22nd Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMuIlin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1103
Assent to the following bills reported: -
Defence Bill 1956. Air Force Bill 1956. Distillation Bill 1956.
Wool Products Bounty Act Repeal Bill 1956. Loan (Housing) Bill 1956.
page 1103
– I address a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It is reported in to-day’s newspapers that Mr. Lester Pearson, the Canadian Minister for External Affairs, has stated that Canada was not consulted in connexion with the moves of Britain and France in the Suez Canal area. He is whole-heartedly opposed to what Britain and France have done. Has the Australian Government been consulted on the matter? I gather that our representative at the United Nations, Dr. Ronald Walker, a very able representative, said first that he would back America and then withdrew from that position. Has this Government any policy in relation to the Suez Canal? Does it support what France and Britain have done, or does it not? Will the Minister make a statement informing the Senate and the country generally of the Government’s policy in this matter?
– I shall bring the question asked by the honorable senator to i he notice of the Prime Minister.
page 1103
– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to an article in yesterday’s Adelaide “ Advertiser “, headed “ Federal Attitude to Flood Relief Resented “? Is it a fact that any apparent delay in an announcement by the Federal Treasury of the amount that the Commonwealth will contribute to flood relief and rehabilitation in South Australia, in addition to State aid, is due to insufficient information having been supplied by the South Australian Government about how the requested additional grant would be used? Am 1 to understand that the Minister holds the view that flood relief is entirely a State responsibility? If so, was Mr. Playford correct when he stated that other States had previously received substantial grants for flood relief without having to answer questions or account for their expenditure? Does the Minister consider that the report by the “ Adelaide Advertiser “ of the questions asked and the answers given in the Senate was a fair and accurate report?
– I have perused the report in the Adelaide “ Advertiser “. It is not an untruthful report, but I cannot say that it is a fair report. Emphasis has been given to some parts of my reply, but other parts have been omitted. Senator Buttfield has asked whether I take the view that the Commonwealth has no responsibility for flood relief. Purely as a matter of constitutional law and practice, the Commonwealth has no more responsibility for flood relief than the South Australian Government has for functions that come within the province of the local authorities of that State. That does not mean that the South Australian Government is not interested in the welfare of the local authorities, nor does it mean that the Commonwealth is not interested in the welfare of South Australia. Under the Constitution, defence, immigration and certain other matters are the sole responsibility of the Commonwealth. The States have no responsibility for them at all. There are other spheres of activity that are exclusively the responsibility of the States. This matter comes within that category. The suggestion that on other occasions money has been indiscriminately or carelessly handed out without any inquiry having been made is, as far as I know, not true. After all, the Commonwealth does not make money, it is the trustee of the taxpayers’ money; and in all cases, as far as I am aware, the Commonwealth exercises care and responsibility in handing out the taxpayers’ money. On all occasions when applications such as that now under discussion have been made to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth, fully conscious of the fact that the States themselves will expend the money, nevertheless asks the States to give it an idea of the extent qf the damages suffered, and what is proposed to be done with the money. We do not ask, as Mr. Playford has suggested, that every “ i “ should be dotted and every “ t “ crossed. We are the trustees of the taxpayers’ money, and we do not hand it out merely when it is said, “ We are in a bad way, give us some money please “.
There is no suggestion that we dictate to Mr. Playford. On the contrary, he has made it quite clear that he himself has decided on the order of priorities for the expenditure of the money, such as the dewatering of flooded farms, getting rid of the saline seepage, the replanting of vine and citrus orchards, the rehabilitation of homes and the repair of roads. I am quite sure that Mr. Playford adopts towards the local authorities the same responsible attitude that we, as the Government of the Commonwealth, adopt towards the States. If a local authority should come to Mr. Playford and say, “ Our roads are washed out, please give us some money “, Mr. Playford, I am sure, would say, “ What is the extent of the damage; what are you doing about it from your own source of revenue? “ The Commonwealth says, not only to South Australia but also in all circumstances such as this, “ What has happened, give us the details of the facts “. We have our own officers and experts in this area to investigate conditions there; but in the final result the determination of what will be done, how it is to be done and the order in which it will be done is the responsibility and right of the South Australian Government. I think that that answers the question asked by the honorable senator. The matter is on the verge of finality, and the Premier of South Australia should hear very shortly from the Treasurer.
page 1104
– Is the AttorneyGeneral prepared to give an assurance that the Senate will not go into recess without being given an opportunity to discuss the situation in the Middle East? If he is in a position to give that assurance, can he give any indication as to when that opportunity is likely to be given to us?
– I am not in a position to give, in terms, a precise assurance such as has been requested by the
Leader of the Opposition. I know no more than he knows, and he knows no more than I know, of the fast-moving events that are taking place. Whether it will be opportune or proper to call the Senate together is a matter entirely in the hands of circumstances. It would be futile to call the Senate together merely in order to tell honorable senators that the position was obscure. If the circumstances warrant it, I have no doubt that the Senate will be given an opportunity to hear about the latest developments and to debate the matter.
page 1104
– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise, the subject-matter of which has already been mentioned to him.
– Oh! It is a “ Dorothy Dix “.
– No, there is nothing of the “ Dorothy Dix “ about this question. Has the Minister caused any inquiries to be made regarding the statement made last month in the Queensland Parliament by Mr. Turner concerning the selling of import licences for £24,000? If so, is there any truth in that report; and what is the Department of Customs and Excise doing to prevent any such trafficking in import licences?
– As the honorable senator has said, he was good enough to indicate to me his interest in this matter. Consequently, I am now able to answer him. Careful inquiries into this allegation made by officers of the Department of Customs and Excise reveal that the basis of the statement is pure hearsay. Reported information was at least third-hand, as is so often the case in such mutters. People are always reluctant to reveal the source of their information. However, I can assure honorable senators that the department is pursuing with the utmost vigour inquiries into all allegations of malpractice relating to import licensing. Special officers are engaged in this work, and, where appropriate, penalty action is taken against those who indulge in such transactions. A number of licences has already been cancelled.
– Not nearly enough.
– If the honorable senator will give us specific information we shall act upon it. His talk of not nearly enough cancellations means nothing. It is by no means inappropriate for me to say that, if the departmental officers received full cooperation from those who allege that malpractices have occurred, more positive action could and would be taken. Inquiries have shown that the misuse of import licences is not as rife as newspaper reports would appear to indicate. In fact, the value of the licences issued for commodities in which trafficking is alleged to be rampant - category B goods - is only a small percentage of the total value of all licences issued. I can assure the Senate that if any Honorable senator at any time supplies specific information regarding trafficking in licences the matter will be fully investigated and appropriate action will be taken.
page 1105
– I direct a question to the Minister for Repatriation, who represents in this chamber the Minister for Health. In view of the fact that any private chemist who commences business is automatically granted full approval to dispense prescriptions under the Commonwealth pharmaceutical benefits scheme, will the Minister for Health remove from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act the restrictive section that prohibits united friendly societies dispensaries which opened after August, 1945, from participating in this scheme, and permit them to dispense prescriptions? No doubt he is aware that those dispensaries are now subject to taxation.
– 1 shall be very pleased to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Health, who, I am sure, will supply me with a considered reply, which 1 shall pass on to the honorable senator.
page 1105
– I desire to address a question to the Minister for National Development, who represents in the Senate the Minister for Trade. On 18th October, I asked a question about hog casings which has not yet been answered.
The matter is of great importance to the meat and allied trades of Australia, as well as to Australian housewives. When may 1 reasonably expect an answer to the question?
– I shall ask my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, who is acting for the Minister for Trade, to expedite the reply.
page 1105
– I address a question to the Minister who represents the Minister for Civil Aviation. In view of the substantial profit of more than £300,000 made by Trans-Australia Airlines last financial year, and its buoyant trading position as a result of the use of British Viscount aircraft, will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government’s authority was sought or given for the proposed increase of fares by both the major airline operators? Since increased fares, which are eventually a charge on industry in the case of business travellers, have inflationary effects, will the Minister inform the Senate of the reasons for this apparently unwarranted raising of fares? Is it a fact that the profits of Trans-Australia Airlines are paid into Consolidated Revenue and that the higher fares will constitute a discriminatory tax on air travellers?
– It certainly is not true that the higher fares proposed to be charged constitute a discriminatory tax on those who use the airline. On the contrary, air fares in Australia are at a level much lower than those that operate in any other country. It is true that the proposed increases were, as is usual, referred to the Government for approval. The reasons which gave rise to those proposals were the increases which have recently taken place in the costs of petrol, wages, and superannuation which would, in effect, eat up the entire profit of £300,000 were action not taken to maintain the financial buoyancy of the organization by way of its obtaining increased revenue. The increases proposed are justified because of the increases of costs to which I have referred. If they were not imposed the buoyancy of the organization would be affected to the point that its re-equipment programme Would have to be examined in the light of the decreased profit return.
page 1106
– Will the Leader of the Government agree that we all are pleased to see Senator Tangney back in her accustomed place in the Senate?
– I am quite sure that honorable senators. on the Government side are just as pleased to see Senator Tangney back as are her own colleagues on the Opposition side.
page 1106
– 1 direct a question to the Leader of the Government.’ In the event of the Prime Minister’s giving a considered statement to the House of Representatives to-day on the Egyptian situation, will the Leader of the Government see to it, in courtesy to the Senate, which is an integral part of the Parliament - although some people are inclined to forget that fact -that that statement is read to the Senate?
– The question raised by the honorable senator is raised quite unnecessarily, as any important statement made by the Prime Minister to the House of Representatives is either repeated here by me personally as his representative, or circulated, in manuscript or other form, to honorable senators. That practice will be continued, of course.
page 1106
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Government decided that Commonwealth public servants will be required to work on Monday, 24th December? If not, will the Government follow the example of certain State governments, and grant that day as a holiday, thus obviating the necessity for Commonwealth servants to return to work for one day between the preceding week-end and Christmas Day, especially as conditions on Christmas Eve are scarcely likely to be conducive to intensive effort?
– lt would be rather idle to ask the honorable senator to put that question on the notice-paper, in view of the fact that this is the last day of the sessional period. If he will give me the question in writing I shall endeavour to have an answer supplied to him during the recess.
page 1106
– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. In the Sydney “ Daily Telegraph “ to-day it is announced that to-night’s programme on channel 9 - television station TCN - from 7.30 onwards consists of the following items: - 7.30. Annie Oakley in “Gun Play”. 8.0. Big Tom Series “ Gambling Empire “. 8.30. Thursday Night Theatre Presents “Stolen Pearl “. 8.56. Racket Squad “ Knock Out “.
Will the Minister, who has the responsibility of film and television censorship under his departmental control, cause this particular programme to be viewed? Would he then consider whether this programme, and others similarly advertised, are suitable for the fairly large family and juvenile audience that is interesting itself in television viewing?
– The Department of Customs and Excise is responsible for the censorship of films according to the provisions in the relevant act. Television films come under the same censorship. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board, I understand, is responsible for the standard of television programmes, quite apart from the aspect of films censorship. However, I will have the matter examined, and will advise the honorable senator, in due course, of the result of the examination. It might be necessary for me to refer his question to the Postmaster-General.
page 1106
– The question that I direct to the Leader of the Government in this chamber is supplementary to the question that was asked by Senator Buttfield. In the light of the Minister’s replies to that question, and a similar question that was asked by Senator Buttfield earlier this week, and having regard to the plight of the flood victims along the river Murray, will the Minister short-circuit official routine procedures between the Commonwealth and South Australia by announcing, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, that adequate relief will be provided quickly for the victims of this national calamity? I remind the Minister that many people along the river Murray lost all their possessions in the floods.
– 1 understand that a small amount of money was provided immediately to alleviate personal distress. As I am sure Senator Critchley will appreciate, a considerable amount of work was involved in assessing the amount that would be required to repair the flood damage and provide for the rehabilitation of the flood victims. I believe that that work has now been completed, and 1 am hopeful that a statement will be made on the matter within a matter of days.
page 1107
– The question that 1 direct to the Minister for Customs and Excise concerns the re-building of the customs house in Melbourne. Can he say when it is intended to proceed with this work, and what is the estimated cost?
– 1 understand that the Minister for the Interior will shortly - probably to-day - present to the Parliament a proposal for extensions and alterations to the customs house in Melbourne. Concern has been expressed in certain quarters by people who thought that it was the intention of the Government to remove the Department of Customs and Excise to the new Commonwealth centre that is being constructed in Melbourne. The department will not be moved from its present location. I am unable to inform the honorable senator of the estimated cost of altering and extending the existing building. It is a particularly beautiful structure, and I hope that its outstanding features will be retained.
page 1107
– I desire to ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question without notice. Before doing so, however, I should like to thank the Leader of the Government in this chamber, as well as Senator Kendall, and, indeed, all honorable senators for the courtesy and kindness that they have extended to me during the past few weeks. It has been reported that railway fares between Western Australia and the eastern States will be increased by 20 per cent, or 25 per cent. Can the Minister indicate the percentage increase that is being made by the Commonwealth railways, and say how it is justified, in view of the fact that the Commonwealth railways recently announced that a profit was earned last year?
– 1 understand that the increased inter-system fares to which Senator Tangney has referred were recently recommended to the governments concerned by a conference of Commonwealth and State railway authorities. I am not in a position at the moment to indicate precisely the variation which occurred in the . Commonwealth proportion of the increase compared with the State proportion of the increase. 1 understand that 1 will have the information later to-day, when I will make it available to the honorable senator.
page 1107
– I view of the answer which the Leader of the Government in the Senate gave me a few minutes ago, assuring me of the Commonwealth’s sympathetic interest in the floods in South Australia, 1 should like to ask the Minister for National Development a supplementary question. Does the Minister consider that the River Murray Commission can play any part in preventing a repetition of the disastrous floods in. the Murray Valley, particularly in South Australia where the waters of three other States converge on it? Has the Minister investigated what can be done to alleviate and, if posible, overcome, the problem, resulting from the soil salination occasioned by the floods? Has the Minister any ideas as to what further steps can be taken by the Commonwealth itself to alleviate distress caused by the flood damage? Since seeing is believing, can the Minister give any indication as to whether he will endeavour to visit the flooded areas in the near future?
– 1 do not think that the River Murray Commission can play any physical part in respect of this national disaster. It is only a very small organization. It is preparing for each of the governments concerned a report which will contain its views on what might be done in future in respect of flooding in the Murray Valley. It will take the commission some time to complete that report because it is a big subject, but I would think that there could be no better source from which to obtain views on this matter than from the River Murray Commission. As to what the Commonwealth can do, I can do little more than refer the honorable senator to the reply that. 1 gave previously when I pointed out that damage to plantings in the area had been caused by the high-water table or by outright flooding rather than by the salting. I think that point is material and should be kept in mind. 1 would not like to say, offhand, on a matter of this importance, what the Commonwealth might do. As to whether I would go there personally, I confess that I am not vain enough to think that I could produce a solution when all the technical officers concerned are looking at the problem at the present time. I had made arrangements to visit the Murray River with the River Murray Commission people who are going to show me their activities on the river, but that was put on one side by the floods. I have hopes that I shall get there, but I do not commit myselft at this stage.
page 1108
– In view of the fact that the Minister for Shipping and Transport has refused a deputation’s request to establish a passenger and transport ferry service between Hobart and Sydney, will he give consideration to granting a reasonable subsidy to private enterprise if the people interested can arrange for private enterprise to establish such a service? As he already knows, it is a most retrogade step that this service should have been cut out after so many years of service which continued till it went off during World War II.
