21st Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. A. II. McMullin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1213
-Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform the Senate whether the Australian Shipping Board is commissioning the 10,000-ton bulk carrier Timbarra in the United Kingdom? Will the vessel travel from Blyth in England to Yampi Sound in Western Australia in ballast? Is it correct to say that Timbarra will be making a voyage nearly halfway around the world in ballast because the Menzies Government desires to avoid interference and competition with the monopolistic British and overseas shipping companies, whose ships are arriving at Australian ports fully laden with cargo? Will the Government ensure that the other three vessels to be delivered to the Australian Shipping Board from British yards will carry cargo to this country, instead of ballast?
– The vessel Timbarra will be leaving the United Kingdom shortly to engage in the iron ore trade on the Australian coast. I have’ not been advised by the management that it will have to travel in ballast because it has been unable to get cargo, although that could be possible, in view of the unfortunate dockers’ strike in England. In view of the fact that it costs from £500 to £1,000 a day to keep a crew on board’ an idle ship, it would be better for the vessel to proceed in ballast rather than wait for the dockers to get on with the job. Cargoes have already been booked for the other three ships to be delivered to the Australian Shipping Board. I am pleased to be able to say that cargo has been booked for some time for the 1,600 tons dead weight vessel which is expected to alleviate the shipping position in relation to Tasmania. I assure the Senate that the board’s efficient manager, Mr. Dewey, would not authorize a vessel for delivery to the board to come from England in ballast when cargo was available if he considered that it would be cheaper to wait for the British maritime strike to end. The Australian Shipping Board is not associated with conference lines or with any independent line. It has kept perfectly free from association with any other organizations. In view of Senator Ashley’s accomplishments, when he was in control of the Commonwealth shipping line, compared with Mr. Dewey’s accomplishments, I am sure that the Senate will have more faith in Mr. Dewey than in Senator Ashley.
– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether it is not a fact that the improvement, financially and otherwise, in the Commonwealth shipping line is due to the management of Mr. Dewey. Is it not also correct that Mr. Dewey was brought to Australia by a Labour Government at ray instigation ?
– Senator Ashley’s suggestions are right in some respects. Se did arrange for Mr. Dewey to come to Australia and that was a good arrangement. But when Mr. Dewey arrived in Australia the shipping legislation had not been proclaimed and Mr. Dewey was like a shag on a rock without a job. Tha Government honoured the contract, and Mr. Dewey has done a first-class job. However, he does npt take all the credit. When Senator Ashley moved out and I moved in, we changed from socialism to private enterprise^ and that is the main reason for the improvement.
On the 27th October, Senator Laught asked a question concerning the export of Holden cars to New Zealand through the port of Adelaide. I have made some inquiries into the matter, and I have been advised that Holden cars to be shipped to New Zealand will come from the current production in South Australia., Victoria and New South Wales. The proportion that will come from each State each month will be dependent, to some degree, on the -effect on the current local market of the ready availability of shipping at the ports of Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. Although the cost of assembling a complete car in Adelaide is lower than in Melbourne or Sydney, any saving in respect of cars shipped from Adelaide to New Zealand is offset by higher freight charges for the longer distance than from Sydney and Melbourne, and by higher port charges in Adelaide, where port charges are £2 6s. 6d. a car, compared with 8s. 6d. in Sydney and nil in Melbourne.
– I preface a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport by reminding him of the vital importance of an adequate shipping service to Tasmania. The volume of shipping traffic to that State is increasing annually. The Commonwealth is paying an annual subsidy of £125,000 to maintain the Bass Strait service from Melbourne to Launceston, which is equivalent to £1,250,000 over ten years. The fouryealry survey due next year might involve the Commonwealth in the payment of £200,000. Therefore, the total expenditure on this service over a ten-year period might be about £1,750,000. In these circumstances, will the Government consider expending that amount of money, within the next two years, on the purchase of a fast, modern passenger steamer of from 5,000 to 6,000 tons register, which would be capable of carrying, besides passengers, 100 motor cars and a minimum of 300 tons of other cargo ? Such a vessel, if oil-fired, or equipped with diesel engines, and having a minimum speed of 20 knots, thus enabling completion of the voyage from Melbourne to Launceston in thirteen hours, would cost about £1,750,000. If the Government decides to adopt my suggestion, will it make arrangements, after the vessel has been built, to charter it to a regular shipping company, to be run on efficient business lines, and so provide the ultimate of service to the island State)
– Approaches have been made to certain snipping companies to see whether they would he interested in the purchase of a modern steamer for the Melbourne to Launceston run. However, I am sorry to say that the companies that are engaged in the passenger service on the Australian coast are finding it difficult, owing to high costa, to earn a profit from those services. The cost of construction of new ships is very high, and the occurrence of strikes on the waterfront has made the position very difficult indeed. In view of the interesting aspects of the matter raised by Senator Wardlaw, I suggest that he place his question on the noticepaper so that I may examine it fully and furnish him with a considered reply.
page 1215
– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture been drawn to statements made by leaders of primary producers’ organizations, both through the press and at conferences held throughout the country, as to the wisdom of producing more food than can be sold at a profit, and questioning whether the policy of expansion, particularly in the grape-growing industry, is warranted in view of the present outlook for both overseas and local markets? I ask the Minister whether the Government is taking appropriate and definite action to reduce costs in primary industry, and if so what action is being, taken? Is the Government doing all that is possible in conjunction with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in surveying the possibilities for improving the quality and presentation of all primary products, particularly those for export, so that they will be able to compete on the best possible basis with competitors overseas?
– The honorable senator’s question is very involved but as it is important, if he puts it on the noticepaper I shall have a considered reply prepared for him. The Senate can be assured that the Government is doing all that it can to keep costs down.
– It is not having much success.
– It is not getting much support from those who are helping the Communists^
page 1215
– A week or two ago, I asked the Attorney-General a question concerning the conditions of entry of
Australians into Asiatic countries. I now ask whether the Attorney-General has made the inquiries that he promised to make and when I shall receive an answer to my question.
– The honorable senator’s question was in very broad terms. A considerable amount of inquiry may be necessary in order to supply the information for which he asked. I shall find out how the matter is proceeding and let the honorable senator know.
page 1215
– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture state whether any research is being carried out by any Commonwealth organization with regard to the use of skim milk in bread making processes ?
– A certain amount of work has been done in that direction. Bakers and others have reported very favourably on the process. I cannot give the honorable senator full information on the subject now, but as the matter is of importance I shall obtain a detailed reply for him.
page 1215
– At the University of Michigan in the United States of America, an extensive scientific study is being made of the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine, and the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis has announced plans to purchase enough vaccine to provide free immunization for approximately 9,000,000 children and expectant mothers. In view of this rather encouraging pointer to the efficacy of the vaccine, can the Minister representing the Minister for Health say what is being done by the Commonwealth health authorities to tes the vaccine under Australian conditions?
– A killed poliomyelitis virus vaccine is being produced at a number of institutions in North America, following upon the development of the vaccine by Salk at the University of Pittsburgh, using living tissue culture methods. The most recent advice on the results of field trials of the vaccine are encouraging. A senior medical officer of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has been working under Salk at Pittsburgh for the past two years, and has been actively associated with the techniques of mass producing the vaccine. Prior to his return to Australia he will have gained complete and up-to-date knowledge and experience of the work in North America. An initial sum of £50,000 has been placed on the Estimates for initial work on the production of the vaccine.
page 1216
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation seen in the 20th annual report of Qantas Empire Airways a picture of a scale model of the new city office to be erected in Sydney? As the Commonwealth has a contingent liability as the owner of Qantas shares, will the Minister consider referring the proposal to erect this building to the Public Works Committee before work on it is started? In the course of the committee’s inquiry into the proposed erection of Commonwealth offices on the extension of Elizabeth-street, this matter was mentioned in evidence.
– This matter comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Civil Aviation and I shall take the first opportunity to place the honorable senator’s question before him.
page 1216
– I am informed that the Brisbane City Council is experiencing difficulty in procuring dollars to purchase much-needed machinery from the United States of America. Does the Minister for National Development know anything about this matter ? Is there any possibility of the council obtaining the dollars that it requires?
– I have no knowledge of an application for dollars by the Brisbane City Council, but that does not mean that no such application has been made. Each month, an organization which represents the various departments meets to consider all applications for dollar currency, and to make recommendations to Ministers on those applications. If the honorable senator will see me when the Senate rises, I shall show him a list, which I have, of the last recommendations made bv the dollar com mittee, and I shall then be able to tell him fairly promptly whether an application is pending, and whether or not it has been agreed to.
page 1216
– Is the Minister representing the Minister Acting for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture aware that wheat farmers’ organizations in various parts of Australia are eager to obtain an initial payment of 10s. a bushel on the 1954-55 crop? Can he inform the Senate whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt the practice which has been followed in connexion with previous crops and make an initial payment on the incoming crop and, if so, what amount will be paid?
– Representations already have been made, and some requests have been received, for the payment of a higher amount. The matter is now under active consideration and 1 hope, within a week or so, to be in a position to give, a decision concerning the amount of the first advance.
page 1216
– On the 28th October, Senator Tangney asked the following question: -
Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the great success that has attended the war on tuberculosis that was initiated by the Chifley Labour Government in 1948, when the present leader of the Opposition in the Senate was Minister for Health and appointed Dr. W. H. Wunderly as Director of the Division of Tuberculosis in the Department of Health? That policy has been continued by the present Government. In view of the great improvement in national health that has followed the properly co-ordinated attack on tuberculosis, will the Minister consider taking similar action with regard to cancer, with the object of co-ordinating the activities that are being carried on at present in various parts of Australia to check that painful and dread disease?
The Minister for Health has now furnished the following information: -
Federal Cabinet recently decided to convene a conference on cancer. The object of the conference will be to examine the state of development of existing organizations against cancer and consider in what fields of anticancer activity joint action by State bodies will advance the effectiveness of this work.
The conference will be attended by leading professional and scientific persons fully conversant with and personally engaged in anticancer activity. State Ministers for Health have been asked to nominate representatives.
page 1217
– Does the Minister for National Development know that there is a serious shortage of baling wire for use in Queensland lucerne fields? As it is imperative for lucerne-growers to make hay while the sun shines, so to speak, or sustain very heavy loss, can the Minister give me any helpfi.il information on this subject for transmission to the lucerne growers of Queensland?
– .The honorable senator was good enough to tell me that he intended to ask that question. So far as local manufacture is concerned, the Australian Government has no power to influence manufacturers to vary their production programmes. However, I am informed that local production of baling wire is carried on throughout the year to meet a seasonal demand. Users are expected to buy their requirements throughout the year, and to stockpile. During the season, the rate of production of baling wire is increased only slightly. Because the capacity of installations in Australia is inadequate in relation to the total demand for wire, it is not possible to increase the production rate significantly without detrimentally affecting the users of other kinds of wire. Wire manufacturers try to keep a balanced production programme for the various kinds of wire, and production of baling wire is at capacity according to that programme. The demand is in excess of supply. Orders are taking four to six months to deliver. Local production is being supplemented by imports from both dollar and nondollar sources. However, baling wire is in short supply throughout the world, due mainly to a shortage of wire rods.
page 1217
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services been informed of the fact that in South Australia, public support for the supply of Christmas cheer to age pensioners is being sought? If so, will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government will assist that worthy project by a subsidy, or by some other means? If the Government is not prepared to help all pensioners with a Christmas gesture, will it consider some assistance for invalid pensioners who are unable to acquire any income apart from their pensions because of their physical disabilities ?
– This matter has arisen before each Christmas period, not only during the life of this Government, but also when previous governments were in office. All governments have made an appropriation to assist pensioners by means of regular payments throughout the year, and not for special occasions.
page 1217
– Is the Minister acting for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture able to give the ‘ Senate now, or before the end of the sessional period, details of results that have been achieved, if any, by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in his efforts to secure better markets overseas for Australia’s export products, particularly for South Australian dried fruits and wines ?
– I shall consider the matter that has been raised by the honorable senator, and if any fresh information is available, I shall be pleased to furnish him with a detailed reply next week.
page 1217
– Has the AttorneyGeneral read the annual report of the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in which His Honour made a further complaining reference to the accommodation provided for the court in Melbourne? In his report, the learned Chief Judge said, “ I plead for expedition “. Will the Attorney-General inform the Senate what stage in the construction of the new court building has been reached?
