Commissioner, for year 1953.
Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of Civil Aviation-J. B. .Davies.
Senate adjourned at 8.35 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 April 1954, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1954/19540408_senate_20_s3/>.