– The service referred to by the honorable senator has not operated for about fifteen years.
– No, that is wrong.
– It is about fifteen years. As the honorable senator knows, because he was a member of a deputation from Tasmania which recently saw me, I then informed the deputation that the Tasmanian Government was submitting certain representations to the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission in respect of an alternative scheme to the one presented by the deputation of Tasmanian members which was rejected. I told the honorable senator then that the commission was considering these further proposals and that consultations between the Government and the commission were continuing. That is the situation at the . moment. I am not in a position to say any more. As soon as the negotiations are completed, I shall be in that position and shall probably make a statement.
– This is the first time that I have received that information.
page 1108
– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation to what extent the rationalization scheme imposed by the Government upon Trans-Australia Airlines in order to assist its competitor, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, has caused Trans-Australia Airlines to increase its air rates. Will the Government obtain for the Senate the balance-sheets of both organizations so that the proposed increase by Trans-Australia Airlines which, in view of the financial position of the organization, is neither desired nor justified, may be examined?
– The published balance-sheet of Trans-Australia Airlines is available to the Senate. Indeed, I had the pleasure of tabling it recently, and it is just a matter of Senator Ashley’s getting hold of it and examining it. It discloses, as has been indicated this morning, a profit of approximately £300,000. I am delighted to say that it also discloses that, for the first time in the history of the organization, the accumulated profit and loss account has passed from the red into the black.
– The Minister does not take any credit for that, does he?
– I simply put it on record as being a matter of some pleasure to myself and, I thought, possibly to the honorable senator. Regarding his request for figures relating to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, I point out that that organization is a private company and that I have no access to its books. In any case, as it is a private corn.pany, I should not feel disposed to make the information public.
– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether it is a fact that only first class air fares have been raised and that tourist class fares still remain at the old level. Secondly, does the increase of fares relate only to Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, or does it also apply to the Ansett service?
– Senator Wood is correct when he indicates that only first class fares and not tourist class fares have been increased. At the moment, the increases apply only to Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, but it is possible that other operators will seek adjustments in line with those made by those two organizations. Of course, not all air operators charge the same fares. I understand that some operators charge rather less than do Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, and even if the minor companies increase their fares, those fares will probably retain their present relationship to the fares charged by the major operators.
page 1109
– I again direct the attention of honorable senators to the length of questions being asked without notice. Frequently, they are much too long. I also direct the attention of the Ministers to some of their replies. They are equally too long, and probably deal a little too much with matters of policy.
page 1109
– Has the attention of the Minister for Shipping and Transport been directed to an article in last Sunday’s Sydney “ Truth “ relating to shipping combines, suggesting, inter alia, that the shipping freight rates policy is nothing short of legal piracy; and that the overseas shipping combine has been holding the economy to ransom, and waxing fat on profits derived from the Australian run. The article adds that this cartel should be broken by the extension of the Commonwealth shipping line. Does not the Minister agree that it is time to reconsider such an extension for the purpose of competing against those who are holding this country to ransom?
– Overseas freights do not come within my knowledge or administration. Recently I had occasion to make some comment which indicated that the recent freight increases on the Australian coast had been fully justified. I am not prepared to enter upon a criticism of overseas freights until I am better equipped to do so. I simply do not know what the position is. As for the honorable senator’s proposal to extend the Commonwealth shipping line so that it may operate overseas, 1 put it to him, as a matter of practicality, that the 40-odd ships of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission are fully committed in maintaining the Australian coastal trade.
– Will the Minister take up the question with the Minister for Trade, and ask his colleague whether the Commonwealth shipping line can be extended so as to compete with, and to some extent reduce, the power of this shipping octopus?
– I thought I had made it quite clear that at present all the vessels of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission were fully committed on our own coast, and it was not practicable to divert any of them to the overseas trade. I believe that the question of overseas freights is at present being examined by my colleague, the Minister for Trade, who no doubt will make an appropriate statement in due course.
page 1109
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -
The latest figures available are those for the November, 1955 (Metropolitan) and January, 1956 (Country) issues of the Victorian telephone directories, the amounts in the order of the honorable senator’s questions being as follows: -
£263,000.
Senator KENNELLY (through Senator Arnold) asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -
page 1110
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -
The relevant provisions of the United Kingdom legislation were summarized by the Millard Tucker Committee as follows: - “ 32. Relief is allowable in the following circumstances: -
page 1111
asked the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -
– The Minister for Defence, who is the appropriate Minister, has furnished the following reply: -
page 1111
– On 18th October, Senator Ashley asked me the following question: -
Has the Postmaster-General’s attention been directed to the position of telephone subscribers at Dora Creek, in New South Wales, who have decided unanimously to protest against the useless telephone service by having their telephones removed? Is he aware that the 75 subscribers have had their service reduced from 24 hours to fewer than ten hours a day? Is the action of the department an indication of a general reduction in the provision of telephone facilities? If the answer is in the negative, why have 2,000 residents at Dora Creek been penalized and inconvenienced, especially when, as a result of the increases in telephone charges, they will be paying £375 a year in rentals alone?
The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply: -
In accordance with standard basis number of subscribers connected to Dora Creek exchange justifies continuous service, but the non-official postmaster found earlier this year that, because of ill health and difficulty in securing assistance, he was unable to meet the full requirement and, therefore, felt obliged to restrict service to hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday to Friday, with one hour meal break; 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday; and 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Sundays and holidays. The postmaster has indicated he is willing to attend to urgent calls at all limes. Local girls recruited from time to time have left to take other positions and the assistance rendered by the postmaster’s daughter was curtailed when she married. Despite action by the department to help the postmaster obtain necessary local assistance, none has been forthcoming to date. Efforts are being made by departmental district officers to convene a public meeting to explore further avenues of securing assistance. An automatic exchange is scheduled to replace the present manual installation, but due to prior commitments at centres of greater need, immediate provision is not practicable.
page 1111
– by leave- I lay on the table the following paper: -
Report of the Government Members’ Rail Standardization Committee.
The committee was established in March. 1956, to consider the practicability and desirability of standardizing the rail trunk lines on the Australian mainland.
page 1111
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -
That Government business take precedence of general business after8 p.m., this sitting.
page 1112
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The bill is quite short and its purpose clear. The reasons for the proposed increase in the stevedoring industry charge from 6d. to ls. Id. can be stated quite briefly. First, as from 3rd April last, attendance money payable to waterside workers was increased by 50 per cent, from 16s. to 24s. That increase will add an estimated £368,000 per annum to the amounts paid out by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for attendance money.
Secondly, by an award of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission made quite recently, waterside workers were granted paid sick leave and pay for statutory holidays. Since there were difficulties in the way of making the employers directly responsible for these payments, as is the case at present with annual leave payments, the award of the commission directed that the authority should administer these payments. lt is estimated an amount of the order of £1,078,000 per annum will be payable for sick leave and statutory holidays
Thirdly, the administration of the press and radio system of allocating labour which has now been extended by the authority to most ports as a result of a recent award of the commission, while bringing great advantages to the industry as a whole and the waterside workers in particular, will involve the authority in greater administration expenditure.
Fourthly, the authority needs to be in a position where it can pursue a useful programme of installing necessary amenities and improving pick-up and like facilities. Primary responsibility for amenities for waterside workers rests with the port authorities and some of them are, in fact, doing much in this direction. Other authorities, however, are disposed to devote their resources to wharf maintenance and improvement. It is notorious that amenities for waterfront workers are, in many cases, much below the standard found in other industries. The Australian Stevedoring Industry Board has, over the years, spent considerable amounts in improving conditions, and the new Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority must continue this work. Necessarily, the authority must proceed on the basis of some system of priorities, for funds for these purposes are not unlimited, and, as I have said, the port authorities have responsibilities in this field as well.
Fifthly, some provision has to be made, to enable the staff of the authority to be brought under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. Now that the authority has been given its charter by the Parliament, it is entirely appropriate that the benefits of the superannuation scheme should be extended to the authority’s staff.
Finally, principally as a result of the increase in the rate of attendance money to which I have referred, and there being no earlier opportunity for the Parliament to review the rate of the levy, the authority’s working funds have been running down at a rapid rate. It is, accordingly, now necessary to restore the authority’s funds to provide a safe level of working funds for the future.
The circumstances that make necessary this increase in the stevedoring industry charge contributed to the recently announced decision by the Australian interstate shipowners, including the Commonwealth line, to increase freight rates. While the Government regrets the need for these increases, it is not without knowledge of the difficulties confronting the Australian coastal shipping lines, for it knows very well the financial position of its own line of ships.
The report of the Stevedoring Industry Committee of Inquiry on the costs and profits side of its investigations, which was made public last week, bears out the difficulties which the interstate shipping lines have faced in recent years.
The increase in costs of interstate shipping services and stevedoring operations which have given rise to this latest freight increase stem almost entirely from the incidence of a series of awards of the arbitration tribunals. I have mentioned only some of these awards. From these, in particular, the waterside workers have secured great benefits. What we need now is an increase in the productivity of the industry. With that, reductions in freight rates should follow.
The levels of waterfront performance and freight rates are of direct concern to the public generally. Already, high freight rates and poor performances have led to increases in the general level of our internal costs, and, in the case of internal Australian trade, to diversion of traffic to other forms of transport. Likewise, in the case of our external trade, they have imposed great burdens on our balance of payments problems, lt requires no imagination to see what will happen if there is not a marked improvement in waterfront performance. The waterside workers themselves have a very real and direct interest in these matters. The withering away of the intra-state coastal shipping service points the lesson quite clearly - -the stevedoring industry will go the way of others that have refused, or failed, to face facts.
Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned.
page 1113
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to which Australia is a party, permits a member country to take emergency action against imports entering the country under conditions which cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers or to producers in a third country whose exports are entitled to entry under a preferential tariff.
The principal trading nations of the world have, therefore, decided that it is necessary for a country to have this power and, by international agreement, have recognized the right of countries to take emergency action against imports in certain circumstances. Clearly it is necessary that Australia should be in a position to exercise an emergency power which she has been conceded by international agreement.
There is not, however, any appropriate existing Australian legislation which would permit the exercise of the emergency power envisaged by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1936 to provide the Minister for Customs and Excise with the legislative authority necessary to take emergency action against imports which enter Australia under conditions, such as at very low prices, which cause or threaten serious injury to our industries or to industries in other countries whose exports enter Australia under a preferential tariff. The action would take the form of the imposition of an emergency duty.
Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned.
page 1113
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is designed to validate, until 30th June, 1957, collections of duty made in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 and Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals No. 1, which were introduced in another place on 31st October, 1956.
It is not practicable, in the limited time available before the present sitting ends, to proceed with a debate on the tariff changes set out in the tariff proposals to which this bill refers. However, unless proposed tariff alterations are enacted or validated within six months of their introduction, or before the end of the parliamentary session, whichever first happens, the collection of duties, in accordance with the proposals, is open to legal challenge.
Therefore, in view of the possibility of Parliament being prorogued before it meets again next year, it is necessary to pass this bill, which I might describe as a machinery measure, to safeguard the position until the opportunity is available to debate the tariff proposals. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned.
page 1114
Debate resumed from 3 1st October (vide page 1097), on motion by Senator Cooper -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– I am indebted to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) for introducing this bill, because it gives me the opportunity to speak on the benefits to be received from the national health scheme. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said - .
Much is said nowadays about medical and hospital benefits, and all sorts of claims are made that these should be higher or more extensive. Whether this is so or not, the thing of fundamental importance is the quality of medical care, and it is essential that there must be not only no deterioration of the standard of family and general practice from the high level at which it has existed in the past . . .
I want to refer to a matter thatI mentioned some weeks ago in regard to the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited and its associated organization, the Hospitals Contribution Fund of New South Wales. A patient to whom I referred at that time had been a contributor to both funds. His annual contributions were £7 10s. to the Medical Benefits Fund and £9 12s. to the Hospitals Contribution Fund, a total of £17 2s. According to the published declarations of the Medical Benefits Fund, for those contributions he was entitled to receive a refund of portion of his medical expenses and, as he had insured for the highest possible benefit, a payment of £21 a week for hospital treatment. The patient was in hospital for fifteen days, which indicates that the operation performed on him was of a minor character. His medical expenses were £47 19s. and his hospital expenses £57 10s., a total of £105 9s. On settlement of his claim, he received a cheque for £3, which represented the Commonwealth subsidy of 4s. a day for the fifteen days he was in hospital. I told the patient to inform the manager of the Medical Benefits Fund that he had passed this matter on to me for investigation because he thought he was being robbed.I am sure he was robbed. However, on 25th September the patient received the following letter from the Hospitals Contribution Fund: -
We refer to your claim for benefit on this Fund for admission to the Hospital, but it is regretted that benefitcannot be granted.
The medical information before us indicates that the condition had been in evidence prior to your joining the Fund, as per Rule 9 which reads as follows: -
Exclusions From Benefits.
In respect to any illness or disability the SYMPTOMS of which are in evidence at the date of joining irrespective of the date of diagnosis or medical attention.
However, the Commonwealth Additional Benefit of 4s. is payable for 15 days, cheque for same enclosed herewith.
I have had complaints from people in all parts of Australia, particularly New South Wales, who are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. This patient is paying not only £17 a year to the two funds for hospital treatment and medical attention but also a contribution in taxation equivalent to at least £1 a week. Every person on the basic wage, man or woman without dependants, is to-day contributing at least £1 a week to the national health scheme, despite the fact that in 1950-51 the Menzies-Fadden Government merged the social services contribution with the income tax. Therefore, we have no indication of the amount that has been collected.
– What ground has the honorable senator for saying that every basic wage earner contributes £1 a week?
– That is a very pertinent question. The public is entitled to be informed on that matter. The man in the street to-day does not know what he is paying. He does not know what the national health scheme of the MenziesFadden Government is costing. In the last full year in which the social services contribution was collected, 1948-49, more than £100,000,000 was collected by way of social services contribution, as against £95,000,000 collected from taxation on incomes derived from personal exertion. A greater amount was collected from the taxpayers by way of social services contributions in 1948-49. than was collected by way of tax on incomes derived from personal exertion. In that, I do not include company tax. The figure relates solely to personal income tax. Senator Wright has asked on what grounds I base my statement. I repeat that every man and woman without dependants on the basic wage to-day is contributing £1 a week by way of what was formerly known as the social services tax, and I challenge him or any other senator to disprove that. Because of the increases that have taken place since 1948-49, despite the alteration in the method of collecting the tax, the fact is that the Menzies-Fadden Administration is now collecting over £200,000,000 a year by way of what is really a social services tax.