– The matter has gone beyond the stage of consideration, and plans have been drawn. I should have thought that active work in the construction of the building would have been undertaken soon. I cannot tell the honorable senator offhand at what date the work is likely to be started, but to the best of my recollection, it was contemplated that the building would be ready foi’- occupation before the end of next year.
– .Has a contract been let, or is it a matter for the Department of Works and Housing?
– I cannot tell the honorable senator that offhand.
page 1218
– About six weeks ago, I placed on the notice-paper a relatively simple question with regard to the allocation of petrol supplies throughout Australia. Will the acting Leader of the Government in the Senate inform me whether there is any possibility of obtaining an answer before the Senate goes into recess at the end of the sessional period?
– That matter comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister for National Development.
page 1218
– Will the Minister tor Shipping and Transport say whether the Government is prepared to convene a round table conference with the Australian Council of Trades Unions and officials of the Waterside Workers Federation, in an attempt to bring to an end the present lamentable upheaval on the waterfront? If the present state of affairs continues, grave hardship and inconvenience will be caused to the people of Australia. In many instances in the past, industrial disputation has been terminated by negotiation only after the people have endured suffering and misery. I therefore ask the Government to take that step immediately.
– As Senator Ashley knows, the matter to which he ha-s referred comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Labour and National Service.. Mr. Holt has conferred with Mr. Healy and representatives of the Australian Council of Trades Unions on several occasions about the matter, as recently as last week. I think it is generally agreed that the representatives of the Australian Council of Trades Unions and Mr. Holt have done quite a lot to improve employer-employee relations on the waterfront, but the same cannot be said of Mr. Healy, who controls the waterside workers. I have had conferences with Mr. Healy time and again, and I say, quite frankly, that it is a waste of time to engage in a conference with a Communist. It does not matter what one is prepared to give him, or what he promises, the result is always the same. The late Mr. Chifley, when Prime Minister of this country, appointed Mr. Healy to the Stevedoring Industry Commission, and subsequently had the painful task of removing him from office.
– I removed him - not Mr. Chifley!
– If Senator Ashley removed Mr. Healy from office, I cannot understand why he always supports him. I do not think we will ever get peace on the waterfront until we get rid of Mr. Healy and Communist control from that industry.
page 1218
– I lay on the table the following paper: -
Statement by Mr. E. G. Casey, Minister for External Affairs, on Dutch New Guinea, Disarmament, Colombo Plan, and the European situation, dated 2nd November, 1!)54. and move -
That the paper be printed.
Debate (on motion by Senator MCKENNA) adjourned.
page 1218
– I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee : -
page 1218
In committee: Consideration resumedfrom the 2nd November (vide page 1163);.
Clause 13- (1.) The Board may, for the purposes <>t the export of wheat and wheat products from
Australia, the interstate marketing of wheat and the marketing of wheat in the Territories of the Commonwealth, or for the purposes of, or purposes incidental to, an international agreement to which Australia is a party . . . (2.) The Minister may give directions to the Board concerning the performance ofits functions and the exercise of its powers, and the Board shall comply with those directions.
Upon which Senator Seward had moved by way of amendment -
That, after sub-clause (2.), the following new sub-clause be inserted : - “ (2a.) In the event of any Ministerial direction being given to the Australian Wheat Board for withholding or forcing sales, any financial loss thereby incurred to growers, as determined by the Board, shall be borne by the Treasury.”.
– As the amendment that I have moved was not framed in sufficiently legal language I ask leave of the Senate to withdraw it and substitute another motion.
Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.
– I move -
That, at the end. of sub-clause (2.), the following words be added: - “, but no such direction shall require the Board to sell wheat -
in the case of a sale for consumption in Australia - at a price less than the highest price at which the Board could sell the wheat for human consumption in Australia at the date of the direction; or
in the case of a sale for export, other than a sale for the purposes of an International Wheat Agreement - at a price less than a price equivalent to export parity.”.
In moving this amendment I want to say that I fully appreciate the benefit that is being offered to wheatgrowers by the introduction of this stabilization plan. I have already congratulated the Government and the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) on this measure, and I do so again. I have great confidence in the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and in the Minister acting for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Senator McLeay). It is because I am opposed to the inclusion in a bill of this kind of a provision for a Minister to give directions to a board, no matter what government may be in power, that I have moved this amendment. The bill gives the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture the right to give directions to the Australian Wheat Board, the members of which, in the past, have been elected by those engaged in the industry. The function of the board is to acquire and sell wheat. That is a duty which only a board that is closely allied with the industry, and which is aware of all the details affecting marketing can perform. The board has knowledge which the Minister could only have if the board itself supplied it to him. Consequently, I do not understand why the Minister should have power to interfere with the operations of the board. The bill provides the Minister with power to give the board directions in respect of matters other than that dealt with in my amendment. I have not sought to take that other power out of his hands although I could not imagine that any responsible body of men would fail to carry out the instructions of the Minister in connexion with such matters. However, those matters are entirely different from the matter to which my amendment relates. The amendment refers only to the power of the Minister to interfere with the sale of wheat in Australia or abroad.
I have made an exception of wheat sold under the International Wheat Agreement. Under that agreement, wheat must be sold at a certain agreed price, and it would not be right for the board to insist upon receiving a price higher than that for which the agreement provided. Consequently, it is only the wheat remaining from each crop after wheat has been supplied under the International Wheat Agreement that would be affected by the amendment. I regard boards such as the Australian/Wheat Board as trustees for the growers. I cannot see any reason why a third party should have the right to interfere with the duties of such trustees, who are bound by law to obtain the best price that they can for the growers, subject to such arrangements as those existing under the Internationa] Wheat Agreement. I hope that my proposed amendment will appeal to honorable senators because it conforms with Australian Country party policy. I regret that the Minister for Commerce and
Agriculture is absent from Australia at present because I should like to have had the benefit of discussing the matter with him. The Australian “Wheat Growers Federation is strongly against the inclusion in the bill of provisions for the Minister to give directions to the board. Therefore I submit this amendment.
11.43]. - Since the Senate last met 1 have had the proposals of Senator Seward closely examined and have conferred with the Government concerning them. The Government is not prepared to accept the proposed amendment. The negotiations preparatory to the introduction of this stabilization scheme have been proceeding for many months and a considerable amount of work and effort has been expended on the consideration of various schemes. As honorable senators know, it was possible only recently for all the governments concerned to agree on this matter. Seven complementary bills have now been drafted for introduction into the six State parliaments and this Parliament. I have been advised by the Parliamentary Draftsman that the provision that the Minister shall have power to give directions to the board is contained in the State bills and has the approval of the .State Ministers concerned. This stabilization scheme has been accepted almost unanimously by the wheatgrowers, and at this stage I should not like to strike a discordant note which might postpone the introduction of such an important scheme. Whilst, in the light of past experiences, there may be merit in Senator Seward’s proposal, the responsibility rests on the Minister. The Minister is responsible to the Government, and the Government i3 responsible to the people. The Commonwealth is accepting a very large responsibility, and is looking to the taxpayers to stand behind it. Over a period of five years, the Commonwealth will guarantee 1,000,000 bushels of wheat for export each year at a price equal to the cost of production which, to-day, is 12s. 7d. per bushel. World prices are falling, and a future government may be called upon to look to the Treasury for a substantial sum to honour its obligations. The Commonwealth is taking a real risk on behalf of the wheat growers of Australia. So, having regard to the fact that the complementary legislation has been approved unanimously by the six State parliaments, I appeal to honorable senators to reject the amendment, This legislation may not be perfect, but it has the support of the great majority of the wheat-growers. If the Committee were to agree to the amendment, the bill would be returned to the House of Representatives, and the amendment would be rejected. The delay thus caused might prejudice the entire scheme. That would be disastrous after so much effort and energy has been put into a solution of the problem of giving the wheat industry stability in the next five years. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
– I support the amendment. I appreciate the remarks of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) in urging us to reject the amendment for the reasons that he has given. I think I am right in saying that, his argument, briefly, is that an agreement has been reached between the Commonwealth and the States, and that any attempt to alter that agreement now would cause delay and might even prejudice the entire scheme. I find it most difficult to accept that argument. For the life of me I cannot see how this matter affects the rights of the States in any way. It is reasonable to assume that the States would immediately agree to this amendment. Senator Seward’s proposal relates entirely to the Australian Government’s responsibility. It does not concern the State Governments. Therefore to suggest that acceptance of the amendment by this Parliament would in some way endanger the whole scheme is, I suggest, an exaggeration. If I thought that the position were as the Minister has stated it to be, I could not and would not support the amendment. But I do not believe for a moment that the amendment would prejudice the plan in any respect. It might delay the passage of the legislation by this Parliament for a day or two, but that would not be a big price to pay for the principles involved in the amendment.
I should like to make one or two brief observations on these principles. I agree entirely that there should be some overriding ministerial control of the disposal of wheat. Where there is a potential public liability, it is fair and proper that there should be ministerial control. I agree with that proposition entirely; but I also insist that there should be some responsibility attached to ministerial actions relating to that control. I insist that a Minister should not be entitled to act irresponsibly. The absolute control given to the Minister under clause 13 as it now stands would, in certain circumstances, permit a Minister to act irresponsibly. I have vivid recollections of a ministerial act, not very long ago, which may have cost the wheat-growers of Australia about £7,000,000. I refer to the agreement for the sale of wheat to New Zealand. I think I am right in saying that Senator Seward’s amendment is designed entirely to prevent such an irresponsible act being committed in future. Finally I make this observation: The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) who was acting for the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), said during his second-reading speech, or perhaps early in the committee stage, that in the event of a sale of wheat by ministerial direction at a price below the figure that could be obtained by the Wheat Board, the Government would make up the difference. I think that was the broad proposition stated by the Minister. If that is so, and that is the Government’s view, as I sincerely hope it is, what objection, apart from that mentioned by the Minister for Shipping and Transport, can there be to incorporating such a proposition in the bill? It would, I suggest, prevent any possibility of a Minister irresponsibly denying to the wheat-growers of Australia, their lawful entitlement.
– I should like to state the Opposition’s view of the amendment. When the matter was last before the committee we were dealing with clause 13, and the proceedings were adjourned to enable full consideration to be given to Senator Seward’s original amendment. That amendment, as honorable senators are aware, was directed to ensuring that if as the result of a ministerial direction, a loss was suffered, the Commonwealth should make good that loss. There were drafting and other difficulties. The amendment was submitted for consideration to the Australian Labour party during the week. That amendment was not directed at cutting down the absolute power of the Minister given in sub-clause (2) of clause 13. It merely provided that if a ministerial direction caused a loss, certain financial consequences should be borne by the Commonwealth. The completely unimpaired and unfettered discretion of the Minister would remain. However, the amendment now before the Chair does attack the principle of unfettered discretion. In short, the provisions of sub-clause (2) are to be cut down by two specific delimitations on the exercise of power. The Labour party believes that there should be complete power in the Minister in a matter of this kind. We regard it as a reserve power; a power to be exercised rarely, and in fact it has been exercised rarely, I understand, by successive governments. But the power must be there to meet particular situations. Nobody can envisage the circumstances that may arise from time to time. I think everybody in the Parliament must assume that a Minister of the Crown will act responsibly. I agree entirely with the statement of the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator McLeay), that democracy works on the principle of parliamentary responsibility, and of ultimate responsibility to the people. The Australian Labour party subscribes to that principle. The sanction on a wrong use of that power is, of course, the political sanction enforced by the electorate. We, of the Opposition, consider that the power which resides in the Minister should not be impaired. We agree that it should be rarely exercised, and we think that it will be exercised only in case of emergency or other extraordinary circumstances. On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate that we could not support such an amendment.
– Does the honorable senator intend to indicate to us his view concerning the compensatory proposal?
– I have not done so during the course of this speech.
– I was hoping that the honorable senator would do so.
– I have no objection to doing that. The first amendment moved by Senator Seward had admitted defects of drafting, but the Opposition considered the principle involved, and it was decided to oppose that principle. There is not much virtue in developing an argument regarding that matter now, but I make the comment that, if the Minister gave a direction which resulted in loss to the Treasury, it would be reasonable to ask, if he also gave a direction that resulted in gain, that there should be, at least, some relief to the Treasury. I recognize that a trustee has interposed in the matter, but the form of relief in the latter circumstance to which I have referred, might well be that the amount of the gain should go into the stabilization fund and thus lessen the liability, under guarantee, by the Commonwealth. The terms in which the original amendment was framed provided for only one-way traffic.
– The amendment which is now before the committee i3 different.
– An entirely different principle is involved. I have embarked on a dissertation concerning the view of the Opposition on the original amendment only because Senator Wright asked me to do so. In relation to the second amendment, we consider that the absolute power of the Minister would be cut down, and we should object to that. We, of the Labour party, have always firmly believed in ministerial responsibility to the Parliament, and through the Parliament, to the people. We rely on the political sanction entirely. I think that that is the proper safeguard against an erroneous act by the Minister. In that respect, we subscribe to the view which has been stated by the Acting Leader of the Government, and we shall vote against the amendment proposed by Senator Seward.
– I regret very much that I find myself in opposition to the Government’s point of view in respect of this important principle. I propose to support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Seward. The amendment provides, very clearly, that no ministerial direction shall require the board to sell wheat, in the case of sale for consumption in Australia, at a price which is less than the highest price at which the board could sell wheat for home consumption in Australia at the date of the direction. I cannot see how any honorable senator reasonably could oppose such an excellent principle. Why should the wheat-grower leave himself open to a governmental direction that he should sell wheat, for home consumption in Australia, for less than the board could obtain for it? There is a very important principle involved in that part of the amendment. In recent years, since the rise of the Australian Labour party to power in the Commonwealth sphere, and also in the States, inroads have been made into the sound and businesslike marketing of primary products. In Queensland, for example, at the present moment the Labour Government of that State is wrestling with the problem of meat supplies for the Brisbane market. The whole core of the trouble is that that Government wishes, by means of prices control, to force graziers to sell their meat for less than they could obtain for it on the markets of New South Wales and Victoria. The Queeusland beef and mutton producers find themselves, therefore, in the midst of a struggle with the socialist government of the State on this very principle.
During the last four or five years, there has been constant trouble with the Queensland onion-growers, because the Government of the State has tried to force the growers to sell their onions in Queensland at a much lower price than they could procure for them across the border in New South Wales. Without having any legal knowledge of the subject, I believe that to be a very definite violation of section 92 of the Constitution. The Queensland Government wants to obtain the onions at its price, not the price that the growers think should apply. Primary producers have to meet high costs, and I contend that they are entitled to the highest prices that are available for their products. If a fair and equitable system is to operate, the people who live in Queensland must be prepared to pay the prices which people in other States of the Commonwealth are prepared to pay for Queensland meat, onions and other primary products. Nevertheless, that assault on the primary producers of Queensland has continued. As a matter of fact, when the late Mr. Hanlon was Premier of Queensland, he advocated strongly-
– I rise to order. Bow does Senator Maher propose to connect his remarks about onions, the late Mr. Hanlon, and .the administration of the Queensland Government, with the amendment which is now before the committee?
– Order! Senator Maher may continue.
– I am merely pointing out that precisely the same principle is involved in the amendment before the committee as that which is . involved in the actions of the Queensland Government, to which I have referred. I am attempting to illustrate the difficulties which we are up against, in Queensland, because of the attacks which have been made, by means of prices control, on the price structure of primary products. In order to illustrate that trend, I point out that when the late Mr. Hanlon was Premier of Queensland, he advocated-
– Order ! I cannot allow the honorable senator to proceed indefinitely along those lines.
– I think that I am entitled to show that these things are happening, and that the purpose of this amendment is to avoid such happenings. The part of the amendment of which I have been speaking seeks to protect wheatgrowers against the kind of action that has been taken by the Queensland Government and, I have no doubt, also by the governments of other States. As Senator Seward and Senator Vincent have pointed out, a previous Labour government went over the head of the Australian Wheat Board and, without consulting the chairman of the board or any member of it, disposed of wheat to the Government of New Zealand at a price which, from memory, was either 3s. 5d. or 3s. 8d. a bushel less than the world parity price. The fact that a payment of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 subsequently was made from Consolidated Revenue to compensate the wheat-growers does not get over the fact that the government of the day did that injustice to the Australian Wheat Board and the wheat-growers. It was only when representations’ were made to the late Mr. Chifley, who had a sense of justice and who asked for an inquiry, that it was decided to reimburse the board the amount represented by the difference in price. That shows that these things have been done, and I suggest that it is reasonable to suppose that they will be done again. I think that the primary producer is entitled to protection in that respect. The policy of the Australian Country party, to which I belong, is to support the fundamental principle of control by the producers of their products. They should have unfettered discretion in the sale of their products. I support very strongly the main principle of the bill which is the stabilization of the wheat industry. It is an important contribution to the success of the industry and I value it highly. I have no fears that this Government will exercise the power of ministerial direction unwisely. I have complete confidence in the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen), who is a tremendous figure in the political and primary production fields of Australia, but if the bill is not amended, we shall write into the measure something that will stand. Sooner or later, there will be a change of government, and I fear the kind of man the Australian Labour party produces who claims the right to take the products of the men on the land and sell them at any price, irrespective of the rates offering on home and overseas markets. The primary producers are entitled to protection. This matter becomes a fundamental one to me. It involves an important principle of the political party that I support. That principle is at stake, and I propose to support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Seward.
– I support the amendment because it embraces a principle in which I have always believed. I do not agree with unfettered powers for a Minister to dispose of the products of other persons. That power could be used in a manner prejudicial to the rights of those who produce the goods, and it is inherent in the measure in its present form. I have in mind a transaction that was completed a few years ago when under a Labour government, the products of the producers were sold at rates far below world parity. I have every confidence in the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen). I do not believe that he would embark on a proposition similar to that to which I have referred. I believe that the amendment should be adopted, however, because under the bill as it is framed, it would be possible for another Minister in another government to take advantage of the legislation in its unamended form. I admit that there is nothing to prevent a future government from amending the legislation to conform to its own policy. But if this proposed amendment were included, it would be a temporary impediment to a socialist Minister, who would have to remove it before he could act. have to take steps to remove from the legislation the amendment that it is now proposed to insert. I have listened with close attention to the statements of the Minister for Shipping and Transport Senator McLea.y). I agree with Senator Vincent that the Minister’s statement with regard to the effect on the States of an alteration of the responsibility that is to be imposed on the States is not a valid one. As his main case seems to rest on that point, I do not accept the Minister’s argument, and I support the amendment.
– Previous speakers in this debate have supported the amendment on a matter of principle. I oppose it on principle. Honorable senators have been elected to safeguard the interests of the people, and they have no right to delegate their powers to any commission, board or other outside body. The supporters of the amendment seek to give plenary power to the Australian Wheat Board. They would deprive the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture of his overriding power. They have claimed that they have every confidence in the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen). They have a peculiar way of showing their confidence, because they are not prepared to give him control over the board. Honorable senators who support the amendment consider that the board should have supreme control. As Senator Maher has said, the policy of the Australian Country party is to retain supreme control for producers over their products regardless of Ministers.
– The honorable senator likes to have supreme control over his salary every fortnight.
– I have merely repeated the assertions of Senator Maher. In effect, honorable senators who’ support the amendment have said that if there is to be any trouble about wheat, they do not want to be in it. They want to hand the whole problem over to an outside body. They are shirking their responsibilities. There is a huge surplus of wheat in the United States of America and Canada. If Canada had not called the bluff of the United States, a price war over wheat would have started months ago. Canada told the United States that it would not enter into a price war, but if the United States reduced the price of wheat, Canada would match it. That action by Canada prevented the unloading of a large quantity of wheat on world markets at low prices. A price war could develop at any time. Honorable senators have adopted the view that even if a price war should develop overseas and markets collapsed, they should receive a fixed price for wheat consumed in Australia. There might be 100,000,000 bushels of surplus wheat in Australia after home-consumption demands have been met. If some of that wheat could be sold below the home-consumption price, the Australian Wheat Board would be debarred from selling it. The surplus wheat would have to be left in the silos.
We must have elasticity when we are competing on world markets. As the Auditor-General’ has stated in his report, when there is a surplus., equipment has been sold for much less than it cost. That happened in the case of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission. If there is a surplus of any product in Australia beyond the needs of home consumption, attention must be focused on the overseas markets. Would honorable senators on the Government side permit other countries with a surplus to undercut Australia and get something for their products? Would they leave wheat in the silos in Australia to rot or be eaten by weevils? The honorable senators who have supported the amendment have proved that they do not trust the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. If they did, they would not move an amendment of this nature. Any honorable senator who desires to hand over powers to a board or commission that is not responsible to the Government or the Minister is shirking his responsibility. If a Minister is not prepared to accept overriding responsibility, he should not offer himself for election.
– I support the amendment, not because it gives me any satisfaction to oppose the Government, but because a vital principle is involved. I think that the amendment is perfectly reasonable in all respects. As the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) said in his second-reading speech, negotiations proceeded over a long time to bring about a stabilization scheme. It is pleasing that agreement has been reached between the Commonwealth and the State governments in the matter.
– It is not easy to obtain such agreement.
– It was not easy to obtain. However, despite that fact, I do not think, in view of the principle that is involved in the amendment, that some members of the State parliaments will be altogether happy about supporting their Ministers for Agriculture unless the amendment is incorporated in our legislation. Its acceptance would make the proposed complementary State legislation more acceptable to some members of the State parliaments. I am sure that it would ensure overwhelming support for the legislation in the South Australian Parliament, some members of which firmly believe in the principle of the board having freedom to sell wheat on conditions that are most advantageous to the growers. I do not, for a moment, think that the bill before the Senate will not be passed. It was ridiculous for Senator Aylett to say that we do not trust the Minister. We do not want to see a recurrence of what has happened in the past. I do not think there is anything in the amendment to which anybody can take exception. Some honorable senators have directed their attention to the over-riding power of the Minister in relation to the wheat industry, and the acceptance by the Government of a contingent liability. I cannot see that the amendment increases the Government’s liability in connexion with the stabilization scheme. It provides for the addition, after sub-clause (1.) of the following words: - but no such direction shall require the Board to sell wheat -
in the case of a sale for consumption in Australia - at a price less than the highest price at which the Board could sell the wheat for human consumption in Australia at’ the date of the direction; or
That is the exception - at a price less than a price equivalent to export parity.
The amendment simply stipulates what is fair and reasonable. I cannot understand the reluctance of the Government to accept the amendment, because it ensures that a Minister shall not have power to interfere with, or over-ride a decision of the board. AsWe know,Both the Government and the growers have representatives on the board, which, therefore, acts for both in connexion with the disposal of wheat. The growers, who are chiefly concerned in this matter, expect the board to make sales at the best possible prices. I am sure that the majority of the growers would hail the acceptance of the amendment with pleasure.
– It is important for us to bear in mind that this scheme provides not only for realization, but also for the stabilization of wheat prices. If we were dealing only with realization, and this was merely a scheme for orderly marketing, there would be quite a lot to be said for the proposition that the
Australian Wheat Board should sell all wheat at the best possible prices obtainable, and that if it departed from that principle the wheat-growers should not incur losses. But, in addition to the marketing problems, with which the board is concerned, the scheme is backed by a government guarantee. As a result, the wheat-grower is assured, to a very considerable degree, of a relatively stable price for his product over the next five years. Having regard to the tremendous liability involved, it seems to me that there should remain with the Government a reserve power - it is only a reserve power - to exercise some supervision in relation to the activities of the board.
– That is common sense.
– That seems to me to be the fundamental principle involved. I suggest to Senator Seward that his amendment is not cast in a form in which it can find a suitable place in the legislation, and that it must, therefore, lead to a great deal of disputation and delay. In the first place, the amendment provides, in the case of a sale for consumption in Australia, that a ministerial direction shall not require the board to sell wheat at a price less than the highest price at which it could sell wheat for human consumption in Australia. If I understand the position correctly - and I confess, frankly, that I am not an expert in this subject - the basis of the scheme is that the Australian price is the fixed price. That is the price at which the board sells.
– Except for sheep feed.
– I thought that wheat for sheep feed represented only a small proportion of the quantity of wheat sold in Australia. I cannot believe that it is necessary to incorporate the amendment to protect the wheatgrower from a relatively small loss, through the sale of wheat for sheep feed at a price less than the highest price that could be obtained for wheat for human consumption.
– That is not the objection.