– The figures will not support the honorable senator’s assertions.
– They will, and I challenge Senator Wright or anybody else to prove me wrong. I can produce proof from the taxation authorities and other government departments that what I say is correct. What is more, I have never, either here or on the public platform, made a statement that I could not prove.
In the case to which I refer, the patient’s expenses were £105 9s. When he brought the matter to my notice I told him to notify the secretary or president of the fund that I intended to bring the matter to the notice of the Parliament. He did that, and a strange thing happened. Almost one month after he received the letter dated 25th September, which I have quoted, this man received a cheque dated 23rd October for £18. The total amount he received from the fund was £38 5s. 6d., which included £17 5s. 6d. for medical attention, £18 for hospital fees and £3 as the government subsidy. The total government subsidy received from the fund was £9 0s. 6d., so that between them the Hospitals Contributions Fund of New South Wales and the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia paid him only £28 15s. as recompense for expenses totalling £105 9s. In an expensive brochure issued by Sir Earle Page just prior to an election and which cost £100,000, as well as in advertisements which I can produce, the public is informed that the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia will bear the major proportion of medical expenses incurred by a member. I should say that £28 15s. out of a total of £105 is by no means the major proportion; on the contrary, it is a most insignificant proportion.
A few days ago I spoke to the Minister personally about the matter and asked him to consider having an inquiry conducted into the position. I did that because the case to which I have referred is only one of hundreds of instances in which people are being robbed by this organization. The facts warrant an immediate inquiry by either the Public Accounts Committee or some other responsible body in order to ascertain why people are not receiving benefits to which they are entitled. I suggest that although a person pays £17 by way of direct contribution in addition to a certain proportion of his income tax for social services benefits, it is harder to obtain any benefit from these organizations than it is to win either a lottery or the “ golden words “ competition conducted by the “ Daily Telegraph “. The person to whom I have referred has been a member of the fund in question since 1953. He has fulfilled the Medical Benefits Fund’s qualification period of two years; but initially he received a cheque for only £3 as recompense for expenses totalling £57 10s.
Again, I ask the Minister to examine some of these cases. If he will order an inquiry into the matter, I can guarantee to provide him with all the information necessary. I feel very keenly about this matter, because I am receiving complaints every day. I urge the Minister to take some action. I do not want a mere promise that he will investigate or obtain a report. I ask that some definite action be taken. Although this organization is paying out over £700,000 a year by way of government subsidies and has a turnover of just on £4,000,000 a year, it seeks to deprive the people of Australia of their just rights. The position is so serious as to warrant the appointment of a royal commission to ensure that contributors receive justice under this, the most expensive national health scheme in the world. It provides the least benefits and under it the people are being robbed to a greater extent than has ever been known before in Australia.
– I commend the Government for introducing this bill, but before discussing the measure I should like to answer some of the criticism emanating from honorable senators opposite. Last night, Senator Kennelly was good enough to commend the Government for introducing the bill and to admit that because of it a large number of people in Australia will receive great benefits. His great concern was - and this is a matter which we have to consider - that there is still a grave shortage of nurses. I was assured in Melbourne the other day that the position is being overcome gradually and that trainees are clamouring to enter the profession. I know that in Western Australia there is still a very grave shortage of both trainees and nurses for country hospitals. I understand, however, that district nursing organizations have no difficulty in obtaining the services of nurses to do district nursing.
Senator Kennelly rightly commended the Government for introducing this measure, but Senator Ashley adopted a critical attitude. Unfortunately, I have not at my disposal at the moment figures to counter those referred to by him, but I am certain that many of his figures were incorrect. I assure the honorable senator that the national health scheme in this country is one of the best in the world - an opinion that is held not only by supporters of this Government, but also by many others. The previous Minister for Health, the honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), received many compliments from visitors from abroad on the success of the scheme. Of course, it would be angelic if we had a scheme that was perfect, but there are always anomalies of some kind. However, on each occasion that I approached the previous Minister for Health regarding anomalies he was most helpful and did his best to iron out the difficulties. Senator Ashley should not forget that Australia now has an effective national health scheme, and I remind him that when Labour was in office Senator McKenna introduced a scheme that was not capable of working effectively. I believe that there are many people in Australia to-day who are grateful to the Government for the health and medical services that it has introduced.
In the bill now before the Senate, I see another link in the chain of helpfulness between this Government and the people. We hear a good . deal of criticism from honorable senators opposite to the effect that profiteers are being protected, and we often hear references to capitalists and silver-tails. In my opinion, they are ungenerous in refusing to recognize that, since 1949, this Government has taken step after step to assist the majority of the people. Let me cite just a few instances of that assistance, taken at random. This Government has increased child endowment, and of course it introduced endowment for the first child. On each occasion that it has brought down a budget, it has increased pensions for some sections of the community. In addition, it has provided generous repatriation benefits, as well as the most generous benefits in the world for sufferers from tuberculosis. It also has provided very good pensions for blind people. It has contributed £1,750,000 to church and other voluntary organizations, on a £l-for-£l basis, to help them to care for the aged and the sick. In my opinion, that is an excellent record. The measure before the Senate affords further evidence of the consideration of the Government for the masses of the people. No previous government has done so much for the people of this country.
For many years, voluntary organizations, including church organizations, have carried the load of district nursing - and I can assure honorable senators that it has been a load. Since 1904, I have been associated with such an organization, .and I know what it is to stand on street corners selling buttons and rattling collection boxes in front of people in order to raise sufficient money to carry on the work of the organization. I have no doubt that this bill will be passed by the Parliament, because the Opposition must appreciate that it will be of benefit to a great many people. The measure indicates the high cost of medical treatment to-day. At one time, it was a relatively simple matter to have a sick or ailing person admitted to hospital, but nowadays it is a very difficult matter indeed. In the course of the second-reading speech of the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron), he said -
The capital cost .of providing new hospital accommodation has risen to extraordinary heights. In the case of hospitals recently completed the cost is reckoned at at least £7,000 a bed. The cost of maintaining a hospital bed has also reached a new and very high level. It is now rarely, if ever, less than £3 a day, and in the ca’-e of many individual hospitals it is considerably more than that. By way of contrast, the cost of a visit to a home by a district nurse averages something like 7s.
There are many seriously ill people, including those suffering from incurable diseases, who cannot be accommodated in hospitals because of the terrific expense involved. On the other hand, there are many people in hospital who could be discharged if there were sufficient district nurses to give them the attention that they need at home. As I say, I speak from personal knowledge of these matters, because in 1904 my husband, with others, was responsible for starting a movement in Western Australia which led to the establishment of the Silver Chain Nursing Association. The “ silver chain “ referred to the donation of a silver coin by each child in the State. That is how it got its name. We started with a general nurse and a maternity nurse. The general nurse went about the city in a trap drawn by a pony, and the maternity nurse, as often as not, had to travel to country districts in bottle carts, or in any other vehicle in which she could get transport. To-day, we have twenty nurses doing district work. They are equipped with motor cars and are able to move about freely and visit thousands of cases every year. They succour people who are lonely and sick, those who have been discharged from hospitals as incurable, and those who, although discharged, need a little further treatment at home. Therefore, 1 commend the Government for having thought of this additional means of assistance.
Honorable senators may be interested to know that in Western Australia, in addition to establishing the Silver Chain Nursing Organization, we also built cottages for aged couples, so that they would not be separated in their old age. Each day, one of our district nurses visits the people in the cottages to attend to their aches and pains, and she is able to help them and to encourage them. But, we have gone even further than that. Some of the people under our care are of a great age; we have had two or three aged 98, and, of course, they have been helped to live to such a great age by the care that they have received. However, it has become necessary for some of them to have hospital treatment, so we have built the Alfred Carson Memorial Hospital, to which our patients may now go and receive the attention that they need.
This bill will assist the organizations already in the field, because it will enable them to extend their activities, lt provides that if district nursing organizations want to increase the number of nurses employed, the Commonwealth will meet the salary of the additional nurses. That will be most helpful. The bill contains many provisions for which we should be thankful, and, generally speaking, it represents another link in the chain of benefits that this Government is providing for the people of Australia. I stress that the introduction of this measure does not mean that the Government is seeking to take control of these organizations. There is to be no regimentation of them, and there will be no real control by the Commonwealth. On the other hand, the bill contains some excellent safeguards for them. For instance, it provides that the nurses shall be efficiently trained, and that the accounts of the organizations shall be subject to adequate audit, without, of course, undue interference with their management. I am sure that honorable senators opposite will agree that this bill is another of the beneficial pieces of legislation that the Government has been able to present to the people since 1949. I heartily support the measure.
– At another time I should have liked to discuss this bill at some length, but to-day I do not propose to do so. The great tragedy of this bill is that the Government has apparently seen that the problem exists, but has evidently decided that it is incapable of solving it, and has merely offered a small subsidy to nursing institutions, in the hope that some good may flow from that action. It appears to me to be a tragic kind of bill, and it will prove of no real value to the people of Australia.
We have been told that hospital construction these days costs £7,000 a bed, and that maintenance costs amount to £2,000 a bed a year. Nevertheless, there are seven hospital beds’ per 1,000 of the population in Australia, while in other parts of the world, including Great Britain and the United States of America, the proportion is much less, being less than 4.5 beds per 1,000 of population. Therefore, in this country, where we have an inadequate hospital benefits scheme, we have almost twice as many hospital beds, in proportion to population, as other countries.
I suggest that it is time the Government did something constructive towards solving the hospitals problem, instead of introducing practically worthless legislation to subsidize home nursing institutions. The medical benefits legislation upon which this Government prides itself is designed only to ensure payment of doctors, and is not concerned with assistance to patients. It contains no provisions for solving the problem of inadequate hospital accommodation. To-day, with a fanfare of trumpets, the Minister has introduced a scheme which merely serves to provide payment for a few more home nurses. The Government might well have introduced a scheme such as that which is in operation at the Montefiore hospitals in America, under which patients are sent to their homes and treated there by hospital doctors, and also provided with a home nursing service. By that means more beds would be made available in the hospitals, and a really worthwhile service would be provided. A scheme such as that could have been introduced in Australia with the aid of the subsidy that will be made available by this legislation.
I do not want to delay the passage of the bill, because I realize that time is getting short. I have no enthusiasm at all for this measure. I do not believe that it satisfies any need, nor that it will help the hospitals position. The proposal is so nebulous that one cannot be informed as to who will tell the nurses what patients they will attend. Will the hospitals do that? Will local practitioners be entitled to use the home nursing services? Will a nurse charge for her service? Will there be any priorities in regard to attendance? Will needy people be cared for? No information is given on those matters. The legislation merely recognizes the existence of nursing organizations in Australia - which, I believe, are doing a very good job in their own way - and provides that some money will be available for them in order that a few more nurses will be engaged, and then lets them go their own way. That is not the way in which a national parliament should approach this problem. When services costing £40.000,000 or £50,000,000 a year are involved, we should not approach the matter simply by saying, “ Let the present organizations continue. We will give them a bit of money, but we will not plan how best to meet the situation “.
While the Opposition is prepared to approve of the bill, I must say that I have no enthusiasm for it. It has little value. If the Government is not capable of bringing forward a worthwhile scheme designed to solve our hospitals problem, I suggest that in a very few years the problem will grow until it will become one of the most pressing that we will have to face. At present large amounts of money are being poured out to maintain our hospitals and to build new ones at a rate far greater than is necessary, and unless the Government plans a worthwhile scheme Australia will find itself in a great deal of trouble in trying to maintain its hospital system. I hope that this measure will do some good, but I personally believe that it will be of little value to the nation.
Sitting suspended from 12.42 to 2.15 p.m.
.-I find myself in the position of having no alternative but to support the bill although I regard it as a particularly iniquitous measure. It provides for a service on similar lines to the national health scheme for which Senator Robertson had so much praise. The honorable senator suggested that the scheme outlined by Senator McKenna would not work, but I can tell the honorable senator that it did something for the people as a whole. It ended that form of charity begging which was necessary to keep hospitals and nursing services going. Until the Labour government brought in its health scheme nurses were often seen on the streets appealing for charity. From one end of Australia to the other, in every nook and corner of every city and town, they were asking the people for money. That clearly shows that unfortunate people who became ill had to depend on charity to pay for their hospital treatment. The Labour government wiped that out, and brought in a scheme that worked, and that did something for the people.
– It did not work.
– It definitely did work. I can speak from personal experience, because prior to that I had to pay a few hundred pounds a year in hospital and medical expenses. Since this Government came into office it has stopped the scheme which provided for free hospital service and free medical attention in a hospital.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin). - Order! The debate has gone a little wide of the measure before the House. I know that the Minister mentioned the national health scheme in his second-reading speech, but I do not think it is advisable for the honorable senator to devote the whole of his time to debating the national health scheme when the measure before the Senate deals with home nursing. Therefore, I ask the honorable senator to keep as closely as possible to the bill now before the House, treating it as the primary matter of consideration and the other as secondary.
– I was replying to statements made by Senator Robertson. The honorable senator devoted the whole of her speech on what she said was a passing reference. I am comparing the subsidy proposed in this bill, which is a charity subsidy to assist nurses, with the charity subsidy given under the national health scheme. This scheme is to be financed out of the money raised to carry out the national health scheme, and that is why I refer to it.I am replying also to the remarks of Senator Robertson, whose speech was broadcast. As soon as the honorable senator had concluded her speech, and I got the call to speak, the Deputy President (Senator Reid) suspended the sitting five minutes before the usual time so that I might not have the opportunity of refuting, over the air, her statements.
– Quite right.
– Order! DidI hear an honorable senator say, “ Quite right “?
– I said it.
– Order! The Deputy President (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid) suspended the sitting at the time I asked him, and it was not done with any idea of depriving any honorable senator of broadcasting time. I do not wish to limit any honorable senator in his speech, but I suggest to Senator Aylett that his remarks are fairly wide of the measure now under consideration. If the Senate wishes to debate the national health scheme, I have no wish to impose my will upon any honorable senator, but I think that Senator Aylett would be well advised to spend as much time as possible now on the bill before the Senate, and leave his remarks on the other matter until some other occasion.
-I wish to make an explanation in order to overcome a misunderstanding which seems to have arisen, and to support the statement that you, Mr. President, have just made. I ask my colleagues on the Opposition side to believe me. About 12.20 p.m. to-day I noticed an intimation on the President’s table to the effect that it was his intention to suspend the sitting at 12.30 or 12.35. I did not consider that proposal to be of unusual importance, and I know that what you have said, Mr. President, is correct. However, because of some alteration in procedure on the Government side it appears that a decision was made to carry on the debate for a few minutes beyond the time at which it had evidently been intended to suspend the sitting. Now that Senator Aylett is aware of that fact, I think that, in fairness, he will accept your statement, as I do on behalf of honorable senators on the Opposition side.