– I am afraid that I cannot see how it does more, because that is what the amendment says. This is a relatively small matter. Surely it is not necessary to accept the amendment only to cover that position. The second part of the amendment makes provision in relation to sales for export. It provides that a ministerial direction shall not require the board to sell wheat -
Under the bill, export parity has a specific meaning. It does not mean the export parity at the time that the sale is made. It means the export parity price at the end of the year preceding the year in which the sale is made. The effect of this provision is that that price will operate in any case in which, during the whole of a period of twelve months during which sales may be made by the board at the direction of the Minister, a price less than the export parity as at the 30th November-
– It may be up or down.
– That is so. Therefore I suggest that the provision is completely inappropriate for the purpose that Senator Seward seeks that it should serve. For these reasons, I think that the amendment should be rejected.
.- The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has expressed far more eloquently than I can do, the reasons why I oppose the amendment. I do not want to be misunderstood in this matter, which I have discussed privately with other .South Australian senators on both sides of the chamber. To use a colloquialism, although it is not always wise to refer to the has-beens, it is sometimes necessary to do so to curb the would-be’s of the future. My mind goes back to an incident that occurred about twenty years ago. Although the primary producers of those days were not safeguarded by legislation such as now exists, we must remember that some persons are always seeking loopholes in the law. In the ‘thirties, an Adelaide firm dealing in wheat became bankrupt after a trading bank had foreclosed on it. Many wheat-growers were affected by its collapse. It is on record, that at daylight following the day of the foreclosure some members of the South Australian Parliament, who were wheat-farmers, were seen endeavouring to extricate their tagged wheat from the firm’s stacks. Legislation that has since been introduced in that State makes provision to deal with such a situation. A producer, businessman or worker should not be deprived of his property merely because he happens to have left it in store awaiting a favorable market on which to sell. As a result of the circumstances that I have described, legislation was introduced into the Federal and State Parliaments in order to protect the growers.
I am a little embarrassed at having to support the Government, but the real issues have no’t been explained by Senator Seward and those who have supported his motion. When a primary producer or any other citizen is robbed of his property it is the bounden duty of a government to intervene.
– I cannot see the connexion between such circumstances and this motion.
– Neither could the people who stored their wheat with the firm to which I have referred see what would happen until the banks took possession of their property. In such circumstances any government would be in honour bound to assist the affected section of the community. For those reasons alone, the amendment stands condemned.
– I oppose the motion. It is strange that Senator Hannaford, who is engaged in wheat-growing, should support the amendment. I am glad of the contribution that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has made to this debate. I wish to ask Senator’ Seward whether he intends to exempt from the provisions of his amendment wheat intended for stock feed. If the motion is intended to apply only to wheat for human consumption, then the Attorney-General has explained satisfactorily why the first part of Senator Seward’s motion could not be accepted.
It has been said that the Australian Wheat Board will be the trustee of the growers, but people other than the growers will be affected by this legislation. If the growers were accepting full responsibility for the marketing of their product, then the proposals contained in the motion before the committee would be justified. But I wish to ask Senator Seward whether the wheat-growers have requested the Government for financial support. I assume that the Government will be required to give some financial assistance to the wheat-growers under this bill. Under those circumstances, the Government will be acting as trustee for every person in Australia. The amendment before the committee would render the whole of clause 13, sub-clause (2) of the bill ineffective. Why does Senator Seward propose to prohibit the Minister from giving directions to the board only in relation to the price at which wheat is sold? If this motion is carried the purpose of the bill will be affected to such a degree that the legislation will become useless. Suppose that the board did not desire to take full responsibility for its actions in connexion with a difficult situation. A clever board could put a case to the Minister in such a way that the onus of making the decision would rest with the Minister. The Minister would then be held responsible for the decision because the board had not been game to accept its responsibility. In my opinion, this is an extraordinarily good bill. It provides for a scheme for . which the wheat-growers have been battling for years. I urge honorable senators not to fail to see the wood for the trees. If the Senate accepts this motion it might as well delete the whole of sub-clause (2) of clause 13 from the bill.
– I believe that the problem before the Senate deserves to be considered with much more reason than Senator Mattner has brought to bear on it. A LiberalCountry party government has introduced a bill with which the socialist Opposition, in some respects. is in agreement. But those who believe that a farmer’s produce belongs to him or to any cooperative organization to which he voluntarily consigns it have some misgivings concerning the legislation. Those misgivings are not shared by Opposition senators who uphold the worn out dogma of a dying socialist party, which resembles those dry bones that the poet speaks of as being flung to hungry hounds. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) put before the Senate mere platitudinous dogma, expecting it to carry conviction. He almost persuaded me to accept the opposite conclusion to the one that he reached.
Having made those preliminary remarks, I wish to engage the time of the committee but briefly. This bill gives the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture the power to give directions to the Australian Wheat Board, and a statutory obligation is imposed on the board to comply with those directions. ‘ As Senator Mattner mentioned, the power of the Minister to give directions to the board extends to matters other than buying and selling. It extends .to matters such as the purchase of wheat and flour, the acceptance of wheat delivered, the selling or disposing of wheat, the gristing or arranging for the gristing of wheat, and the management and control of matters connected with the handling, storage, protection, transfer and shipment of wheat. The question that the Senate is considering is whether or not the Minister should have unqualified powers to direct the board as to how it should act in respect of any one of these matters. Senator Seward has conceded that the Minister is entitled to some supervisory power. His claim is that that supervisory power should, in some respects, be qualified. He is merely seeking the support of the Senate for the principle that the Minister’s power to give directions concerning the sale of wheat should be qualified. He has not even asked the Senate to limit that complete power. He has only asked the Senate to curtail the Minister’s power of direction in the case of sales of wheat for home consumption at a. price less than the price at which the board could sell wheat for home consumption in Australia at the time of the direction; and in the case of sales of wheat for export at a price less than the export parity price, unless such sales are made pursuant to an international wheat agreement. The amendment is consistent with the objectives of the bill.
Sitting suspended from 12.^5 to 2.15 p.m.
– Before lunch, I was addressing my remarks to some observations that have been made by the Attorney-General. I had pointed out that the extent to which this amendment qualified the Minister’s power of direction was confined to matters of sales, and that, as to export sales, it adopted the standard of export parity, fixed at the commencement of the year, so that the Minister would know where he stood for the remainder of the year and would not have to follow the periodical vagaries of the wheat market. I shall endeavour to put the amendment in its proper perspective. The amendment certainly is a concession to those who seek to limit ministerial control over producer boards. It is not a major concession, but it does effect a minor qualification of ministerial control. The principle of control, I suggest, would be accepted by the majority of members of this chamber only if it had the agreement of the producers in the industry. Therefore, I turn to an examination of the question as to whether or not we can be satisfied that the industry has agreed to accept this provision. We are all familiar with the despicable record that the Labour Premier of Victoria left behind him when he made this scheme a vehicle of political expediency during the last elections. Labour was not prepared to go to the country on its own responsibility and it used the Victorian Premier to spike the guns of the Australian Government in relation to wheat stabilization. We are all familiar with the trenchant rejection of those tactics by a vote of the wheat-growers. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has mentioned the majority by which the wheat stabilization plan was accepted. The fact that this overwhelming majority did favour the plan might, at first glance, appear to justify the claim that the industry had accepted this ministerial direction provision. But the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) has told the committee with the complete frankness that we are accustomed to expect from him, that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen), whose skill in this matter we all admire so much and whose absence overseas we so much regret, is recorded as having stated the Commonwealth’s attitude in March, 1951, at a meeting with representatives of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation. He said, according to the formal record of the proceedings, that if the Commonwealth wished to arrange a sale at a concessional price, the Commonwealth would make up the difference to the Australian Wheat Board. Our dilemma is obvious. The vote of the wheat-growers was preceded by that ministerial statement to which I have referred, and I feel that one must remain unconvinced that the growers have agreed to the conferring of this unqualified right of ministerial direction.
– Is the honorable senator suggesting that the bill does not give effect to the results of the plebiscite?
– No. Senator Byrne seems inclined, after lunch, to inject a little cunning into the debate. I deliberately stated my proposition. Then I brought to the attention of honorable senators the statement of the Minister. On those two matters alone, which constitute the evidence that I have before me. I remain unconvinced that the growers have agreed to accept the principle embodied in sub-clause (2.), and unqualified by the amendment. It is said that if this amendment is rejected, nevertheless, the wheat-growers will know that there is a guarantee by the Government of a minimum price, and that they should be prepared to accept that. Unfortunately, that contorts the actual position. The Government has said to the wheat industry, whose continued existence is vital to the national economy and wellbeing in peace and in war, “ If you are prepared to pool your products, we are prepared to guarantee stabilization “. That is the proposition that both parties accepted. But the growers, I fear, have not agreed to the proposition that the Government should be authorized to direct the disposal of wheat so long as the growers get the minimum price. The growers expect to receive under this arrangement all the potential advantages of the market, unrestricted and unsuppressed by ministerial direction, and supported, if the average falls below the minimum guarantee, by the Government’s guarantee. It may be permissible for me to direct the attention of honorable senators, by way of comparison, to the remarkably different arrangement of a minimum guarantee of waterfront labour, which we shall have an opportunity to debate in this chamber on another occasion. The contrast is compelling.
– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.
– I have listened very attentively to the intimate discussion by Senator Wright of the ramifications of the wheat industry; but I still do not know whether he is for or against the amendment. I hope, in these circumstances, that he will bob up again, finish his discourse, and let us know which way he is going.
– Senator O’Flaherty’s generous Irish nature has provided me with an opportunity which I thought he would inveterately deny me. I do not promise that I have formed any fixed conclusions about this matter. I am not accustomed to being obstinate on matters presented to this chamber for debate, and I am eager still to hear the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) speak again at the conclusion of this discussion. By the time a division is taken, I shall be prepared to accept my responsibility. At present, I am presenting to the Senate reasons which I think should guide its consideration of the amendment. I have mentioned the difference between the proposal for stabilization, and the possibility that, if sub-clause (2.) remains unqualified, a government might, by direction, force the general realization of the wheat pool, down to the minimum. That is not the proposition that the producer accepted under this scheme.
I propose, in the final observation that I shall make, to give my attention to some of the arguments that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator .Spicer) raised. The honorable senator suggested that the form of this amendment was, perhaps, inapt, and he indicated, as I understood him, that paragraph (a) of the amendment would apply only to wheat sold for stockfeed. But it has much greater scope than that, and for this thought I am indebted to the very skilled drafting staff. It may be that one of the purposes for which the Minister will use a direction to dispose of wheat, will be to ensure that adequate supplies shall be available for home consumption - to see that export sales do not leave a deficiency for Australia’s requirements. I am always open to challenge on any proposition that I put forward., but I advance the view as a sound one on paragraph (a) that, if the Minister wished to acquire a sufficient reserve of wheat within Australia, that amount of wheat could be earmarked as required in the case of a sale for consumption in Australia. So, that is the major purpose of paragraph (ft) and it is only incidental that it provides for the detailed field of stock feed.
– The price is fixed by clause 23. That is the price at which the board must sell.
– Of course it is; but the whole scope of the matter is fixed by the introductory words “ in the case of a sale for consumption in Australia “. If the Minister directs that the wheat shall be sold in Australia, his direction will be followed so long as the price is not less than that mentioned in paragraph (a). That is open to debate, but I submit that it cannot be successfully contested. Paragraph (6) provides for export sales, and there the first thought of those who wish to ensure the producer’s rights has been to negative the effectiveness of the- Minister’s direction unless a sale that he directs provides for a price not less than the best price at which the producer could make an export sale. Then it was pointed out that stability and continuity were required in the industry. So, instead of providing for the best price that could be obtained for an export sale, those who promoted the amendment readily adopted export parity, fixed at the beginning of the year. I submit that that provides an infinitely more satisfactory basis for stabilization, and also an infinitely more satisfactory amendment of the Minister’s unqualified power of direction, than would a basis which varied from day to day. This amendment seeks to qualify the unlimited right of direction of the Minister, and is restricted to sales which,, obviously, would be adverse to the producers and which, I imagine, would be a negation of the fundamental understanding upon which producers enter into a stabilization scheme. It is for those reasons, I think, that the amendment has provided a political issue of most intriguing interest.