– I accept your explanation, Mr. President, without anybody needing to accept it on my behalf. I was trying to compare the subsidy proposed in the bill with the activities of charity organizations and appeals that were in operation before the Labour government’s national health scheme came into operation. At the present time, charity canvassers are again on the streets because the hospitals are having difficulty in obtaining nurses to keep their staffs at full strength. The proposal in this measure is a charity bait to help the hospitals in a small way. Senator Robertson said that plenty of accommodation for the sick was available in hospitals and that the greatest need was for nurses. The honorable senator was attempting to convince the people of Australia that there was not so much sickness to-day, and that before the Government’s health scheme came into operation there was a considerable amount of malingering among the people. The principal reason that plenty of hospital beds are available is that the people have not the money to pay for hospital treatment. If a hospital patient has not the money to pay for his treatment he must leave the hospital with a debt hanging over his head. He must have been a contributor to a hospital benefits fund for two years before he can receive financial assistance to meet the cost of hospital treatment, or to pay for the home nursing service which this bill proposes to assist. The net result is that, unless a person has been a contributor to such a fund for over two years, or has the cash in his pocket, the alternatives are to stay out of hospital or have a debt hanging over his head. I have heard that some hospitals demand a settlement of their account within a short period. That has not been my personal experience, but I have acted for persons who have been hospital patients, and have succeeded in having their debts discharged because they could not pay for the treatment they received.
Senator Robertson praised the Government’s national health scheme and says it has worked, but that is not so. If a patient has ever been in a hospital before in his life with the same complaint, he is regarded as having a recurring sickness, and cannot claim any financial assistance from a hospital fund for it. That is an iniquitous thing, and the home nursing scheme proposed in this bill is just as bad. This measure is as iniquitous as the Government’s national health scheme which replaced the real national health scheme that was introduced by the Labour government and operated until this Government came into office. Senator Robertson evidently believes that if one tells the same lie often enough the people will believe it, and that is why she praised the Government’s national health scheme. But the Government knows what a mess it has made with its health scheme. lt has been a profitable venture for some, and the Government is still putting millions of pounds of social services taxation revenue into the pockets of hospital and medical benefits societies. It is fleecing the general public.
A week or two ago, I asked the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who represents the Minister for Health in another place, to supply me with particulars of the contributions paid to hospital and medical benefits societies, and to tell me how much those organizations had paid out in claims by contributors. So far, the Minister has not supplied that information, and it appears that I am not likely to receive it. The general public would be amazed if they knew how they are being treated. The difference between what is paid in contributions and what is received in response to claims is the amount by which the public are being fleeced. When the Labour government’s scheme was in operation, no such organizations made huge profits, because the social services revenue was paid into a fund for the benefit of the people as a rebate. Nobody was making millions of profit out of it. I have risen only to refute the untruthful statement made by Senator Robertson.
– And grossly unfair.
– And a grossly unfair statement. I can speak from experience of these things.
– I rise to order. Under Standing Order 418 I take strong exception to Senator Aylett’s statement that Senator Robertson was telling deliberate untruths.
– That is not a point of order.
– Order! What are the words about which you complain, Senator Kendall?
– The statement that Senator Robertson was telling deliberate untruths.
– Order! Senator Aylett, do you wish to state exactly “what you did say?
– I said that if one makes a statement often enough, the general public will believe it.
– That is not what the honorable senator said.
– Or rather, that if one tells a lie often enough the general public will believe it.
– Order! If my memory serves me correctly, the honorable senator made that statement earlier in his remarks; but towards the end of his remarks he made reference to Senator Robertson being untruthful.
– If objection is being taken to what I said earlier in my speech, I withdraw those remarks; but I do not withdraw what I said towards the end of my speech.
– I rise to order. 1 demand an apology from Senator Aylett. I made no untruthful statement and I do not intend to be charged with making an untruthful statement.
– Order! Senator Aylett, did you say that Senator Robertson told a deliberate lie?
– I said that what she said was a lie; and I withdraw that remark.
– I am referring to the latter portion of your remarks just before you resumed your seat.
– Tell the truth and shame the devil.
– 1 am telling the truth.
– Order! Senator Aylett, do you withdraw the word “ lie “?
– I have already withdrawn it twice. I now withdraw it a third time.
– And apologize for using it.
– I will not apologize for anything.
– Senator Maher is not the President.
– Order! The debate will proceed.
– in reply - 1 appreciate the way in which this debate, on the whole, has been conducted. I think that honorable senators on both sides of the chamber are in favour of this bill which deals with the home-nursing service. It does not deal with hospitals, hospital treatment or medical benefits.
– Why did the Minister introduce those matters in his secondreading speech?
– Senator Ashley is very fond of interjecting. Any time he has an opportunity to speak on a medical bill he brings in the medical benefit societies, and Senator Aylett does the same. They do so because they are very jealous of the wonderful success of the Page medical benefits scheme and the wonderful job that this Government has done in regard to medical benefits, the pensioner medical scheme, the free milk scheme and so on during the last seven years. That success must hurt those honorable senators very much.
I should like to pass on some information to Senator Ashley in view of the statement he made that a man on the basic wage would be paying £1 a week towards health benefits. In the first place, as a single man on the basic wage would pay only £45 in tax each year he would pay in total tax less than £1 a week; he would pay about 17s. a week. I shall prove to Senator Ashley how grossly wrong his statement was. I am not saying that he made lt deliberately - he just does not know what he is talking about. I am quite sure he would not deliberately make such a statement and I desire to put him right.
The total amount spent on health services during 1955-56 was £38,339,912, roughly £40,000,000; and total Commonwealth Government expenditure during that year was £1,049,422,864. So the proportion of that amount spent on health was one-twenty-eighth. On that basis the proportion of tax paid by a single man on the basic wage that would be allocated to the National Welfare Fund for health benefits would be one-thirtieth. Therefore, such a man would be contributing for health benefits not £1 but 8d. a week. Senator Ashley might have intended his statement to be taken another way. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt, and make the calculation on the basis of total income tax revenue as distinct from total revenue. Total income tax revenue for the year ended 30th June, 1956, was £573,980,085.
– That includes tax on all classes of income.
– I am giving the honorable senator the greatest advantage I possibly can.
– I referred to personal income, and I will keep to what I said.
– The proportion of total payments to the National Welfare Fund to total income tax revenue is approximately one-seventeenth. .
– I said personal income.
– I have given the honorable senator the figures based on personal income. The proportion of expenditure on health benefits to total income tax revenue, including company tax, of approximately £574,000,000 works out at oneseventeenth. On that basis a single man on the basic wage would be paying ls. a week in respect of health benefits.
– The Minister cannot give me that.
– I have been considering the single man only. I shall now lake the case of a man with a wife and two children. On the basis of the proportion of the amount spent on health to total government expenditure, he would be paying only 3d. a week for health benefits. Those are the facts, andI am sorry that our proceedings are not being broadcast at present. If the speech that Senator Ashley made had not been broadcast, I am sure that he would not have made such a wild statement. I ask the honorable senator, in all sincerity and with goodwill, to make sure that his submissions are correct before he puts them forward.
– I do make sure.
– I am afraid that the honorable senator did not put the facts before the Senate.
– The Minister has not the courage to tell honorable senators what a single man without dependants will be required to pay.
– Such a man pays 17s. a week if he receives the basic wage. The figures that I have put forward have been checked by the Treasury which, as all honorable senators know, has no political views. It is of no use for Senator Ashley to try to argue about this matter. His case appears to be one of those that Senator Aylett mentioned - he has said this sort of thing for so long that he now really believes it is the truth.
I thank the Senate for the way it has received this bill, and I am quite sure that the measure will prove to be of considerable benefit to some members of the community.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– Much has been said of a general nature about this measure, but attention has not been directed to any particular aspect of it. Therefore, I wish to draw attention to clause 6, which relates to grants of subsidies. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, stated -
This basis for calculating the subsidy will be applied in relation to the organizations which are conducting home-nursing services at the present time. It is possible, of course, that new organizations will enter the field. It will be evident to honorable senators that it will not be practicable to subsidize these new organizations on exactly the same basis as that proposed for the existing organizations, because that would involve the payment of a Commonwealth subsidy equal to the full salary of every nurse employed by each “ new “ organization. This would put “ new “ organizations on a much more favorable basis than those that have pioneered this field. It is proposed, therefore, that the organizations which commence home-nursing services after this act comes into operation will be entitled to apply for a subsidy equal to approximately half the salary paid to each nurse employed on homenursing duty. This, I think, is a fair and equitable basis for handling this problem.
Will the Minister explain the procedure in connexion with a nursing organization which comes within the scope of this bill and which, upon the introduction of the measure, has a strength of twenty nurses. I am of the opinion that if it recruits five new nurses the Government will pay their salaries.
– That is so.
– Consider, now, an organization that comes into existence after the bill has been passed and which starts off with a nursing strength of 40. In that case, it appears that the Government will pay half the salaries of all the 40 nurses. Therefore, an organization which has already carried the heat and burden of the day will receive a subsidy to the amount of the salaries of five nurses, whereas a new organization with a staff of 40 will have the salaries of twenty of its nurses paid by the Government. In other words, an established organization will suffer a financial loss simply because it has been in operation before the passing of this measure. Like the rest of the bill, this provision is satisfactory to a certain point, but it is not wholly satisfactory.
Then again, if a State government recognizes an organization and pays to it perhaps a nominal subsidy, say £20 a year, the Commonwealth will not be able to make a bigger contribution. If a State grants to an organization only £100 a year, will the Commonwealth, although it could perhaps pay £250 a year, pay only the amount of £100? If an organization is established within a State but the State has not subsidized it, the Commonwealth might pay nothing towards the upkeep of the organization, even though it may be doing the same sort of work as a subsidized organization, but in a poorer field. If. that is a fact, will the Government incorporate a provision in the bill, or make adequate provision at a later date, so that any organization that registers with the Commonwealth Department of Health will be paid a subsidy? If that were done, the privilege of receiving subsidies will not be given only to some organizations, but will be given to all relevant organizations whether the States subsidize them or not.
.- I wish to direct the attention of the committee to sub-clause (2.) of clause 6 in which it is provided -
The amount of a subsidy for a year -
shall not exceed the amount of the State assistance received or to be received by the eligible organization in respect of the home-nursing service in that year; and
shall, subject to the last preceding paragraph and to the regulations, be determined by the Minister.
The quantification of this subsidy depends on the regulations to be made by the Executive and determined by the Minister. I indicate that that is a matter which should attract the attention of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee which is charged with the duty to scrutinize bills passing through the Parliament in order to ensure that legislative provision is not made for regulations usurping the function of the Parliament. Where we quantify a subsidy to be paid by the Treasury by regulations and/ or a determination of the Minister, it seems that that should engage the attention of the committee.I mention that matter now, so that it will not be thought that it has been passed by unnoticed by any one. Being a man of peace, I leave it on that basis for the present.
– Senator Cooke asked whether, if an existing organization recruited five additional nurses, the subsidy would be payable only in respect of the nurses recruited. That is what will happen. I cannot see that existing organizations will be at a disadvantage compared to new organizations. As I said in my secondreading speech, it would not be practicable to subsidize new organizations on the same basis as existing ones. Therefore, it has been decided to subsidize them on the basis of approximately half the salary paid to each nurse employed on home-nursing duty. In other words, if a new organization employing 40 nurses were established, the subsidy would be equivalent to the approximate salary of twenty of those nurses.
– What is the principle of the subsidy?
– Apparently, the organizations who have been in the field for a number of years are to be penalized.
– That is not so. If an existing organization recruits an additional twenty nurses, it will receive the subsidy in respect of them. The existing organizations will be subsidized in respect of the salary of any additional nurses, and new organizations will receive as subsidy an amount equal to half the salary of its nurses. There is a proviso, however, that the Commonwealth subsidy shall not exceed the amount of any subsidy received from the State Government. The other matters that were mentioned by Senator Cooke will be kept in mind with a view to effecting any variation deemed necessary in the light of experience. To make the position clear in relation to the payment of subsidy, I point out that if the Victorian Government makes grants totalling £40,000 to Victorian organizations, the Commonwealth subsidy to them will not exceed £40,000.
– The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) stated that if £40,000 represents the State subsidy payable to Victorian organizations, the Federal Government will not make a grant above that amount. The point is this; The only grant that will be made in Victoria will be a grant for the extension of existing services, or to new organizations established to provide a service. Therefore, it is fantastic to suggest that Victoria, through expanding its services, will be able to use anything like £40,000. As I said last night, the organizations themselves will be committed to find the difference between the salaries of the nurses and the overall cost of keeping the nurses working. Certain organizations will receive sufficient money from their State governments with which to provide district nursing services.
– Without Commonwealth assistance.
– As J undo.stand the position, certain State governments make grants to the various nursing associations and societies sufficient to cover their work throughout the year. Those organizations submit their balance-sheets for the past year, and the State government makes an appropriate grant to cover their activities for the ensuing year. In other States, however, particularly Victoria, the governments are unable to make grants sufficient to cover all of the organizations’ expenses. In many instances, those organizations have incurred deficits. Until those deficits are overtaken, the societies simply will not be able to expand. Of course, in the States that benefit through uniform taxation, the governments will be better able to make grants to the nursing, and bush nursing, societies to cover all of their expenses. 1 believe that that this scheme will be utterly useless to the societies which do not receive full grants from their State governments. I can best illustrate the matter in this way: I might say to a person, “ If you will buy this article from me for £1,000, I shall give you £600 “. The person might reply, “ As 1 have not got £400, 1 cannot take advantage of your offer “. That is the position in respect of the Melbourne District Nursing Society, which employs a third of the district nurses in Australia. I should think that similar organizations in New South Wales, and, perhaps, in other States also, are in a similar position.
– I hate to see a thimble and pea trick worked by the Government in relation to charitable institutions. Existing home-nursing organizations, in order to obtain any worth-while benefit from the proposed subsidy, would have to disband and then register as new societies. The position that will be created by this bill is absolutely distasteful to me. The point is, that because existing organizations are already subsidized to a degree, they cannot disband. A new organization will not receive a subsidy from the State government, and the old organization will not be able to receive Commonwealth subsidy, apart from an amount equal to the salary of additional nurses it engages. On the other hand, new organizations that are established after this measure becomes law, will be entitled to apply for a subsidy equal to approximately half the salary paid to all nurses employed on home-nursing duties. My advice to the nursing organizations would be to disband, register under a new name, and then apply for additional subsidy on the basis of recruitment. I agree entirely with Senator. Wedgwood’s contention that, in view of the proviso that the Commonwealth subsidy shall not exceed the total grants now made by a State for this purpose, it will be very difficult for many nursing organizations to gain benefit from this legislation.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Motion (by Senator Cooper) proposed -
That the bill be now read a third time.
– The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) said that 1 was not acquainted with the facts and had placed wrong facts before the Senate. I wish to refute that entirely. He said that in 1948 a single man paid social services contribution amounting to £45 a year. That is correct, but that figure relates to a person earning £600 a year.
– I rise to order. Is the honorable senator in order in raising at this stage a matter that was debated during the second-reading stage?