I am indebted to honorable senators, who preceded me in the debate, for the thoughts which they expressed. I only wish to add that, if the committee is not satisfied that the amendment merits acceptance, it may consider that a suggestion which I threw out in the course of my speech the night before last would be more satisfactory. Honorable senators may remember that I suggested, at that time, that if the board, in the case of a transaction which was the subjectmatter of the Minister’s direction, said, “ That is detrimental to us. We cannot accept it “, that wheat automatically would be excluded from the scheme, and the board thereafter would have to carry the wheat on its own responsibility, for good or ill. The wheat would be divorced from the impact of the Minister’s direction. If the market slumped, the board would have to carry the loss itself, and not call on the Government’s stabilization guarantee, but if, as I think would prove to be the case, the board were able to sell that wheat at a profit, that system would work to the advantage of the industry. It seems to me that that is the most appropriate form in which the two conflicting principles may be reconciled. As I have said, however, I am eager to hear those who propose to follow me in the debate, particularly my much esteemed leader, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay).
Question put -
That the words proposed to be added (Senator Seward’s amendment) be so added.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - -SENATER the Hon. A. D. Reid.)
AYES: 8
NOES: 43
Majority . . . . 35
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28. (Refunds where fund exceeds £20,000,000, and when act ceases to operate) .
– This clause deals with refunds to growers of the amount remaining in the stabilization fund after the scheme is wound up, or if there is a surplus beyond £20,000,000 in the fund from time to time. I wish to put a proposition to the Minister to see whether I have correctly interpreted this clause. As I understand it, the scheme is to operate for a five-year term, and it may be extended after that period. For the moment, I am concentrating on the fiveyear term. Let us assume that the growers in the first and second years contribute to the stabilization fund and make no call on the fund during those years. In the third year, the whole of the amount in the fund is absorbed by making up the guaranteed price and paying it to the third-year growers, so that the fund is exhausted in favour of the growers in the third pool. Then, in the remaining two years the fund is built up again. At the end of that five-year period, the following question may arise: - The growers of which pool will receive the moneys then to the credit of the fund? The fund is- a revolving one, so that those who are first in receive the first payment out. As I see it, the moneys contributed by the growers of the fourth and fifth years will, in those circumstances, be applied to satisfying the claims of the growers of the first season.
– Yes.
– And then of the second season, so those who have paid the money that remains in the fund at the end of the period will get no benefit from their contributions. I recognize that, substantially, the same body of growers will be concerned for the whole five years, but inevitably there will be changes in the personnel from year to year. As I read the clause, it appears to me that growers of subsequent years who provided the money then standing in the fund will not benefit immediately on the termination of the fund. Growers of an earlier year might absorb the lot.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 (Application of act).
– This clause limits the operation of the measure to five years ending on the 30th September, 1958. The Minister in charge of the bill on another occasion, intimated that, in his opinion, five years had been selected as a reasonable period for a scheme of this nature. I direct the attention of the committee to the fact that in the famous document of 1949 that preceded the advent to office of the Liberal party-Australian Country party Government, those parties indicated that they favoured a ten-year period for a wheat stabilization scheme and that a scheme of that duration would be established. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies)’ in the joint policy speech of 1949 stated-
In particular, we support a long term stabilization of the dairying industry for ten years (by subsidy where the price is not raised) and believe that the Wheat Stabilization Scheme should operate for a similar period.
– The scheme will extend from 1948 to 1959. That is nine years.
– The honorable senator overlooks the fact that the Labour
Government’s scheme operated from 1948 to 1953. The supporters of the parties that form the present Government argued strongly, when the scheme was introduced, for an extension of the scheme for a period of ten years.
– Is the true interpretation of the extract from the Prime Minister’s speech that the scheme should commence from 1949?
– I believe the true interpretation to be that from the commencement of any scheme, it should operate for ten years. I repeat the statement made in the joint policy speech -
In particular, we support a long term stabilization of the dairying industry for ten years (by subsidy where the price is not raised) and believe that the Wheat Stabilization Scheme should operate for a similar period.
– That is the wheat stabilization scheme that was then in operation.
– I simply reply to honorable senators who have interjected that the proper interpretation of that section of the policy speech can he gleaned from representations that were made in the Parliament in 1948, when the supporters of the political parties that are now in office argued in this Parliament that the proposed five year terra for the wheat stabilization scheme set up by the Labour Government was too short.
– It . should be ten years.
– Yes, that is so. Therefore, one would expect that a scheme sponsored by this Government would extend for ten years.
– The Government is honouring that policy by providing for an extension of the scheme to ten years.
– The scheme that is before the committee is definitely limited to five years. The Government proposes to set up a new stabilization scheme with new guaranteed prices and a whole new system, and is limiting it under the provision of clause 36 to five years.
– What was said as to the term of the agreement during the discussion before the proposal was submitted to a poll of the wheat-growers ?
– I am not in a position to say, but I direct the attention of the committee to the fact that the parties that form the present Government argued in 1948 that a wheat stabilization scheme should not be limited to five years, but should extend to ten years. When the Government has an opportunity to put a scheme into operation, as it has. now, it proposes to confine the scheme to five years with the possibility of an extension for another five years. I merely direct attention to facts, and to the inconsistency of the Government’s policy in this matter.
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1232
Debate resumed from the 28th October (vide page 1124), on motion by Senator Cooper -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This bill is supplementary to the measure that has immediately preceded it. It refers to the contribution that the wheatgrowers will be asked to make to a stabilization scheme. The bill is part of the pattern that is constituted by the measure that preceded it, by State legislation in five States and by this bill itself. The principles of the hill are well known to honorable senators. There is to be paid into the stabilization fund by the growers through the Australian Wheat Board in each season the surplus amount up to1s. 6d. a bushel of the export price realized for wheat over what we understand by the term cost of production. The Opposition supports the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1233
Debate resumed from the 3rd November (vide page 1191), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This bill provides for the validation of the collection of customs duties under certain customs tariff proposals that were introduced, in one case, in August, and in another, in October. In introducing the bill, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) stated that it had not been convenient for the Government to introduce enabling bills validating the customs tariff proposals, and this bill is to validate the collection of the customs duties in the meantime. The Minister has promised that the bills will be introduced as soon as possible. The tariff proposals provide for a slight reduction of duties on a number of articles. This is purely a machinery measure, and it will not be opposed by the Opposition.
– As Senator Courtice has said, this is a validating measure and ca.n have a life of only six months. Action must be taken within that period to put the tariff proposals into effect. I appreciate the opportunity afforded by the submission of this validating legislation to study the industries that are to be protected. When the matter is again before the Senate to be brought to finality, honorable senators will be better informed on the subject as a result of this debate. The proposals relevant to the bill have been dealt with by the Tariff Board. I support the policy of the Government in submitting such proposals to the Tariff Board, and I admire the manner in which the Tariff Board conducts its investigations. Increased protection is to be given to the cotton tyre cord fabric industry and the tyre yarn industry, and to some carpenters’ tools. I was interested in the third proposal which covers forged ste6l table knives and forks, carving steels and other cutlery. Apparently the Government proposes, at last, to give full encouragement to the cutlery industry in Australia. I believe that is a good step forward, because Australia has the best and cheapest steel in the world. A great industry giving employment to many Australians could be built up at reasonable cost to the people of Australia. The lifting of excise on spirit which is used by technical schools and educational bodies for experimental purposes has removed an anomaly that has existed for many years. Such bodies should not be required to pay excise of 25s. a proof gallon on the relatively small quantities of spirit that they use for such purposes. I commend the Government on introducing the 10 per cent, ad valorem duty on true vegetable parchment, thus giving encouragement to the great paper industry that has been established at Burnie, in Tasmania. After all, the resultant extra cost to the people of Australia will be very small compared with the benefit that we shall derive from the expansion of that industry.
I commend the Government, also, on exempting from duty imported cinematograph films that have been produced especially for children. I had the pleasure, recently, of being introduced to Miss Mary Field, O.B.E., of the J. Arthur Rank organization, at a meeting of the National Council of Women in Tasmania. Miss Field addressed various women’s organizations throughout Australia. I was greatly impressed, not only by the case that she made out for the admission into Australia, duty free, of specialized children’s films, but also by her remarks on the great amount of research that has been carried out in Great Britain in relation to such films.
– Mr. President, I was under the impression that a full debate on the merits of the proposal will take place when the enabling bills are introduced. It was for that reason that I did not speak at length on the matter. If a full debate on the subject is to ensue now, I trust that I shall be accorded another opportunity to address the Senate.
– Realizing the tremendous responsibility that devolved on it in this matter, the British film industry engaged in costly research in order to produce films that would be most suitable for children. As it was realized that such films would not be a commercial proposition, the industry asked for a ^remission of duty on such films. This bill grants a remission.
Some honorable senators may not be :aware of the keen perception of children “when viewing films. It was brought to my notice recently that a film exhibited to children depicted a school swimming race, which was won by the hero of the school. When, at the conclusion of the screening, one of the children was asked what he thought of the film, he said that it was silly because, although the race had been over three laps of the baths, the hero had been shown winning the race at the end from which he started. I am quite sure that many adults would have missed that point. The British film industry has even gone to the extent of taking infra red photographs of children while viewing films, in order to record their reactions to various incidents. As a result, special films for children are now coming to this country. I am glad that that is so, because the viewing by children, week after week, of American horror films must have a very harmful effect on their minds. I tate this opportunity to commend the various women’s organizations in this country on the keen interest that they have taken in this problem down the years, and to pay a tribute, particularly, to the Tasmanian branch of the National Council of Women, whose members have ardently pursued their investigations into the problem for many years. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill.
– I support the bill, and I join with Senator Henty in congratulating the Government on providing for the entry into Australia, duty free, of films made especially for children. I was impelled to enter this debate principally because the lifting of duty on such films is not an ordinary tariff concession. The Government has provided an entirely new category for children’s films. To that extent, it has helped to solve the problem of the cinema in relation to children. Particularly since the advent of the sound film, people who are concerned with children’s welfare have been apprehensive of the effect of such films on the health, behaviour and character of young children. As many children attend picture shows every week, it is impossible for us to isolate them from the effects of the cinema. It is true that, by the application of censorship and classification, an attempt has been made to exclude children from viewing certain films, but that is a negative approach to the problem. I consider that the production of films especially for children is a far more positive approach to it.
Senator Henty referred to the amount of research that has been carried out by the film industry of Great Britain in relation to this subject. As I said before, this problem has been exercising the minds of many people ever since the motion picture industry was established. As early as 1934, the Child Welfare Committee of the League of Nations decided that, in the following year, it would adopt as its principal subject for study the recreational aspects of the cinema for young children. One of the topics that was listed for consideration in 1934 was the provision of special films for children. In 1935, the League stated that it required wider information on the subject, and by 1936, no fewer than 30 governments, and a number of international organizations, had supplied relevant information to the committee, which discussed the matter again in 1937. Although a vast amount of material was before the committee, there was insufficient time available for the League to discuss the subject properly in that year, and it was postponed until 1938. However, World War II. intervened and it was not until 1948 that Unesco appointed Mr. Henry Storch to conduct an inquiry into children’s entertainment, from an international stand-point. It is not quite clear which country of the world first produced films for children, although Belgium claimed that honour. However, it is correct to say that, from 1930 onwards, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics produced children’s films, and Russia was the only country that was producing such films at the time that inquiries into the subject were undertaken by the League of Nations. It was not until 1944 that the J. Arthur Rank Organization in Great Britain, so ably assisted by Miss Fields. who was mentioned by Senator Henty, entered into the production of films especially for children. We know that children have, a vastly different outlook from that of adults, because they do not understand make-believe. Therefore, we have to be very careful, in relation to films that are viewed by children, that the conduct of characters in the films are such that we should like them to emulate. It has been possible since 1944, through the organization set up by Mr. Bank, to produce films of the kind to which Senator Henty referred. As children are, in the main, great imitators, it is important to ensure that the things that they see on the screen shall not injure their health, their behaviour of their characters.
Senator Henty also referred to the National Council of Women, of which Senator Annabelle Rankin, Senator Agnes Robertson and I are members. As Senator Henty pointed out, the efforts of the National Council of Women, since 1934, in both Great Britain and Australia, have assisted in the production of children’s films. As a matter of fact, in 1946 the National Council of Women in Great Britain organized one of the first conferences that were held with the British film industry in relation to children’s films. The conference was presided over by the chairman of the National Council of Women. In 1950, the British National Council of Women pressed for the implementation of a departmental report in relation to children and the cinema. For some years, various organizations have been pressing in Australia for the introduction of specially produced films for children, and latterly, for the entry of such imported films free of duty. I take this opportunity, also, to, commend the Victorian Council for Children’s Films and Television on the work that it has performed. The council has been exhibiting such films for three years. It has encouraged the establishment of similar bodies in other States and has made frequent appeals to the Government to make the concession which is now under discussion.
While Miss Mary Field, the executive officer of the Children’s Film Foundation Limited, was in Australia, I had the honour of meeting her on a number of occasions and was greatly impressed by her ability. She has made a valuable contribution to the fine work of the Rank organization and also to that done by the foundation.
– What efforts have been made by similar organizations in Australia 1
– The Victorian Council for Children’s Films and Television has shown these special films for three years. Some cinemas have also shown them. Perhaps honorable senators will recall that when Miss Field addressed them in this building she told of the great success that was attending the screening of those films. The British films to which Senator Henty referred have been shown in Holland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium. France, Italy, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Turkey, Iceland, Ireland, Poland, Ceylon, Malaya, Japan, Indonesia, the Dutch East Indies and the West Indies. The Australian film, Bush Christmas, has also been exhibited successfully all over the world. These British films have provided a means of letting the children in other countries of the world meet the children of the United Kingdom and Australia. For that reason, if for no other, the proposed concession is worth while. But in addition to that, the concession will enable our children, who are the citizens of to-morrow, to become the good citizens that we desire them to be. In conclusion, I shall borrow one of Miss Field’s expressions : the good we do for our own children we do for the children of the world. I support the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– Because of what has been said by Senator Henty and Senator Wedgwood the Senate may have the impression that the Government will make a big financial concession in regard to children’s films if this bill is passed. I understand that these films will not be shown commercially. They will only be children’s films which have an educational value. The films will not have a great monetary value. I think the impression has been created that customs duty will be waived in respect of a large number of children’s films but the fact is that the concession will apply only to a limited number of children’s films which have an educational value.
– I support what other honorable senators have said in favour of the waiving of customs duty on children’s films. Western Australians were pleased that Miss Field had discovered that many such films had been exhibited in Perth. I have received a copy of a letter which the Minister for Trade and Customs is sending to the Women’s Service Guild of Western Australia, which has been tremendously interested in this subject. The censorship of films has been worse than farcical. It has been criminal. I support this measure which will enable the best films to be brought to this country for exhibition to our children.
– There is one aspect of this matter to which I wish to invite the attention of the Senate. This is a most unusual kind of bill. It says that demands and actions made pursuant to certain proposals up to a certain time shall have the force of law. I could understand a proposal that regulations tabled by the Minister in this chamber imposing customs duty should have the force of law from the date of the public announcement. Such a procedure would be in accordance with practice. As Senator Henty said, the operation of this provision is limited to a period of six months and it seems to me that it would be a very simple matter to provide that it shall continue in operation until a certain time. But this bill goes further than that. It says that all duties of customs demanded or collected, whether before or after the commencement of this act, and on or before the 30th June, 1955, pursuant to certain proposals, shall be deemed to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded and collected.
Ignoring the difficulty of reconciling the tenses in that clause, the bill provides, not merely that these proposals shall have the force of law during that time, but that all duties and customs demanded or collected pursuant to certain proposals shall be deemed to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded and collected. There is a difference between a demand, which an assessor says is made pursuant to a proposal, and a demand made under a proper interpretation of that proposal. If a demand is made strictly in pursuance of a proposal it. would be in conformity with the law and. only such a demand, on such a construction, should be validated by this actBut I venture to suggest that there aracases in which the term “ pursuant to “ has been construed by the court as- “ bona fide pursuance of “, whether exactly and strictly in pursuance of a proposal or not. The danger in passing’ the bill in its present form is that the Senate may give legal validity to certain demands for and the collection of money,, even though that demand or collection may have gone beyond the proper scope of the proposal as printed. Mistakes are repeatedly made, bona fide, by assessors under the complicated taxation law of this country. I fear that the form in which this legislation is framed is” apt to work an injustice by imposing an unintended tax on people who have received a demand, and from whom money has been collected by a collector whothought that he was acting pursuant to the law.
I wish that the proposal had been that Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 and No. 2 shall be deemed to have had the force of law since a certain date and until the date required. Cases abound of iniquitous retention by the Treasury of taxpayers’ money. In a case which came before the House of Lords in 1937 the Collector of Customs had considered that certain goods which had been imported from Germany came under the definition of “ wheat “. The goods contained a certain ingredient of wheat. The question that had to be decided was whether the product was wheat within the definition of the relevant legislation. It was found that the people who had imported the product had paid £7,000 in consequence of a wrong interpretation of the definition of “ wheat “ by a collector. It seems to me that if a sum of money has been wrongfully collected, this measure may validate the collection of that money and the person who has paid itwill have no hope of recovery.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without requests; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1237
Debate resumed from the 3rd Novem ber (vide page 1192) on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The circumstances of this measure are very similar to those of the hill that we have just passed. It relates to the collection of excise on such items as brandy. The Opposition does not oppose the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1237
Debate resumed from the 3rd November (vide page 1207) on motion by Senator McLeay -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- The Opposition does not oppose this measure, but it wishes to take the opportunity to stress the need to plan ahead for further standardization work. The purpose of this bill is to extend the 4-ft.81/2in. standard gauge line to a town called Marree in South Australia. There is, at present, under construction a standard gauge railway Stirling North, Port Augusta, to Leigh Creek, a distance of 163 miles. The conversion provided for in this measure is for a further 219 miles. When it is completed, there will be a standard gauge track between Port Pirie and Marree, a distance of 275 miles. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay), in his second-reading speech, gave us very sound reasons for the conversion provided for in this measure. It will cost about £1,250,000, and the total value of the entire project, right through to Marree, will be £12,250,000. That is not a very large sum of money in this age. The Minister pointed out that the section of the railway now to be converted was built many years ago. I think the original line was built about 1884. It was certainly built a long time ago, and naturally the track is in very poor condition. A considerable sum would have to be expended on maintenance if the line were to be prevented from reaching a dangerous state. The Minister has told us that, to put the track in reasonable order, an expenditure of approximately £700,000 would be required immediately. He suggested, therefore, that now was the time to convert the line to standard gauge. We could not agree more enthusiastically. As the Minister has pointed out, the project will be of great assistance to the cattle industry because Marree is the logical centre for cattle trucking, and is already provided with cattle yards. The Opposition support wholeheartedly the Minister’s views that, as a railway constructing organization is now at work on the line to Leigh Creek, it should be retained to carry the standardization to Marree. We believe further, that the job should not end at Marree, but that the 4-ft.81/2-in. gauge line should be continued to Alice Springs, which is approximately 400 miles from Marree. That is a considerable distance, but from what I can gather, the country will not present any great technical difficulties. While there is a railway building organization in existence, and supply lines well established, it would be criminal, I believe, to end the work at Marree. There is an obligation on the Commonwealth to provide a standard gauge railway line from Darwin to Port Augusta. If this work is to be carried out intermittently, costs will multiply enormously. It is true that the completion of the line from Port Augusta to Darwin would take many years, but at least let us plan for it now, and pass the necessary legislation so that the present constructing organization can be used to close this vital link in the Australian railway system.
From the defence point of view, there is no more important work in Australia than completing the north-south railway line and providing other vital links such as that from Dajarra in Queensland to Newcastle Waters. We talk of our undefended north. Undoubtedly it remains as undefended as ever. Fundamentally, the problem of defending the north of Australia is the problem of transport over huge distances. The distance from Sydney to Darwin is about the same as the distance from Darwin to Singapore. From Adelaide to Darwin is almost as far. That gives an idea of the immense distances involved. To move our defence forces to the northern portion of the Commonwealth would be a job of terrifying proportions with existing transport facilities. However, the standardization of our railway gauges and the construction of new lines to the northern areas would greatly ease that problem. I cannot overstress the importance that we on this side of the chamber lay on the provision of a railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin. The defence of our north at present rests almost entirely upon our Air Force and, with the limited aircraft at our disposal, an airlift of personnel and equipment of any magnitude would be necessarily slow. In our defence planning, therefore, a very high priority should be given to the building of railway lines running into the undefended portions of the Commonwealth.
Rapid transport is the basis of defence, and indeed, of offence. One of the first things that Hitler did when he took control of Germany, was to build autobahns right to the borders of neighbouring countries. His idea undoubtedly was to use those autobahns as offence roads. They were built so that he could move troops and equipment rapidly hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of miles in a very short time, and with a minimum of interference. To-day in red China, Manchuria and Russia, the emphasis is on more and more railways, and more and more roads, to give mobility to the armed forces. I suggest that no army in the world is less mobile than the Australian Army. There are in this chamber, experts on defence and I am sure they will agree that, without mobility, defending forces are in a difficult position. In Australia, there are insufficient interlacing roads and railways to permit the rapid transport of armed forces in time of war, and neither our Air Force nor our Navy would be adequate for the task. Our first defence problem therefore is to give mobility to our defence forces, and our first step towards that end should be to build railways and roads to interlace our continent. Therefore, the railway standardization work should not end at Marree. Since 1952, a skilled organization has been engaged on the line to Leigh Creek. While that organization is there, it should be shown that there is a further job for it to do for the next five or six years, standardizing the line right through to Alice Springs, and eventually building a track to Darwin.
Although I stress the defence significance of this work, it would have other very important advantages. Our great hinterland must be tapped. Consider, for instance, the cattle industry. According to records, this industry has expanded considerably around Alice Springs in recent years. Since World War II., there has been an increase of 300 per cent, in the number of cattle in the Alice Springs district, yet it was only in 1929 that the railway was extended from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs. As the increase of the number of cattle in the Northern Territory as a whole has been only 12 per cent, since the end of World War II., it may well be that, in the northern areas of the Northern Territory the number of cattle has not increased, but has decreased.
The northern part of the Northern Territory seems to me to be a natural food basin. The area is close to the great Asian markets. There are, in Australia at the moment, certain gentlemen from the Philippines who would give almost anything to have access to large supplies of Australian beef. It is true that the Philippines is taking a certain amount of our beef. I read a little while ago that it had taken 6,000 or 7,000 head of Australian cattle. Unfortunately, there are no wharf facilities at Darwin, so that the cattle must be loaded from the beach. That is a matter to which the Government should give attention. At the moment, we are almost completely neglecting the Asian market for our beef. The people of the Philippines are tremendously interested in Australian affairs, but unfortunately, there is very little trade between the two countries, primarily because the Philippines is tied to the dollar. It is a hard currency country. Nevertheless, the difficulties in the way of trade could soon be solved, and if a proper effort were made, it would not be long before trade was moving freely between Australia and that country. The Northern Territory is, of course, the natural place from which to develop substantial markets for our beef. The first requirement of the successful defence of the Northern Territory is to populate it. The greater the number of people in the northern part of Australia, the easier will be the task of our defence chiefs. An increase of population invariably leads to increased industrial development, and that, also, would be of advantage to northern Australia.
The Minister, in his second-reading speech, stated that the cattle industry was of primary importance in the development of the inland, and that the best transport system which can be economically justified should be provided for its development. That is true, but as far as I am concerned, those are only words. Nothing has been done to implement that policy. A transport system cannot be operated economically if steam “ billies “ are used on a dilapidated track that was laid down in 1884. I suppose that efficient diesel locomotives could do, in hours, the work that old steam locomotives take days to do. That is why I say it is important to keep pushing this line forward. It must not stop at Marree. I do not think there is any limit to the development of the northern part of Australia, if proper access is given to it. We all wish to see the Northern Territory go ahead. Already, considerable development in the mining industry has occurred there. The discovery of uranium has excited the interest of all Australians, and we do not yet know how big the uranium mining project in the Territory will be. One of the great problems of the industry is that the plant which is necessary to handle the ore, in many instances, is hundreds of miles away from the mines. It is, therefore, important to strengthen the transport system. One of the most practical ways to strengthen it is to continue the railway line right through to Darwin.