– The point of order is not upheld.
– I repeat that I agree that the figure he quoted was correct, but I invite him to ask his departmental officers to give him the figure for the present basic wage. Every Minister, when referring to the basic wage, claims that the average wage is £15 a week, including overtime and everything else. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) does that repeatedly. I ask the Minister for Repatriation to state the actual basic wage in New South Wales. I say deliberately that I had no idea of trying to mislead the Senate. I have never done so in my life, and never will. To-day, a single man or woman without dependants who is in receipt of the basic wage pays more than £1 a week in social services taxation and contributions to hospital and medical benefit funds.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 1125
Debate resumed from 24th October (vide page 865), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The bill now before the Senate is the Loans Securities Bill 1956. It is a very short but very important measure, and I confess that it has stimulated my interest. It seeks to amend the Loans Securities Act 1919, which has stood completely unaltered for some 37 years and pursuant to which a good deal of borrowing has taken place. The bill seeks, in the first place, to repeal section 3 of the principal act and to re-enact it in words which do not in any way alter the sense, but which particularize the conditions a little bit more clearly. The proposed section reads -
– (1.) Where under an Act the Treasurer has authority to borrow moneys in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1946, or in accordance with the provisions of an Act authorizing the issue of Treasury Bills, the Governor-General may, notwithstanding the provisions of those Acts, authorize the Treasurer -
Pausing at that point, I comment that no substantive change will be effected by the repeal of the existing section 3 and the substitution of the proposed new section.
The only element written in is proposed sub-section (2.), which reads -
An authority under the last preceding subsection may, instead of determining any matter referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection, authorize the Treasurer to determine that matter, and, in that case, the Treasurer is empowered to determine that matter.
In other words, whereas now the GovernorGeneral determines the amounts to be borrowed, the manner, prices, terms and conditions, and the forms of security, it is proposed that in future he may merely determine the amounts to be borrowed and then authorize the Treasurer to determine the prices, terms and conditions, and form of the securities. I can say with some cynicism, but with complete truth that that does not alter the position because, having regard to the way in which the GovernorGeneral in Council is constituted in actual practice, for the purpose of this bill the Governor-General in Council is the Treasurer himself. But I can understand the difficulties that might arise under the present form of authority to operate which flows from the Governor-General in Council.
Those who negotiate, particularly abroad, on behalf of Australia may be called upon to produce their authority to borrow at any stage of the negotiations. If that demand is made in the early stages, and if the authority that the negotiators have sets out the whole of the limits to which they may go, there could be no negotiations because the lenders would hold them to the limit of their authority. If negotiations took place and they were effectuated at levels under the limits stated in the authority, which ultimately has to be produced, I suppose the lenders would feel that they had been cheated, and they would never be caught again. If it were desired not to disclose the position, the negotiators would have to send for another GovernorGeneralinCouncil authority, and there would be long delay before it arrived. So I concede very briefly the purpose at which this measure aims, and I am prepared to concede that it would facilitate negotiations for overseas borrowings. It is for that reason, among others, that the Opposition is opposing the bill - that it will, pursuant to clause 3, facilitate overseas borrowings at the instance of this Government.
Before I conclude I propose to give the reasons for our objections to overseas borrowing in general. I direct the attention of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to the interesting fact that apparently nothing is contemplated that will change sections 7 or 51b of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911- 1946. The Minister will note that those sections are almost on a par with section 3 of the Loans Securities Act 1919 which it is now proposed to amend. Section 7 of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1946 reads-
Stock may be issued and sold in such amounts and manner and at such prices and on such terms and conditions as the Governor-General directs.
That is really the old provision contained in section 3 of the Loans Securities Act 1919.
– The difference would be between internal and external loans.
– That might well be the answer, but there is nothing to indicate that, pursuant to sections 7 and 51b of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1946, the Government could not operate in foreign currencies. I think that, as a matter of practice, they are referred to solely for the purpose of borrowings within Australia. Section 51b of the act to which I have just referred deals with treasurybonds and debentures. I can understand that, as a matter of practice, they would be issued in Australia and not beyond; but I do not believe there would be anything to prevent the Government from issuing treasury-bills to support foreign borrowings or currencies if it could find some one who was prepared to lend. I merely make that comment as a matter of interest to show that it is not intended to alter the terms of those two provisions in the act. I am not objecting to that, but merely commenting on it.
I pass now to the second purpose of the bill, which is to enable the Treasurer, when authorized to borrow, to do so in any currency at all. In his second-reading speech, the Minister has claimed that the Treasurer already has this power under existing legislation. While he has pointed out that no loan authorization statute specifically refers to borrowing in a foreign currency, he has stated that there is no doubt that borrowings in a foreign currency may be made pursuant to the Financial Agreement.
I have refreshed my mind by a somewhat closer glance at the Financial Agreement, and I beg to differ from the Minister on that point. I invite him to state where, in the Financial Agreement, there is any reference to the borrowing of foreign currencies other than in article 4. That is the very exceptional case where the Australian Loan Council, by unanimous vote, may authorize a State to borrow abroad in a foreign currency in its own name. 1 imagine that that would be an exceedingly rare occurrence, but I wish to indicate to the Minister that, despite the statement he has made in his second-reading speech, that is the only place in the Financial Agreement where I see reference to a foreign currency. If there is any other reference, I should like to know where it is. I direct the Minister’s attention to article 4, which states -
The Treasurer may, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-18-
And we are agreed that that relates, in practice at least, only to Australian borrowings - or under the provisions of any act authorizing the issue of treasury-bills, borrow such moneys for the States as he is authorized or required to borrow for the States under the agreement.
I am not questioning the statement in the Minister’s second-reading speech that specific power to borrow in foreign currency appears in the Financial Agreement, but I should like to know where it is except in the case to which I have referred. He also indicated that a doubt had been raised in the Privy Council as to whether it was within the power of Australia, under its existing legislation, to borrow in overseas currency. 1 took the trouble to track down a particular case. It is one of the factors which excited my interest in this matter. It was a rather interesting case in which, many years ago, the National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited, in Melbourne, lent £526,000 to the New Zealand Government pursuant to the authority of an act of the Parliament of New Zealand corresponding almost identically with our Loan Securities Act. The contract provided that repayment should be made at Melbourne in pounds. No difficulty arose while the exchange between Australia and New Zealand had the same value in relation to sterling. But when, in 1948, the exchange rate swung against Australia, and it took £125 Australian to equal £100 New Zealand, the question of which pound was to be paid by New Zealand to the National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited became of great importance to the association. The New Zealand Government paid in Australian pounds, and took the benefit of the exchange to itself.
The National Mutual Life Association sued in the New Zealand Supreme Court to recover the money due by way of principal and interest at the higher rate. It wanted New Zealand pounds in Australian currency. That is, for every £100 of the debt, it wanted £125 Australian. The case reached that point without any question of the loan itself being intra vires or ultra vires the New Zealand act, but when the matter went to the Privy Council, argument was adduced on the point that the borrowing was illegal in that there was no power for the New Zealand Government to borrow in foreign currencies without specific authority.
The point I want to make is that the Privy Council did not deal with that argument. lt merely mentioned it, and said that the matter had been argued before the Privy Council, but the Privy Council, did not dispose of it. lt expressed the view that that particular issue was important, and ought to go back to the New Zealand Supreme Court to be argued. Reference to the matter is brief, and I should like to place it on record since the Minister has referred to the case. The relevant extract from the Privy Council judgment is as follows: -
Their Lordships must First notice arguments by the appellant which, if correct, would lead to the conclusion that it was ultra vires of the New Zealand Govt, to enter into an obligation to pay interest on N.Z. inscribed stock or to repay the principal of such stock in anything but N.Z. money, lt was of course not maintained that it would be ultra vires to undertake to pay, out of N.Z., in the currency of the place of payment an amount equivalent at the time of payment to a sum in N.Z. pounds, but it was argued that by the law of N.Z. the measure of every obligation in respect of inscribed stock must be N.Z. pounds. This argument was based on the relevant N.Z. statutes: it was said that the GovernorGeneral in Council can only authorize borrowing under the State Advances Act, 1913, in N.Z. pounds, and that if the Minister of Finance should undertake an obligation in some other money of obligation or money of account it could not be determined whether such borrowing was within the amount authorized by the Governor-General in Council; if the N.Z. currency should depreciate such an obligation might well require for repayment of the loan the raising from the public revenues of a larger sum than that authorized to he borrowed.
There is reference in the judgments of the Supreme Court to difficulties which might arise if obligations were undertaken to repay loans in foreign currency, but the question whether an obligation to pay foreign currency would be ultra vires was not clearly raised or dealt with and it is not raised in the appellant’s Reasons in this appeal. Reference has already been made to paragraph 5 of the statement of agreed facts, which states that certain subscribers were specifically given the option of payment in New York on the basis of 4.86 2/3 dollars to the United Kingdom pound, and it is difficult to see how the giving of that option could be intra vires if this argument is well founded. It is true that the rights of those subscribers are not affected by this case, but the submission of this statement and the absence of any suggestion of ultra vires emphasize the fact that this point has never been properly raised. It is a matter on which it would be of the utmost importance to have the views of the judges of the Supreme Court and, in view of the far-reaching consequences which a decision of this question might have, their Lordships are not prepared to deal with this new argument in this appeal.
Apparently, that is the passage that has provoked this bill. Although the Minister has said that, the Government has no doubt that it may deal in foreign currencies, the mere presentation of this bill shows that it entertains a doubt, and it is a doubt that I share. I suggest that it might be wise to put the issue entirely beyond doubt. At the same time, the Opposition opposes that provision also because of its general objection to overseas borrowing. We oppose it because we are opposed to the policy of overseas borrowings that has been pursued down all the years by this Government. From time to time in this chamber we have criticized the borrowing of £6,000,000 Australian in Swiss dollars. I think there were two loans of that type. We thought it was beneath the dignity of this country to be borrowing amounts of that order. There was also borrowing of Canadian dollars. We have the very doubtful distinction of being the greatest debtor of the International Monetary Fund. Altogether, the Opposition resents the programme that has been embarked upon by this Government.
There would be no complaint from this side of the Senate if the proceeds of those loans were required to provide essential raw materials that could not be obtained otherwise, or to provide essential capital requirements that could not otherwise be obtained. I repeat that we would not oppose overseas borrowing if it were required for the purposes of capital equipment and essential Taw materials vital to Australia and not otherwise obtainable. But we fmd, on looking at the position, that large portions of these loans have been used to cushion the balance of payments position. That is very plainly the case. If there is any doubt about that, I refer honorable senators to the last two budget speeches delivered by the Treasurer. They will find on page 2 of his speech for the current year, where he is dealing with the balance of payments, this statement -
From loans-
That is the. word I emphasize - and capital transactions and various movements of funds on private account, we gained a net amount of £148,000,000.
Again, on page 2 of his speech for last year, there is a comparable statement where he says -
Various loans and capital transactions, including some private capital inflow offset this deficit to the extent of £114.000,000, so. that the net deficiency on the whole of our external transactions for the year was £142,000,000. This was the extent to which our international reserves were reduced.
It is all very well, for a short-term policy, to be borrowing money to adjust the difference in the balance of payments, but there is a wretched record on the part of this Government, and one can understand how it has been pushed to this device. On looking at the years from the time when this Government took over, we find that on the balance of trade it had a credit balance in favour of Australia of £105,000,000 in 1950-51. In the next year, it lost £579,000,000, gained £191,000,000 in 1953, and, in each of the last three years, lost £15,000,000, £257,000,000 and £221,000,000 respectively. That represents the difference between exports and imports. The effect upon our international monetary reserves was cushioned by loan borrowings and other invisibles so that, in the last three years, whilst there was a gain of £10,000,000 in the ultimate overall position in 1953-54, there was a net loss of £142,000,000 in 1954-55, and £73,000,000 in 1955-56, and, in the various years, moneys have been used to a substantial degree from overseas borrowings to reduce the loss on our overseas funds.
– What does the honorable senator mean when he refers to the net result?
– I first gave the balance of trade position, the excess of imports or exports. Then, there were certain private capital inflows, borrowings by this Government and intangibles in the way of freight, insurance, dividend payments and so on, which, on the total clean-up, get- to a cash result. In the last few moments, I have been dealing with the cash result. The point I am driving home is that, in order to cushion the shocking position we are in over our balance of payments and our overseas sterling balances, we have been using loan moneys to an appreciable degree. They are set out in the tables which are supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician. Loan moneys are also used to bolster up States works programmes to quite an appreciable degree. They are used for capital purposes in that way. Again, we say that should not be necessary, that it ought to have been possible for this Government to have so stabilized the loan market that it could get on the loan market of Australia what moneys are required for these projects. We have indicted the Government again and again for the policies it has pursued down the years, and which have brought about the virtual collapse of the Australian loan market for public borrowing purposes and for purposes of public works, both Commonwealth and State.
I conclude this phase of what I have to say by remarking that whilst loans may be used- for the time being to ease the adverse balance of payments position, there is a day of reckoning, because not only must interest be paid on these loans from Australia, but also capital repayments under the contracts have to be made from time to time. Every time we borrow money from overseas, we are merely postponing the evil day and adding to the difficulties of our balance of payments position in future years. We are merely postponing the evil day. It is a kind of spendthrift, bankrupt policy which must get this nation into real trouble. From this place in the Senate, not long ago, I drew very particular attention to both the good effects and the adverse effects of providing capital investment in this country. Among the bad effects, I posed figures which, I think, startled the Senate when I indicated that with overseas capital investment, particularly dollar investment in Australia, if the companies were to repatriate to America the whole of the profits they made, instead of putting most of them to reserves and re-investing them in this country, 42.8 per cent, of our export income in dollars would be absorbed in merely paying those dividends and repatriating those profits. That is a dangerous position. It is one of the long-term dangers and ills being added by the policies that have been followed by the Government down the years borrowing to the limit of its capacity to borrow abroad, piling up obligations on future years to repay, and we say we are not prepared to do anything that would facilitate further borrowings by this Government. We also say that we are not one whit pleased with giving to the Treasurer authority to borrow where and how he will and in whatever currencies he chooses.
I am afraid that has been the position up to date, and, once this bill is passed, the Treasurer and Executive Government can borrow anywhere in the world, if the interpretation hitherto applied to the acts is accepted, without reference at all to the Parliament. We must face the fact that we cannot always go out on to the loan markets of the world and negotiate with the authority of a specific act of Parliament in our pockets. We realize that there must be some freedom to move and to negotiate, but I do make the point that there ought to be no overseas borrowing which is not subject to approval and ratification by this Parliament.
– And it should be for a definite purpose.
– It should be for a definite purpose and on definite conditions and the Executive should be compelled to justify before the Parliament its action in going outside Australia at all.
There is another matter that I might well leave to the committee stage, but it might save time if I advert to it now. I direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the old section 3 and in the proposed new section 3 of the Loans Securities Act, there are some words that are of particular interest to me. Those words are -
Notwithstanding the provisions of those acts.
I put them in their context when I read the proviso. It says -
Where under an Act the Treasurer has authority to borrow moneys in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1946. or in accordance with the provisions of an Act authorizing the issue of Treasury bills, the Governor-General may, notwithstanding the provisions of those acts, authorize the Treasurer -
to borrow the moneys in such amounts as the Governor-General determines;
It would seem to me that this bill will speak as an act from the day upon which it is enacted. I should imagine that whereas before the Financial Agreement was not incorporated in the terms of section 3 of the 1919 act, it spoke initially there from that date, and those same words repeated here are wide enough to enable the Executive Government, the Governor-General in Council, to completely disregard the decision of the Australian Loan Council. I ask the Minister to consider that situation seriously. This bill will operate from the day on which the Royal Assent is given to it, and Parliament is purporting to say that where the Treasurer has the authority to borrow under particular acts or any act, then, notwithstanding the provisions of those acts, he may borrow, in such amounts, on such terms and conditions and on such form of security as the Governor-General shall determine.
The act which is being re-enacted by this measure will enable the Treasurer to proceed in disregard at least of all other acts passed up to this time. I particularly wish to know from the Minister whether he shares that view. Suppose the Loan Council authorized the borrowing of a particular amount at a rate of interest not to exceed a certain figure, and laid down other substantial terms and conditions. The question I pose to the Minister, in view of the words “ notwithstanding the provisions of those acts “, is, would it be competent under this clause for the Governor-General in Council, or for the Treasurer if authorized by the Governor-General, to say, “ I am disregarding these limits as to interest rates and other conditions that have been fixed by the Loan Council, and I am offering higher rates”? I point out to the Minister that although the words, “ notwithstanding the provisions of those acts “, are the exact words used in the 1919 act, the Financial Agreement came later, and I think that those terms could not be held to extend to the Financial Agreement. When re-enacting the provision contained in those words, Parliament must remember that it has the Financial Agreement behind it, and is deemed to be saying that, despite the Financial Agreement and these other acts, the Governor-General may do these things.
I have not raised the first point mentioned in paragraph (a), where the provision is laid down that the Governor-General may, despite the other acts, borrow moneys in such amounts as he determines. If the Loan Council were to lay down that the overall borrowing programme should be £200,000,000 it would not be competent for the Governor-General in Council to borrow up to £210,000,000. He would have to keep within the limit set, and determine whether he would borrow the sum in lots of £5,000,000 or £50,000,000 or some other amounts. If the Financial Agreement is to be discarded, the result will be to authorize the Governor-General to ignore all conditions and limits that may be set by the Loan Council, and to exceed them as regards terms, conditions and prices - the discount price, the rate of interest or the underwriting charge. Can they be ignored?
I suggest to the Minister that a real danger lies in picking up the words, “ Notwithstanding the provisions of those Acts “, which were first used in 1919, and in re-enacting them now. What is the need for them now? Why should not acts of Parliament stand? Why should any of them be at the mercy of the Executive - in other words, subject to the dictates of the GovernorGeneralinCouncil which, in the final analysis, is the Treasurer of the Commonwealth? This matter calls for some consideration, and I raise it at this stage so that if the Minister is not in a position to reply - and I do not expect him, without notice, to give a discourse upon this particular proposition - he may be able to examine it at the committee stage. Rather than that this matter should be hurried, 1 have no objection to the debate being adjourned for a brief period to enable the Minister to have an opportunity to examine it. lt is an important matter, and 1 do not want to rush the Minister. With those observations and for the basic reason that the Opposition objects to overseas borrowing as pursued by this Government, I oppose the motion for the second reading of this bill.
– in reply - Like those in the ranks of Tuscany, I can scarce forbear to cheer. I have to offer my congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for the analysis he has made of this bill. His speech was most interesting. Sometimes, though not often, I could wish that I were in Opposition so that I might have time to go exploring. The Leader of the Opposition made a correct analysis of the reason for the change in the presentation of what I call a documentary title. The real purpose of this measure is to enable those who are negotiating loans on behalf of Australia to be placed in the position where they do not have to disclose the limits within which they must work.
This bill relates to overseas borrowing only, whereas the other legislation to which the Leader of the Opposition referred is, in truth, and in practice, effective only for local borrowing where circumstances do not necessitate the procedure that is in contemplation to strengthen negotiators in overseas borrowing. I do not propose to answer the arguments, firstly, in relation to the specific authority to borrow in foreign currencies or, secondly, as to overseas borrowing in general terms. The Leader of the Opposition cited a Privy Council case and quoted from the judgment, but with all my optimism I do not venture upon such waters.
The Leader of the Opposition concluded by saying that maybe there is a doubt about this, but the Government is doing the wise thing in at least strengthening the position and removing any doubt. I disagree with the argument advanced against overseas borrowing. A young and growing country cannot, from its own savings, find resources sufficient for its development. It must borrow overseas. Within certain limits, the more it can borrow overseas, on satisfactory terms, the better are its prospects of increasing its rate of development. There is a fundamental divergence of opinion there. 1 suggest that it is illogical for the Opposition to oppose the bill on that fundamental principle, because the Opposition must know that even if it were in power circumstances would exist under which overseas borrowing must continue, even if it were only for the purpose of meeting loans about to mature. Therefore, whatever divergence of views there may be upon the principle involved, at least there should be no divergence of views upon doing what has to be done as efficiently as is practicable from an administrative and machinery point of view. That is what this bill does. It does not deal with the principle of overseas borrowing but, in effect, says that when we borrow overseas we should do so in the most efficient manner.
As to the last point raised, I find myself in some difficulty. I have been advised that nothing in this bill will override the provisions of the Financial Agreement in any way. Nor is there anything in it which will enable the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) to ignore the decision of the Australian
Loan Council.I direct the Senate’s attention to section 105a (5) of the Constitution, which reads -
Every such agreement and any such variation thereof shall be binding upon the Commonwealth and the States parties thereto notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution or the Constitution of the several States or in any law of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of any State.
Question put -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)
AYES: 29
NOES: 23
Majority . . . . 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– I again put to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) an argument on the need for the words “ notwithstanding the provisions of those acts “ in clause 3 of the bill. Is there any need for those words in the light of the explanation already given by the Minister? Why should it be necessary for the Governor-General in Council, in other words the Executive Government, to be able to disregard the provisions of an act, apart altogether from the Financial
Agreement? I am assuming that the Parliament may have passed an act, as it does from time to time, authorizing a borrowing for a particular purpose, such as providing moneys for war service homes. Assuming that the Parliament laid down conditions in such an act, why should authority be given to the Executive Council to vary the terms or conditions of the security? In other words, I think the Minister is called upon to justify the need for the repetition of those words. I do not see the need for them; I object to their presence, and I should like the Minister, if he can, to justify their inclusion.
– I am told that it is to prevent inconsistencies arising between the provisions of the act now being amended and other acts.
– The Minister’s reply makes the matter just about as clear to me as it appears to be to him. The Minister does not know what it is all about, and, in those circumstances, I think it would not be profitable for me to pursue the matter further.I, therefore, let it rest at that.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1131
Debate resumed from 25th October (vide page 898), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- The purpose of this bill is to authorize the granting to the States for the financial year 1956-57 of special financial assistance amounting to about £20,450,000 to supplement the amount payable as normal States grants under the legislation of 1946-48. I mentioned this matter during my speech on the Supplementary Estimates and, having in mind a number of things, I propose to rest content with the remarks that I made at that time.
– I wish to refer briefly to the provisions of this bill, because most people will recognize that the predominant economic issue in Australia at the present time is the imbalance being created by the StateCommonwealth combination in regard to the basic wage. We believe that the differences engendered between the States and the Commonwealth on that issue are doing a great deal to disrupt the basis of our economy. Meantime, that issue is being aggravated. The cost of living statistics are running on, and the awards of State instrumentalities are creating a disparity between the Federal and State basic wages to a greater and greater degree.
We have excused our failure to control that situation by our lack of constitutional power. Here, we have a bill that is being enacted by virtue of section 96 of the Constitution, which permits us to give financial assistance to the States. The High Court has laid it down, quite clearly, that financial assistance may be granted to the States upon conditions. The whole fabric of the uniform taxation system is an illustration of that power. It distresses me that advantage is not taken of this opportunity to make it conditional for the States’ acceptance of this financial assistance that they should bring their economies - so far as they are determined by their own instrumentalities - into line with the level of the economy determined by federal awards. I say that because it has been a principle of the Labour party since the establishment of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court that it would support the Commonwealth court as the final arbiter for the fixing of wages. Now that the Commonwealth court has proceeded from the needs basic wage to the basic wage which is the maximum that the capacity of the economy will permit to be paid, it seems completely destructive of the prosperity of every section of the community to allow this disintegration of the system to go on. It is, in my view,’ a sad disappointment to see that this opportunity has not been taken to bring that particular facet of the economy into balance!
The second aspect of this bill to which I desire to refer is that we established a system of uniform taxation in 1942 as a war-time measure, and the system was continued after the cessation of the war as a peace-time method of finance. It was based, in the early post-war years, in such a way that out of our tax gathering there would be reimbursed to the States special amounts adjusted from year to year according to a formula that, among other factors, allowed for the increasing population of the States. Now, parties which came to office firmly determined to remedy the system of uniform taxation - by that I do not mean abolish it, but to remedy it - are now in the position of not having yet made any improvement to it. 1 speak about this matter rather earnestly, because I believe that the irresponsibility that the uniform taxation system engenders in State treasuries is one of the most disturbing features in the Australian economy to-day. lt may be said that there are difficulties about remedying this position. One has only to read the report of the Federal and State treasury officers to see that there are tremendous difficulties in the way of reverting to the status quo of 1942. The practical mind will readily perceive that that is an impracticable proposition. But, short of constitutional alteration, there are several ways by which this position could be regularized so as to determine proper areas of responsibility for the Federal and the State governments. This bill constitutes a denial of parliamentary responsibility, insofar as we are adding £19,000,000 to the amount of £153,660,000 which would be paid to the States under the formula.
That proves that this Parliament is exercising no judgment as to the justification for that or any part of it as a supplement to State treasuries. That is the province of the members of State parliaments. They should raise that amount by measures of their own, and then we should have proper parliamentary responsible government. For this Parliament to hand over to State governments £19,000,000 just by fixing a figure, is a denial of the responsibility proper to State parliaments, and a denial of responsibility that should belong to us. It is that element of irresponsibility, continued by this bill, against which I protest. I do so, suggesting that there are many remedies for this situation. One has been brought to my attention recently - no doubt it is available for the consideration of the Commonwealth Government, and has been, so for a long time - whereby we could simply provide for the marginal increment over and- above the formula figure to be put in a special column of the incometax form. The amount to be paid by the residents of each State’ could be determined on the responsibility of the State parliament, and conveyed to the Commonwealth Treasurer before 30th June each year. This is not an amateurish suggestion of my own. I am indebted for it to Mr. K. J. Binns, who is the Under-Secretary to the Tasmanian Treasury. Commonwealth taxation could be carried on as heretofore, and we would not have to budget for this largesse of £19,000,000 over and above the formula amount. A formula would be fixed - either the present one, or a variation of it - and we would budget on that. It would provide for Commonwealth needs and for proper reimbursement of the States for our usurpation of the taxation field. But then, if any particular State had need of a supplementary amount, the ‘State could advise the Commonwealth Treasurer before the end of the financial year - before the Commonwealth budget if necessary - at what rate in the £1 the supplementary State income tax is to be shown in a special column on the income tax form. This would be done in relation to individuals, not companies.
– The States would not know, at that stage, what they needed.
Senator WRIGHT__ They could find out, or they could use a little prescience, even though it may be a rare thing among State politicians, or even among Commonwealth politicians, to-day. I am not dismayed by the difficulty of forecasting the financial needs of the country in April rather than October; tackling that task six months earlier would not determine the beginning, or the end of the millennium. I simply say that, given the will to introduce responsibility into Commonwealth finance, it could be done in six weeks.
– Even though the figures differed in various States?
– Yes. If Tasmania wants to make its rate 6d. in the £1 and South Australia wants to make its rate l s. 6d. in the £1-
– Break it down!
– I was merely giving an illustration. That would be sufficient to give the State electors an opportunity to pass judgment upon the management of the State’s finances. I believe that this bill provides an opportunity for judgment on two major issues.. I have addressed myself to them, but briefly, at this stage of the sittings, because it would not be looking at matters realistically to expect the whole Senate to engage to-day in a debate appropriate to the national importance of the issues involved, but I do trust that, brief though my remarks have been, at least they will get some consideration of a purposeful kind, so that we may bring into balance our economy, and scotch this inane tension between the States and the Commonwealth regarding wage fixation, a tension that engenders bitterness and distrust, and makes for excessive costs in our economy. Such a scheme would at the same time remedy, to the degree possible within our constitutional powers, the irresponsibility that is born of uniform taxation. I believe that, in addition to the proposal I have made, there are several alternatives of a comparatively simple nature. I believe that what I have said is in accordance with the purposes and policy of the Liberal party.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
.- I have been impelled to rise by Senator Wright’s provocative remarks. Like a lot of other people, he does not have to worry whether he gets a marginal payment above the basic wage. In that respect, he is, perhaps, a little better off than other members of this chamber.
– He writes his own ticket.
– That is so. His statement that the people of one particular class should bear the burden in the present financial crisis was more than honorable senators on this side could take.
– I never said anything of the sort.
– That was the only inference that could be drawn from the honorable senator’s remarks. He referred to the inane policy of wage fixation which had resulted in different wage rates under Commonwealth and State awards. It is true that Labour believes in arbitration, but it also believes that the mass of the people should be treated fairly in the matter of awards. We believe that, as a corollary to arbitration, wages should be adjusted quarterly according to variations in the cost of living. As the present Government has been responsible for the economic crisis afflicting the country, I was amazed to hear one of its ardent supporters, in the person of Senator Wright, advocate that the burden of restoring economic stability should be borne by those least able to do so.
– Senator Wright did not say that.
– The implication was clear. It was that when the State Premiers meet the Prime Minister in conference in Canberra in the near future they should, in the interests of restoring national economic stability, agree to the fixing of a uniform wage, and that those States in which quarterly cost of living adjustments are granted should abandon that system; in other words, that they should agree to peg wages on the basis of the Arbitration Court’s pronouncement of 1953. Unless I am a very bad judge of the situation, they will not do so, because our economy has deteriorated to its present bad state because of the inaction of this Government. If we are to put it right, let every one contribute his share.
– Of course.
– The honorable senator did not say that earlier. All he referred to was the inane policy of those States which are still paying cost of living adjustments. If the man on the base rate in New South Wales, in which State the cost of living rose during the last quarter by Ils. a week, did not receive that increase, he would be in a nice situation. I do not want to be personal in the matter. It does not affect the honorable senator, nor does it affect me. But if the Government says that the only people who are to pay to right the economy are those who are in receipt of award wages, we shall do more than have something to say; there will be some action.