The uranium-mining may yet change the whole complexion of the Northern Territory, and may even force the Government to extend the line to Darwin. Gold has also become a very important metal in the Northern Territory, and so has copper. The value of the mica deposits in the area is comparatively small, but nevertheless, mica is being mined in the Harts Ranges, approximately SO or 100 miles north-east of Alice Springs. There is only one battered old road which can be used to transport the mica to the main road, and so to Alice Springs. If the railway line were pushed through there, the problems of the people in that area would be, to a large degree, solved. There is an obligation which the Australian Government has assumed, in conjunction with the South Australian Government, to construct a standard-gauge railway right through the centre of Australia. We of the Opposition do not object to the railway line as far as Marree being converted to standard gauge. Indeed, we applaud the proposal, but we hope that this is only an indication that the Government appreciates the importance of extending the line even further. We approve this proposal, but ask the Government to consider the introduction of further legislation, as soon as possible, so that the work force which is engaged in carrying out the conversion of the line as far as Marree may be retained. In that way, the knowledge and organization which have been developed in the course of the work of taking the conversion as far as Leigh Creek, and then to Marree, will be used to push forward this railway line right through the centre of Australia. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.
– I rise to support the bill. I regard this proposal as a further instalment payment by the Commonwealth of its almost 50 years old obligation to South Australia to construct a standardgauge railway line right through the continent. I think that the power to do this important work on the existing railway line stems from the defence power of the Commonwealth. Like Senator Armstrong, I think that this proposal has a defence value, but I intend to break some different ground from that covered by the honorable senator. Greatly improved water-boring methods have been adopted by stations in that area. To date, boring for artesian water has been carried out with rather primitive boring plants. The advent of suitable railway trucks in which to transport machinery and the use of the boring technique that recently has been developed, will mean that a number of new settlers will be able to go into that area.
Lake Eyre, which is just to the north of the proposed terminus of this improved line, is about 55 feet below sea level. Some remarkable streams of water flow into the lake. When the water quickly evaporates, due to the fierce heat of the sun in this region, large and valuable deposits of salt and other commodities are left behind. With improved water facilities on the stations, and the possibility of increased mineral deposits in these remarkable lakes, there is a. good chance of the volume of rail transport business in the area increasing. I invite the attention of the Minister to the possibility, also, of attracting tourists to that part of Australia, if proper facilities are available. In the winter period of the year, there are tremendous tourist possibilities in the Flinders Range, through which this line will go. I hope that the Minister will introduce Up-to, date rolling stock on that portion of the line, as he has been able to do on the eastwest line. That part of South Australia could be a veritable Mecca, in winter time, for people from the colder parts of Australia.
I think it would be wise if this railway line were pushed ahead while the gangs are there completing the Stirling North to Brachina section. I agree with Senator Armstrong that, eventually, the standardgauge line should be continued to Alice Springs and beyond, but I am thankful for small mercies. I hope that the bill will have a speedy passage.
– I support this, bill as far as it goes. At the outset,. I join with
Senator Armstrong and Senator Laught in expressing regret that the standardgauge line will not go right to Alice Springs. As the Minister pointed out during his second-reading speech, the existing railway line on this section was constructed in 1884. The present Commonwealth Railways Commissioner has been, able to transform the northsouth line, so that, instead of violent discomfort for passengers, they are now able to travel as comfortably as the permanent way will permit. I think that all Australians appreciate that the transport problems of the central part of Australia should not be dealt with piece-meal. Recently, I pointed out in the Senate that the construction and maintenance of roads and railways, which form no small part of a .good defence system, should have some bearing on the moneys voted by this Parliament for defence. I agree with Senator Armstrong that the railways of South Australia performed a wonderful task during World War II., but many a headache would be given, to those concerned if the railways were called upon to perform a similar task again. It has always been a wonder to me that our railways stood up so well to the demands made on them. The fact that they did so speaks volumes for the devotion to duty and skill of those who were concerned with driving and firing the engines and manning the trains which operated on those long stretches of country, particularly as much of the railway line had long outlived its usefulness. With the advent of diesel locomotives and other improvements, it is remarkable how free from serious accidents that line has been. I feel that the Parliament, in introducing this legislation, is doing the decent thing by those men whose job it is to look after that part of the track which runs from Quorn to the railhead.
I suggest that portion of the money that is devoted to defence could be earmarked each year to improve means of transport in that area in the interests of Australia. The work could be associated with the proposal that is now before the Senate. So far as I can see there is no need for further negotiations between the South Australian Government and the Australian Government because provision is already made for such a plan in the existing agreement between the two governments.
The Opposition will unanimously support the proposal for the extension of the standard-gauge railway while the machinery and plant is at Leigh Creek. We are grateful for small mercies, but much of the benefit from the work that is now proposed will be lost if preliminary preparations for the extension of the line from Marree to Alice Springs are not undertaken. With international affairs in an unsettled state, the line might be needed for defence purposes at any time. As the plant is already on the spot, the extension presents no great difficulty from that point of view. A problem will arise, however, if the section under discussion is completed, and the plant is then moved somewhere else. I am not being parochial in this matter. I realize that northern Queensland and the northwestern part of Western Australia are vulnerable, and that there is a national obligation to make defence preparations in those localities. The fact that so little has been done is a disgrace to the Parliament.
I support Senator Laught in his reference to the tourist possibilities of Alice Springs and the Flinders Range. The number of people who visit Alice Springs in the appropriate season is astonishing. All whom I have met have expressed astonishment at the nature of the country. They have found there natural Australian scenery without parallel. In his secondreading speech, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) said that the cattle loaded at Marree and Farina represented almost one-third of the total number of cattle taken over the railway. He also said that losses would be reduced by the improvement of that section of the line. I remind the Minister that two-thirds of the stock that are carried over the line come from places beyond Marree on the way to Alice Springs. That saving of losses by a further extension of the standard-gauge railway would be even more valuable than the saving to which the Minister referred. In his second-reading speech the Minister said -
Railway expenditure would show a saving of over £22,000 a year because of the lower operating cost of standard gauge as against narrow gauge equipment.
A proportionate saving would follow if the line were continued to Alice Springs. We would then be taking a step towards the fulfilment of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States under the railway standardization agreement of 1949. The Minister also stated in his second-reading speech -
The conversion of this railway, if authorized by the Parliament, would be undertaken in conjunction with the completion of the railway now being constructed to Leigh Creek North coal-field.
I should like the Minister to inform the Senate how he could avoid further losses. According to his own figures, the losses on the line north to Alice Springs would be twice those on the line that is being converted now. Honorable senators should not forget that the increased speed of modern engines, and the heavier loads hauled by them, are having a serious effect on the dilapidated permanent way. The existing narrow-gauge track is urgently in need of rehabilitation. The same set of circumstances will operate on the section of the line that will be left unaltered north of Marree.
Obviously Alice Springs will be the terminal of the Central Australian railway for the immediate future. The road from Alice Springs to Darwin known as the Stuart Highway is a good one. Whoever has been responsible for keeping that road in order deserves credit. Overland travellers from South Australia to Darwin have no fears of meeting any trouble on the trip after they leave the train at Alice Springs. The passenger accommodation on the narrow-gauge line to Alice Springs is as good as any in Australia and that is a triumph. Passengers are astonished at the class of service that they enjoy on the way to Alice Springs, and the state of the highway from that point north.
The Minister and other honorable senators have shown that they realize the importance of the railway to the development of the coal-mining industry. I direct’ attention to other industries that offer possibilities in central Australia. I refer particularly to copper and mica. I have been informed that £1,000,000 worth of gold is mined annually in the Tennant Creek district. I was there recently, and I believe that production could be considerably increased if transport were improved. Already, 100 tons of copper concentrate is produced each year, and the output could be increased. It is not payable now to mine low-grade ore because of transport and other charges. There is no comparison between road and rail transport costs, and it would be highly uneconomic to transport low-grade ore by road. If proper transport facilities were provided, mining in the Northern Territory would be encouraged. The industries in that area should be assisted. They ail add something to the economy of Australia, and affect it from a defence point of view.
The refining of uranium should be clone in a place that is not vulnerable to attack. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that uranium is treated in a safe place, and I suggest that the Alice Springs locality would be suitable. During my visits to the Northern Territory, I have been amazed by the courage of the people. Living costs are high. There are many wage-earners at the settlements in the Northern Territory, and although wages are higher than those paid in the southern parts of Australia, the cost of living is a real problem. I suggest that everything possible should be done to reduce living costs in that area. It is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to remind the Senate of the vast importance of transport to Alice Springs, which has a population of about 2,500 people. In addition, another 1,500 people live within a measurable distance of that town. By converting the existing railway line from Marree to Alice Springs to the standard gauge of 4 feet Si inches, considerable encouragement to increase production would be given to the people who are engaged in the cattle and mining industries in the Northern Territory. To carry that matter a stage further, the provision of modern rolling-stock to carry cattle on that line would greatly benefit the cattle industry. Under existing circumstances, considerable damage is done to the cattle by their trans-shipment on several occasions during the 47 hours journey to Port Augusta.
If the Government really intends to develop the Northern Territory, it should undertake, forthwith, the conversion to standard gauge of the railway to Alice Springs. I hope that the Government’s policy in this connexion will be announced before long. As I have pointed out on previous occasions in this chamber, there is no reason why a part of the defence vote should not be expended on the improvement of transport facilities in the Northern Territory. I suppose the Minister will say that, due to a shortage of man-power, it is possible at present to proceed with the conversion of only a portion of the line to Alice Springs. I do not think that that argument would hold water, because the cost of maintaining the existing 3-ft. 6-in. gauge railway is considerable. By dilly-dallying in this matter, the Government is failing to discharge its responsibilities to the people, who are doing their best to increase production in the Northern Territory. The proposed conversion to standard gauge of the railway from Leigh Creek North coalfield to Marree is only a small part of the work that should be done on the north-south line. I concede, readily, that it will be advantageous to the people of the Territory, and result in a reduction of expenditure under various headings, but I hope that when the present proposal has been implemented, this Government - or one of a different political colour, which might replace it before long - will decide to complete the job and introduce a bill to provide for the conversion to standard gauge of the remainder of the railway line to Alice Springs. It is the bounden duty of the Government to provide modern transport facilities for the people of the Northern Territory.
– I support the bill. I was very interested in Senator Armstrong’s speech this afternoon, in which he dealt with the importance of railways to this country. It must be gratifying to the honorable senator that this Government has already done so much to improve the railways under the control of the Commonwealth. It has provided one of the most modern trains in the world on the Port Pirie to Kalgoorlie line. This train, which has proved very popular with the travelling public, is not now able to cope with all of the traffic offering. By the introduction of diesel-electric locomotives, and the placing into service of modern rolling-strock imported from America, railway travel has been greatly popularized in recent years. Travel by rail is certainly not a thing of the past. I consider that, if proper attention were paid to the modernization of the railway systems of this country, much of the produce now carried by road transport would be sent by rail, and thus ease the burden on the roads.
Attention should be paid to railway routes. Senator Armstrong’s suggestion that the north-south railway should be extended from Alice Springs to Darwin was laudable, but we should also consider the desirability of linking up many dead-end lines all over Australia. Railways should be constructed from Ouyen in Victoria to Hay in New South Wales, a distance of 160 miles, and from Patchewollock in Victoria, to Ouyen, a distance of only 2S miles. The former should link the terminii of about half a dozen dead-end lines which radiate from Melbourne, and thus be of greater value from a defence point of view than a railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin. I commend to Western Australian senators the advisability of constructing a railway line from Ouyen to Hay, which would provide an alternative railway route from Adelaide to Sydney. It is urgently necessary to convert the railway line from Port Pirie to Adelaide to the standard 4-ft. 8-J-in. gauge, in order to obviate the necessity to change trains at Port Pirie. The railway from Adelaide to Terowie is of 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, and that from Terowie to Broken Hill of 3-ft. 6-in. gauge. These should be converted to 4-ft. 8^-in. standard gauge, in order to provide another continuous railway link between Adelaide and Sydney, as the line from Broken Hill to Sydney is already of standard gauge. I suppose the principal reason for the proposed conversion of the railway line from Leigh Creek North Coalfield, to Marree is to facilitate the transportation of about 2,000,000 tons of coal a year to the new power house at Port Augusta.
There is an enormous turnover of manpower on the new 4-ft. 8^-in. railway line that is under construction from Stirling North to Leigh Creek. I compliment the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) and the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner on the attention they have paid to the comfort and well-being of the men employed on the job. It is very pleasing to note the arrangements that have been made for their accommodation. It is true to say that the Minister has provided for them the best possible conditions. If we are going to proceed with the construction % of railway lines, we must look to the provision of amenities for our work force. Perhaps the best work force that we could have would be one comprised, principally, of married nien. But, unless facilities are provided for their wives and children, they will not be attracted to the work, and it will be many years before additional railway lines can be completed. I would not blame married men for accepting other work if such facilities are not provided. As I have said before in this chamber, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority has reduced its turnover of man-power by providing adequate facilities for married men.