I do not disagree with the second point made by Senator Wright. I believe there could be irresponsibility on the part of the States in the spending of money. It should be possible to form a committee of representatives of the Commonwealth and the States to examine not only State works but also works that are commenced by the Commonwealth.
– This measure relates to revenue, not loans.
– The honorable senator implied that all irresponsibility in this nation is not in this building, but is also to be found in the six State governments.
– The honorable senator needs to clear his understanding.
– -It is all very well to talk about clearing the understanding. 1 admit that there could be irresponsibility in the States. It is easy to spend other people’s money, but I believe that a number of the States would be quite willing to tax in order to raise the money they need. I hope the law of this country prohibits them from doing that, because I want to see uniform taxation retained. Victoria is suffering under the present formula because in the past it expended less than any other State on social services.
– The honorable senator ought to be the last one to support it.
– The honorable senator is drifting from the provisions of the bill.
– I am sorry, Mr. Temporary Chairman. I wish to say only one other thing about the measure. Only to-day I learned from the Victorian Minister who is responsible for flood relief, and who is now in the precincts of the chamber, that it will cost Victoria £2,500,000 to recover from flood damage. I have listened to the questions that have been asked by Senator Buttfield, and I have heard it stated in reply that the Commonwealth will assist on a £l-for-£l basis.
– Upon application by the States.
– Yes. All I can say to the Minister in charge of this bill is that if the statement of the Victorian Minister is correct - I believe it is - I do not see how Victoria can find £1,250,000 if it is to be assisted on a £l-for-£l basis. I very much doubt whether Senator Hannaford knows how Mr. Playford will obtain sufficient money, on a £l-for-£l basis, to repair fully the flood damage in South Australia. Irrespective of which government is in office when such unfortunate calamities occur I believe the Commonwealth should find more of the money required for this purpose. The last budget in Victoria provided for a deficit of £3,000,000. To my mind, therefore, to find £1,250,000 for flood relief will be a financial impossibility.
It was not my wish to get into a political light in the dying hours of this session, when our minds are more or less directed elsewhere. 1 agreed to a time limit being placed on this bill, and 1 regret that I have to be brought back to the point; but 1 am a little bit sick and tired of hearing it said in every time of crisis that one section of the community must bear the burden.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1135
Debate resumed from 16th October (vide page 623), on motion by Senator Paltridge -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The bill now before the Senate seeks to appropriate the sum of £6,811,266, which represents part of a general fund of £16,000,000 that was allocated to the Treasurer last year by way of an advance for unexpected items and developments. The purpose of the bill is to particularize the expenditure of the sum to which I have already referred and which amounts to substantially less than half of the total of the Treasurer’s advance. This type of bill is quite usual. There is nothing very extraordinary about the detail of it, so far as the extensive schedule is concerned. lt is important to note that, at the suggestion of the Public Accounts Committee, the Supplementary Estimates have been presented earlier this year than on prior occasions. It is of very distinct advantage to the Senate that they should be so presented, and that, as we consider them, we should have before us the very excellent twenty-eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee. I take advantage of this opportunity to pay a very warm-hearted tribute to that committee. It has done a simply fantastic amount of work on the Supplementary Estimates. It has examined almost every item with most meticulous care. It has been very critical and has given us a report, copies of which have been circulated, covering nearly 1 00 pages. I proffer to the committee the thanks of the Opposition for its industry, its insight, and the very excellent presentation of its report. Judging by the format, the English, and the general presentation of the report, the committee’s secretarial assistance must be of a very high order. We of the Opposition feel fully * indebted to its members.
The committee has directed attention to matters of the utmost significance, and I propose to confine what 1 have to say to those matters. They are of the utmost gravity, and show that this Government does not hold the reins in Australia. It purports to give directions and instructions. This Parliament purports to allocate particular amounts for particular purposes and, in the final analysis, we find that the departments have ignored, not only the Government but the Parliament. I shall refer first to a series of paragraphs in the report to demonstrate the truth of what I have alleged. The shortest way to do so would be to read the relevant paragraphs, and I could not improve upon them in any way. The committee states at page 11, paragraph 13-
It was our impression that on some occasions a department was instructed by the Treasury to reduce its expenditure cn all or certain of its items; that the department complied by submitting reduced estimates of expenditure; but nevertheless spent the amount originally sought. It was even suggested to us that because a department’s estimates had been “ cut “ they were no longer the estimates of the department and therefore no longer the responsibility of that department. Therefore, the applications for Supplementary Estimates implied no error in estimating by the department: they simply vindicated the accuracy of their original estimate.
That exposes the staggering audacity of the departmental officers. It is an affront to the Parliament, as the committee has pointed out in that powerful paragraph. In paragraph 14, the committee states -
Your committee would not like to think that this attitude is prevalent among the officers responsible for framing Departmental Estimates and watching over departmental expenditures. It may be that, in coming years, government funds will be less readily available than they have been, and it would be easy for such an attitude to develop. If it were to become common, the endeavours of a Government to reduce or stabilize expenditure would be nugatory. Reductions in expenditure are difficult to make at any time.
When they are decided upon by the appropriate authorities, departmental officers should see that they are put into effect.
One must agree with every word of that paragraph, lt bears out what the Opposition has claimed from time to time - that the Government is not shaping and directing the destinies of this nation. It is allowing the nation to drift. It is failing in its responsibility to Parliament and to the people. In the final analysis, what has been said by the committee is an indictment of the Government. I shall press that point home more forcefully when we reach the next report on the Supplementary Estimates for Works and Services. The same point is adverted to in paragraph 22, which states -
However that may be, your committee will frown upon any applications for additional funds that appear to be the result of the attitudes and procedures we have been discussing. In the strictly constitutional sense of the word, such attitudes and conduct are irresponsible. -
That is an indictment and a charge, not by me or the Opposition, but by this all-party committee, which is charged with a very great responsibility and has discharged it well. That comment is based upon the events of last year only under this Government. Here is the last comment under that head -
Your committee consider that the Estimates timetable should be reviewed to allow departments adequate time to give effect to Cabinet directions to reduce their Estimates. 1 ask the Minister what is being done to give effect to the recommendations of the committee on that matter. Will the Government take notice of what the committee has said and see that the time-table relating to the Estimates is so arranged that there will be ample time for Ministers to do their duty and see that proper time is given to trimming the Estimates, examining them minutely and ensuring that they are observed when finally passed by the Parliament? At page 77, the committee states -
Your committee gained the impression that in some cases when the Treasury insisted upon reductions in the draft Estimates, a department resisted ; the reduction, and having adhered to its own estimate, later sought a Supplementary Estimate ito cover the amount expended in excess of the amount voted.
At pages 80 and 81, in a reference to the Bureau of Meteorology, the report states -
Your committee noted the consistent overspending in the past four years on travelling and subsistence in the Bureau of Meteorology; the explanations for it were confused.
Over-spending also occurred during the same period in respect of postage, telegrams and telephone services. Although the extra charges by the Post Office for transmission of weather reports were known to the Bureau in May, 19SS, no provision was made when the 1955-56 Estimates were being revised.
For 1956-57 ii is estimated thai the cost of telegrams transmitting reports on the weather will be approximately £750,000. Your committee were informed by the Treasury that it had discussed the nature of the over-spending with the Bureau. It appears that votes were over-spent without proper authority and that those concerned did not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the failure to observe the statutory provisions governing the expenditure of public moneys.
Your committee recommend that the Department of the Interior and the Public Service Board review the accounting and financial arrangements of the Bureau.
In that connexion, I ask the Minister whether the Government has given consideration to this report, and what is it doing regarding the recommendations in paragraph 27? I turn now to page 83, and to paragraphs 39 and 41 dealing with the Department of Trade and Customs, which is now the Department of Customs and Excise. The committee states -
The over-estimate of the Department on the operation of Customs launches resulted from deferring costly overhauls of two New South Wales and one Victorian launch.
Your committee notes that the obvious desire to save was neutralized by the transfer under section 37 of the Audit Act of the whole saving to meet deficits in other unrelated items.
What does that mean? It means that this Parliament made appropriations of sums of money for specific purposes. The departments, ignoring the Parliament, spent these moneys on unrelated purposes. Altogether, this report mounts in crescendo as an indictment of the oversight the Government has given to its departments. The report added -
Your committee repeat their warning against disregarding the psychological effects of some transfers made under powers conferred by section 37 of the Audit Act.
I turn now to page 84, and to paragraph 46, which refers to the establishment of the Department of Trade and the Department of Primary Industry, and their severance from the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Customs, the Department of National Development, and the. Department of the Interior. The report states -
In addition, a net increase of four positions and an increase in cost of £48,681 resulted from the re-arrangement.
In paragraphs 48 and 49, the committee says -
It is frequently contended that departmental re-arrangements can be concluded without having to employ additional staff at much greater costs. This is not the case in the re-arrangement under discussion.
Your committee hold the view that the Parliament should be told the estimated cost of major departmental changes. It should be mandatory upon the Public Service Board to analyse the cost and upon Ministers to present that information to the Parliament.
I should like to know from the Minister what he and the Government say about that. Do they accept the proposition that it is mandatory upon them, not only to estimate, in conjunction with the Public Service Board, what the cost of these transfers will be, but also to advise the Parliament meticulously of that cost? If the Government does acknowledge that that is mandatory, as the committee says, when will it make a statement to the Parliament as to the full costs involved in the creation of this new department?
I turn now to page 85, where the report states -
It has been suggested that something more is needed to investigate the Commonwealth departmental organization than periodical reviews of individual departments by the Organization and Methods Branch of the Public Service Board.
In paragraph 52, the committee makes this recommendation -
An authority instituted ad hoc might conduct -
An overall review of the machinery of government as did the Hoover committee in the United States of America; or
An examination of the distribution of finance as between several instruments of government as did the Haldane committee in England.
The committee there makes a vastly important recommendation. The mere fact that it feels impelled to make such a recommendation is the clearest evidence that it finds the need for a complete reorganization staring it in the face. Has the Government given consideration to that particular recommendation;and, if so, with what result?
I refer now to paragraph 75 on page 87 where the committee is dealing with the Bureau of Mineral Resources, a branch of the Department of National Development, the Minister’s own department. It says -
The vote for Operational Expenses’ (Item 1) for 1955-56 was overspent by £76,041.
scout drilling was accomplished ahead of time, and before 30th June, 1956, and claims had to be met from the Treasurer’s Advance Account.
the Department contended that it was difficult to make accurate estimates for field operations; but, following discussions of these Supplementaries, it has told us that an effective system of controls is being instituted to ensure that Operational Votes are not overspent in future.
The over-expenditure on thisItem illustrates the divergence revealed, throughout our investigation of Supplementaries for 1955-56, between the amounts that the Treasurer tells the Parliament he needs and those to which Departments finally commit him.
I think it behoves the Minister in charge of the bill to deal quite fully with that set of comments from the committee. Implicit in what it says is the very severe criticism of the department that, after years of administration, it has to confess that only now is it prepared to set up proper controls of expenditure. It is prepared to do so in the future. The question for the Minister to answer is why it has not done so in the past.
I should like, now, to deal with paragraphs 67, 69 and 70, on page 88 of the report, where the committee deals with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. In paragraph 67, it says -
It seems that the Commission is claiming the status and immunity of a quasi-autonomous Statutory Corporation, relieving it of detailed scrutiny by the Parliament.
In other words, this commission does not even want Parliament to be concerned with the details of the amount.
– It only wants Parliament to vote it the money.
– All it wants is for Parliament to give it the money and then forget about it. In paragraph 69, the committee says -
Your Committee repeat their comment in the 21st and 22nd Reports on the Australian Aluminium Production Commission that there is no precise thinking and no uniform policy as to the relation of the Statutory Corporation to Parliament.
I ask the Minister: Is it not time, after all the discussions that have taken place about that particular commission, that there was some clear thinking and some defined clear relation between the Parliament and that body? Then, in paragraph 70, the committee says -
The recent creation of other corporate bodies, e.g., the Coastal Shipping Commission, the Export Payment Insurance Corporation and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority emphasize our suggestions that the political and administrative implications of quasi-autonomy should be examined by the appropriate authorities.
In report after report - it refers to its 21st and 22nd - this committee has referred to this matter and again 1 ask the Minister, has the Government given consideration to recommendations that have been made in connexion with this matter from time to time? If not, why not? If it has given consideration, with what result and when shall we see the fruits of that consideration?
Finally, 1 quote paragraphs 79 and 81 on page 90 where the committee deals with Defence Research and Development Laboratories - Incidentals. Paragraph 79 reads -
Your committee have on other occasions expressed disapproval of a time-table for the approval of the Annual Estimates that necessitates hasty and arbitrary reductions.
Paragraph 80 reads -
Another of the excess expenditures included in the Incidental Vote is for the maintenance of the Aeronautical Research Laboratories (£4,000). Because the Laboratories had insufficient funds to provide essential maintenance, they had to seek additional funds under the Incidentals Vote.
Now, listen to the strength of this comment by the committee -
It is reprehensible that Laboratories should be left without proper maintenance because of bad estimating practice, and equally improper that funds should be provided under Incidentals where maintenance is not incidental expenditure.
By and large, that constitutes a very grave indictment of this Government by an allparty committee of this Parliament. It does put this Government on charge as to lack of supervision, failure to enforce its own will, and failure to see that the will of the Parliament is involved. Point after point of policy to which the Government should address its attention is . predicated there by the committee. I ask the Minister, in his reply, to indicate, particularly if he can and generally if he cannot, what the attitude of the Government is towards the very voluminous but very complete and excellent report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. 1 have not addressed my remarks to the details in the schedule to the bill. It is not my intention to do that when we reach the schedule; so, if the Minister cares to take the opportunity at this stage to deal with the matters I have raised, I indicate to him that 1 have no others to raise at the committee stage.
.- I wish to refer to only one matter. I would not have mentioned it had it not been for the reply given by the Minister last week when I referred to the plight of age pensioners who are at present having a very bad and lean time. 1 am not doing this on my own initiative only. 1 have received sheaves of letters from age pensioners, and some of those letters bear as many as twenty signatures. This is a typical one -
Dear Senator,
It is with alarm that we review the current Budget.
It condemns pensioners whose sole income is £4 per week to slow painful death by malnutrition.
Their need is immediate constructive action so that they may have immediate access to the abundance of food in the shops.
Senator WE charge you with the responsibility of acting to see that the pensioners are planned for, now, in the reviewing of the Budget.
Christ died that we might live.
Yours in the knowledge that you will accept this responsibility.
Not long ago, 1 asked the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) whether he would give consideration to the provision of Christmas cheer for pensioners, and his snide answer was that I should have directed my question to the Labour government when it was in office. The Minister lives in a completely different world from the pensioners, and has been out of touch with both them and the general public since he has been a member of the Cabinet. The increases made of pensions granted by the Government would not, in some cases, meet the increase in rent that some pensioners have to pay. The purchasing power of money is not now anything like what it was in 1949, and since control of rents and prices has been removed the pensioners are not able to purchase sufficient of the necessaries of life.