I am sure that Senator Critchley agrees with my contention that a railway should be constructed from Stirling to Telford. The work would attract railway men because the maximum grade would be 1 in 120 and there would be very few curves in the line. I think the decision to convert the railway from Leigh Creek North Coalfield to Marree is wise, because there is an abundant water supply at the latter centre and it is eminently suitable for the provision of shunting facilities and sheds. I am sure that if some honorable senators who have not travelled over the north-south railway line from Marree to Alice Springs were to do so, they would support the members of this chamber who advocate the conversion of that railway line to standard gauge. I understand that 90-lb. rails will be used. I suppose that the
Minister for Shipping and Transport has had expert advice on this matter but in view of the traffic that this line is likely to carry in future I should like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that 90-lb. rails will be heavy enough.
– The Railways Commissioner is satisfied that they will last for 100 years.
– I accept that statement although modern practice is to use rails a little heavier than 90 lb. I presume that the Public Works Committee has examined this project and is satisfied that 90-lb. rails will be suitable. I think that another line has been recommended from Marree to the Channel country. This would be a great asset in connexion with the beef supply. Some of the bridges that are required between Marree and Alice Springs may cause the engineers some trouble but I should imagine that modern equipment would reduce that problem to a minor detail. However, the floods that sometimes occur in the rivers in that area could create difficulties in the building of this line. I have much pleasure in supporting this bill and would like to congratulate the Minister on the steps that he has taken. May he he encouraged not to let the line stop at Marree, but to continue it, while he has the work force, beyond Oodnadatta to Alice Springs.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1244
Debate resumed from the 3rd November (vide page 1191) on motion by Senator McCallum -
1 ) That a select committee he appointed to inquire into and reportupon the development of Canberra in relation to the original plan and subsequent modifications, and matters incidental thereto.
That the committee consist of seven senators to be appointed in a subsequent resolution.
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken.
That the committee report to the Senate on or before the 1st October, 1955.
– The Opposition approves, in principle, the terms of the motion that has been moved by Senator McCallum. We are also in agreement with all that he said in support of his motion. However, perhaps the terms of his motion did not coincide with his speech in at least one respect. He intimated that the development of Canberra was a matter that rose above party considerations. With that sentiment I agree most heartily. But in translating his proposal into explicit terms, Senator McCallum has provided for the appointment of a committee of seven senators. I suggest that that proposal immediately introduces the element of party politics into the matter. I have no doubt that the honorable senator did not intend to introduce that element, but his proposal obviously contemplates representation of the parties in this chamber in the proportion of 4 to 3. I am adult enough not to expect that the Opposition would be granted four members. Accordingly, the representation of the parties in this chamber on the committee would be disproportionate. The Opposition approves the setting up of a committee for this purpose but considers that the terms of the motion could be improved.
Believing that the future of Canberra is the responsibility of every member of this Parliament, we should like to have a standing committee of both Houses appointed for the purpose set out in the honorable senator’s motion. A select committee of the Senate might do excellent work, but the Australian Capital Territory has no representation in this chamber. It has a representative in another place, but he is denied a vote except on matters immediately affecting the Territory. It would be an improvement to amend the motion to provide for a joint standing committee of both Houses. Such a committee would not address itself, ad hoc, to the problems of the day but would exercise a continuous interest in the development of Canberra throughout the years.
Canberra is a rather sacred trust. It is a great national project, born of national sentiment. I often ‘think that the .Australian War ‘Memorial, one of the city’s most important structures, is typical of “the sentiment that should belong to ‘Canberra. One cannot walk into the Australian War Memorial without a “feeling of reverence. As one walks through its ‘halls and looks at the mementos of the “first and second World wars, one feels that the Australian nation was mot born on the 1st -January, 1901, but that it was merely conceived on that date. The birth of Australian nationhood took place during World War I., when the people of Australia came together for the first time as a nation to take their -place in the world. To carry “the imagery a little further, I suggest that its baptism .only took place in World War II., through which we have just passed. Travail and bloodshed have gone to the forming of Australian nationhood, .and one of the monuments to the birth of Australian national sentiment is the building of Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory. It behoves every one of .us, first of all, to be grateful to those who planned Canberra.
It is most unfortunate that the development of the city has been retarded by a depression and a world w,ar. But I consider that Canberra, in its buildings, its institutions, and its general plan, should preserve the spirit that one finds in the Australian War Memorial. Being grateful to those who planned Canberra so well with the limited vision possible at the time, we must remember the words of somebody who said that the only way Lii which we can pay our debt to the past is by putting the future in debt to ourselves. I suggest that that is what we must do in relation to Canberra. Let us be .grateful to those “who had the grand conception of Canberra, and let us put the future in debt to ourselves by making sure that the -development -of the -city is sound and dignified and that it exemplifies our culture, our hopes and our aspirations for this young nation as a .great power developing in the south-west Pacific.
Coming now -to the terms -of the honorable senator’s motion, I suggest that in paragraph (1,) the word “select” be deleted .and that the words “ joint standing “ he inserted in its stead. This would -result Jin paragraph (1) of Senator McCallum’s motion reading as follows : -
That ‘a ‘joint standing committee “be -appointed to inquire into and report ‘upon the development of ‘Canberra in relation to .the original plan and subsequent modifications and matters incidental thereto.
I next propose to delete paragraph (.2.) of the motion which provides that the committee -shall consist of seven senators to be appointed under a subsequent resolution. I suggest that the following new paragraph (2) be -substituted therefor : -
That six members of the “Senate be appointed to serve on such committee, such, members to be -nominated in a subsequent resolution.
My purpose in suggesting this amendment is apparent. With Senator McCallum, I should like to lift this matter out of the realm of party considerations. Later, I shall propose that an even number of mem)bers shall be appointed from the House of Representatives to sit jointly with the members of the Senate. I have made allowance for the necessity to have determination in the case of equality of votes *by proposing that the chairman of the committee, in addition to a deliberative vote, shall have a casting vote when the voting is equal.
Senator -Scott. - How does the honorab’le senator propose to appoint the chairman?
– In the event of a deadlock, I should say that the appointment of ‘a -chairman would have to be decided by lot. I suggest that the Senate should seriously consider this proposal. If there is a predominance of party representation on this committee I do not think .that it will be constituted to do its Job objectively. Lf -the Senate introduces the element of party politics into a committee for the development of Canberra, it will strike .a blow :a.t the .committee’s Objective before it commences operations. There should -be no expression of politics in connexion with this matter. As Canberra is the responsibility of all members of the Parliament, I think it desirable that both Houses should participate in the proposed committee. We should do ;as Senator McCallum has pleaded and .place the matter :above the party level. Xt is a :great concept and ‘a -great responsibility, and I think it is to the vast advantage of the ultimate objective that the committee should be a standing one, watching the development of Canberra, not just from year to year or from month to month, but down the years. We are living in the oil age and the air age. We are on the eve of the atomic age. A bold and imaginative view must be taken of the development of Canberra. Perhaps the original planning is adequate. Perhaps it should be amplified ; but I believe that, in no circumstances,, should it be restricted or curtailed. I shall not press these matters now. I understand that when I have concluded, the Acting Leader of the Government .(Senator McLeay) will seek an adjournment of the debate to enable consideration to be given to the amendments that I shall move. I make a plea to honorable senators to keep an open mind on the matter, and to think over my proposals for equality of numbers, for a standing committee, and for a joint committee.
I do not wish to alter paragraph (3) of the motion, but I am seeking an alteration of paragraph (4) because the committee would not be a select committee appointed for limited specific purposes, and it would not have to report by a particular date. It would be a standing committee, and in terms of paragraph (3) of Senator McCallum’s motion, it would have power to report, from time to time, its proceedings and the evidence taken. I propose to move, therefore, that the following paragraph be inserted in lieu of paragraph (4) : -
May I say to the Senate that I am not wedded to that number. It may be that eight members of the House of Representatives and six senators would make an unwieldy committee. If that is the view of the Senate, I am prepared to bow to it. But my own feeling is that such a committee would not be unwieldy, and that it is highly desirable to have as many members of this Parliament as possible taking a direct and continuing interest in the development of Canberra. So, I favour a joint committee of four- teen members, although I have no dogmatic insistence on that number. Finally, I shall move for the addition of a new paragraph in the following terms: -
I think that would make a satisfactory committee and I hope that the Government will consider establishing it. I propose now to say a word or two about Canberra itself. I like Canberra. Unfortunately, most of us wear only a triangular track in this city. The corners of the triangle are the aerodrome, Parliament House, and the places where we reside. We are wearing that track deeper and deeper. But I had the advantage of living here alm’ost continuously for a period of five years when I had rather heavy responsibilities in the Government. I know Canberra and I like Canberra. I also like the lively aboriginal lilt in the name Canberra.
– The honorable senator is becoming poetic.
– Perhaps I am becoming poetic, and that might be a very welcome change. I find real charm in the unexpected emphasis that we place on the first syllable of the name Canberra. The name is delightful. The city is delightful and, above all, it is peaceful, except, of course, for the establishment in which we function. But it is desirable to have a contrast in life and I think that the peaceful surroundings of Canberra provide the .proper foil for this place. It is noteworthy that, down the years, and particularly since parliamentary broadcasts were introduced, tourists have been visiting the National Capital in increasing numbers. They pour into this building in thousands every week and they fill the public galleries. I understand that the inclusion of Canberra in the itinerary of tourist buses was sought, not by the proprietors of those buses, but by the travelling public. We must have regard to the fact that we are a young, developing country, and we must show our faith in its future by taking a bold and imaginative view of the development of the National Capital. It would be as well if parliamentarians, apart from the various advisory bodies that are concerned with the development of Canberra, were totake a personal and direct interestsomething that is our individualresponsibility. ‘ Senator McCallum has referred to the number of bodies already concerned with the development of Canberra. I agree with him that the appointment of a parliamentary committee need not interfere with the activities of those bodies. For instance, the Public Works Committee now has before it particular problems connected with the original plans of Canberra. That committee could proceed with its work, and the parliamentary committee that I have in mind could ignore those matters until the report of the Public Works Committee had been made. I imagine that the existence of a parliamentary committee would be a powerful stimulus to all the other bodies in that field. Senator McCallum was quite right when he included in the reasons that he gave for the appointment of a parliamentary committee the desirability of having a body to look at the administrative functions of those other organizations, and see whether they are doing what they should do. I ask honorable senators to keep a perfectly open mind on this matter, and I ask the acting Leader of the Government to use his most persuasive powers on his colleagues and on the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to ensure the co-operation of the House of Representatives in establishing this worthwhile committee. Let us all do something for the National Capital and make our own individual contributions to its future. I move -
Debate (on motion by Senator McLeay) adjourned.
page 1247
The following papers were pre sented : -
Australian National Airlines Act - Australian National Airlines Commission - Ninth Annual Report and Financial Accounts, for year 1953-54.
Conciliation and Arbitration Act- Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 107.
Lands Acquisition Act - Land, &c, acquired for Postal purposes -
Avalon, New South Wales.
Panama, New South Wales.
Public Service Act - Appointments - Depart ment-
Defence Production - D. R. S. Morriss.
National Development- A. F. T. Tillott.
Works - D. R. Eaton, H.O. Fletcher.
Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1954 -
No. 45 - Postal Telecommunication Technicians’ Association (Australia).
No. 40 - Transport Workers’ Union of
Australia.
No. 47 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia.
No. 48 - Commonwealth Works Supervisors’ Association.
No. 49 - Commonwealth Storemen and Packers’ Union of Australia.
Qantas Empire Airways Limited - Twentieth Annual Report and Financial Accounts for 1953.
Re-establishment and Employment Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 105.
Report of Committee to consider what alterations are desirable in the Trade Marks Law of the Commonwealth, together with cop; of Report of Committee previously appointed to consider the same matter.
Science and Industry Research Act - Sixth Annual Report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, for year 1953-54.
Social Services Consolidation Act - Thirteenth Report of the Director-General of Social Services, for year 1953-54.
Spirits Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 110.
Television Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1954, No. 106.
Senate adjourned at 4.55 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 November 1954, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1954/19541104_senate_21_s4/>.