In the belief that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan) might have some sympathy with the pensioners, I asked him a similar question, and he replied that he remembered my asking such a question twelve months ago. 1 challenge the Leader of the Government to find in “ Hansa, d “ any record that I asked such a question last year. If he can find it I will resign my seat in the Senate immediately. Ministers cannot get away with snide answers of that kind. The Leader of the Government was trying to suggest that my question was no more than political propaganda, whereas I was trying to coax the Government into providing Christmas cheer for the pensioners. In the words of the letter I have just read, many of them are dying a slow, painful death by malnutrition. They are not all in that condition, but many of them are, because their pension is not sufficient to enable them to exist.
It is not good enough that Ministers should brush aside questions such as I ask with the sort of answers that they gave. It is highly probable that just before the next election the Government will make a small increase of pensions. That happened before the last election, but it is not sufficient to cope with the continually rising prices of necessaries of life. The Government thinks, perhaps, that the pensioners have short memories, and that because some of them may be in their second childhood they will have forgotten the Government’s treatment of them, but when the next election comes many of them will remember, the miserable, increase of 5s. or 10s. a week that the Government provided for them.
I have recorded my protest against the answers given by the Ministers to my questions. It is not the only time that the Minister for National Development has adopted such an attitude. I asked the question so that I might obtain information to pass on to my constituents and to the general public, but evidently he considered they were not entitled to it. A government that thinks along those lines is developing into a dictatorship. It considers that no information should be given to its political opponents in Parliament, and that it should do what it thinks fit without consulting them or letting them know. That sort of thing is happening in other countries. The bill that the Senate passed a few minutes ago gives the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) dictatorial powers, and that is typical of much of the legislation that the Government is bringing down.
Senator SEWARD (Western Australia) a matter., that I was not -‘able to discuss when the appropriate estimate was under consideration, because not sufficient time was available. This bill provides for sums to be paid to several Australian commercial intelligence branches throughout the world, which are under the direction of Australian trade commissioners. Recently, many reports have appeared that Australian exports overseas are regarded unfavorably. Some time ago, I asked a question of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), who represents the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) in the Senate, in regard to the export of Australian beef and mutton, both of which are unacceptable on the London market. Senator Spooner replied that he would obtain a reply from the Minister for Trade, but that he, himself, was inclined to think that the reports were exaggerated. A few days later, 1 heard atalk on the radio by a businessman who had just returned from London. He said that Australian beef was not acceptable on the London market, and that Australian Iambs had to be branded as products of New Zealand before they could be sold.
That is a shocking state of affairs, and I want to know what kind of reports Australian Trade Commissioners in the various countries are sending- to the Government.’ They should keep the Government advised of Australia’s prospects of selling its exports, and if those prospects are not good they should give the reasons and suggest methods of stimulating trade.
A few days after hearing the radio broadcast to which I referred, I read a newspaper report of a statement by the general manager of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures that extensive opportunities exist in India for the sale of Australian goods provided that the trade is on the basis of price rather than of quality. He pointed out that the Indian people were restricted in the amount of money they had to spend, and they did not want to purchase goods; that would last for several years. They would rather buy articles that would last for only a year or two, at a price that they could afford to pay. Has the Government received any information from its trade representatives in India to that effect? These trade commissioners should furnish reports to Parliament so that it might know what is going on in the world of trade in other countries.
I was astounded to read a report in a recent issue of the Western Australian “ Sunday Times “ of some of the things discovered by the Western Australian Minister for Fisheries, Mines and Industrial Development, Mr. Kelly, who is travelling through the United States of America. One paragraph of the report is as follows: -
Mr. Kelly travelling the U.S. to foster interest in Western Australian trade and industry sees the need to link Western Australia’s name with her high quality crayfish in this vital dollar-earning business.
The report continues -
He said: “ I have travelled several thousand miles through twenty States and have scanned more than 130 of the most complete menus imaginable. But only once have I come across the name Australia ‘ in connection with cray tails.
We are sending these ‘away; there is a big demand for them in America. Mr. Kelly says -
The crays were referred to as broiled Australian lobster tails. But a common feature on all the menus was the - South African rock lobster or crayfish.
He points out that owing to better advertising methods, South Africa is selling its crayfish whereas one cannot obtain any information about Australian crayfish. Surely to goodness, it is an extraordinary state of affairs when we have twenty-six trade commissioners in different countries, all drawing a good salary - an extra amount is being voted for them this year - and yet we do not receive reports from them telling us what they are doing to promote and open up Australian trade.
I do not want to labour the question. I did not wish the Estimates to go through this year without directing attention to this particular matter so that action might be taken to see that our products find the markets for which they are destined in order to stimulate our export trade, which is one of the most important matters we have to consider at the present time.
– I wish to speak on the Department of Defence Production, particularly in regard to dismissals from Government aircraft production factories at Fishermen’s Bend, Essendon and Avalon. Up to date 850 people have received dismissal notices. Prior to the issue of these dismissal notices there were 1,800 physical workers, as they are called, comprising tradesmen and others. and 1,200 salaried staff officers. Of the physical workers 600, and of the salaried staff 200, have been dismissed. That is to say one-third of the physical workers but only one-sixth of the salaried staff have been put off. I do not know whether sufficient work will be found to keep the salaried staff employed.
One or two matters concern the men at the present time. The first one is long service leave. Workers are entitled to longservice leave after eight years continuous employment. If a worker serves from eight to twelve years he becomes entitled to three months long-service leave; for from twelve years to fourteen years and eleven months service he becomes entitled to four months leave, and for fifteen years service to four and a half months leave, and nine additional days are allowed for every year of service in excess of fifteen years. It appears that after eight years of service employees are entitled to a pro rata payment of long-service leave if they are dismissed, or to use the nicer term, retrenched. They are also entitled to this pro rata payment in respect of long-service leave if they leave because of sickness or after reaching 60 years of age. Those are the three classes.
– I understand that after eight years’ service they are entitled to long-service leave if they leave as the result of sickness or on reaching 60 years of age. What was the other reason the honorable senator gave?
– They are entitled to it if they are retrenched. I shall repeat the three instances: They are entitled to long-service leave if they voluntarily relinquish their job because of ill health; if they are retrenched, or if they voluntarily retire at 60 years of age.
– It is necessary that they be employed for eight years.
– Yes. Of the 800 who have already been retrenched approximately 600 were due for long-service leave. A thing that is hard to understand and which is causing bitterness in the ranks of these workers is that when an employee receives a week’s notice, and he is due for long-service leave, whether it be three, four, or four and a half months, he is told he will not receive his long-service pay for about six weeks. I am glad to see the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) shake his head. I realize he feels that this is wrong, just as I do. Surely to goodness, when the department knows that these 600 people are due for long-service leave, it would not involve much extra work to check their length of service and pay them their long-service money at the same time as they receive their last pay. The failure to do this is causing a lot of ill feeling.
Another thing that has happened at Fishermen’s Bend is that approximately 43 employees have put in their resignations. Some of them have sacrificed long-service leave by so doing. To use a term familiar to the men on the job, they have “ beaten the gun “. They have found out that they can obtain another job at General MotorsHolden’s Limited, or somewhere else, and have accepted it, realizing that if they were to wait until they were put off in a big batch much more competition for jobs would exist. This information was given to me by a shop steward of the Amalgamated Engineering Union who happens to be a tool-maker working on the job.
The employees who are left are concerned to know how long the Fishermen’s Bend factory will remain open. They desire to remain at the factory but are concerned about the fact that it is to be closed down as the result of Government policy. Today, I am not debating whether the Government’s policy is right or wrong; I am concerned about the fact that the employees at the factory do not know what is going to happen. If the establishment is to be closed in three or four months’ time the employees are entitled to be told. Some of them will no doubt follow the example of the 43 who have resigned. Although they will forfeit their three months’ long-service leave they will have a better chance of obtaining another job prior to the dismissal of the big batch. Every employer has an obligation to give his employees some indication of his intention regarding their future employment. If it is the policy of the Government to cease aircraft production at Fishermen’s Bend, that is all right; the job has to be closed down, but the employees should not be more or less kept in the dark. No person in a factory, whether it be an aircraft production factory or any other, wants to jeopardize his right to three months’ long-service pay. but because of the present circumstances that exist 43 have already done that in order to. obtain a job somewhere else. I think, therefore, that at least some decision ought to be made about the matter.
Some of these employees have spent up to fourteen years at the factory and have been highly commended by the former Minister for Defence Production, Sir Eric Harrison. Sir Eric was not a person to use idle words, but at the function held when the Canberra bomber was coming off the stocks, he went to some trouble to compliment these employees. Surely, there can be no sound reason why these men should not receive their cheques for long-service leave payments in the week in which they receive their last pay? 1 do not think that the administrative officers would be too overburdened with work to be able to arrange that. 1 suppose that there are passengers in the offices of these establishments, just as there are in other offices; and although the clerks and others always seem to be walking about with pieces of paper in their hands, I should say that they should be able to arrange the payment to the retrenched workers as I have suggested.
I understand that the rule in these retrenchments is “ last on, first off “. So, those who are left in the establishment would probably be men with a considerable amount of long-service leave due to them. Quite a number of them have up to fourteen years’ service. If it is the policy of this Government to import aircraft from overseas and not to make them in Australia - well, that is Government policy, and I do not intend to debate it. But 1 believe that the remaining workers, and indeed, any workers, are entitled to be told whether they will remain on the job for a certain length of time. Therefore, I suggest that those who remain in the establishments after the retrenchments have been made should be told for how long they are likely to keep their jobs.
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the two main points that I have made. The first point is that retrenched workers should get their long-service leave cheques on the day they draw their last pay. In that connexion I point out that they are given a week’s notice of dismissal. Secondly, the people still employed in the establishments should be given some idea of the time for which the Government will require their services. If the workers are told how long they are likely to be there, then it is a matter for them to decide whether they will remain at work in the Commonwealth establishments for a certain number of weeks or months, or whether they will resign - as is the prerogative of all workers - -and seek jobs elsewhere.
– in reply - I shall reply, first, to the questions asked by Senator Kennelly. He would be a very brave man who would talk about what is likely to happen in defence production factories, having regard to the reports that are appearing in the newspapers from day to day. Also, it is wrong for one Minister to try to give some undertaking on behalf of another Minister.
– I have asked the Minister to obtain information for me.
– 1 intend to go a little further. I shall take my courage in my hands and indicate what 1 think the Minister for Defence Production (Mr. Beale) might do. I point out, first, that this portfolio has changed from the hands of Sir Eric Harrison to those of Mr. Beale. However, without having had any consultation with my colleague, J am quite certain that if representatives of the men in the two factories mentioned by Senator Kennelly were to make an appointment for an interview with Mr. Beale, he would tell them of future plans in relation to these factories according to his view. Again speaking a little out of my sphere, I may say that to me the future seems a little brighter than it does to Senator Kennelly. I have been through these two factories - I held the portfolio of Minister for Defence Production for a few weeks at one time - and I know that changes have to be made in our changing defence programme. But it is for the Minister to say any more than that. 1 suggest that the representatives of the men should see the Minister for Defence Production and talk with him about this matter.
With regard to the delay in making longservice leave payments, I have been informed that most of the retrenched workers are temporary employees, and the arrangements for payment provide that each long-service leave payment to an employee has to be specifically approved by the Treasury. In defence production factory retrenchments, top priority is given to the consideration of claims for longservice leave payments.
– If it takes six weeks or so to consider claims with top priority, it must take much longer to consider claims with lower priority.
– Well, I am simply giving the honorable senator the information that has been given to me. Senator Aylett criticized me for giving him a certain type of answer to a question that he asked about pensions. I suggest to the honorable senator that each of us knows his own political field of battle. The honorable senator asked me a question while the proceedings of the Senate were being broadcast, and he should be the last to object if I give him back an answer with a party political colour.
– That suits me, if it suits the Minister.
– Senator Aylett said that the pensioners should receive a double payment at Christmas-time, and, in my reply, I asked why the Government that he supported did not make double payments when it was in office. I do not think that he has any right to object to that answer.
Senator Seward raised a matter about trade arrangements to which it is impossiblefor me to reply. In order to furnish an adequate reply, we should need to have knowledge of all the trade posts throughout the world and the results achieved by them. However, I shall make two observations in general terms. The first is that to the extent that these trade posts do make an effective contribution to our trade position it is very difficulty indeed to get detailed information, because trade transactions are multitudes of small transactions that go to build up the one total. The honorable senator suggested that copies of trade reports should be made available to honorable senators. I believe that it would be quite impracticable to do that, because: trade transactions are all small transactions. However, I think that, having regard to the importance of this matter and the expenditure being incurred, regular overall reports should be made available. I have to qualify that by saying that a Department of Trade magazine is published at regular intervals; and it contains certain information of the kind Senator Seward wishes to obtain. I forget the name of the magazine, but if the honorable senator has not seen it, I suggest that he should get a copy of it, because he may find that it will help him.
The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) surveyed the latest report of the Public Accounts Committee, and he and I are on common ground about it to the extent that we both perused it with a good deal of interest. Bearing in mind the multitude of reports that are placed on a Minister’s desk, honorable senators will appreciate that lt is more or less a lottery - a matter of chance- which ones the Minister picks up and reads. When this particular report was furnished early in October, I read it through as a matter of interest because, only a few weeks before, 1 had asked some of the departments whose Ministers I represent in this chamber to furnish me with their comment on the committee’s statements in regard to them.
This is the position: The Public Accounts Committee has, I think rightly - although I was one of its early victims - become quite a power in the land. Its report of 3rd October had just been circulated. The procedure that is followed in relation to reports of the Public Accounts Committee is that the Treasury asks departments on which the committee has commented to report in respect of the relevant comments. The Treasury then considers the reports received from the departments and takes such further action as it deems desirable on the domestic field, as it were, between the department and the Treasury. Subsequently, the Treasurer tables in the Parliament a statement expressing his opinion on the comments that have been made by the Public Accounts Committee and the respective departments’ views on them.
It will be seen, therefore, that it is not easy, at this stage, to obtain replies to the detailed items of criticisms that are contained in the report now under discussion, because each of the departments concerned is in the process of answering a specific request for a report from the Treasury.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned a criticism that was made of the Department of National Development by the Public Accounts Committee. I am very familiar with the facts of the particular transaction that was criticized, because I handled it. We decided to drill three oil search holes in Western Australia, as a part of the geological programme. I obtained Cabinet approval for the necessary expenditure. We had to call tenders for carrying out the work. Tenders were submitted, and we had to prepare our estimates. At the time, we thought that a certain amount of the work would be done in one financial year, and the remainder in the next financial year. However, when we authorized the work to begin, it became apparent that we would be able to do a lot more in the first financial year than had previously been thought to be likely. We got a good quote from a good tenderer. I recall that when it became apparent that the work could be completed more quickly than we had expected, we went to the Treasury and said, “ Here is our programme. It is apparent that the time estimated for completion can be shortened. It is desirable that it should be because we do not know what information the drilling will reveal. It is desirable that we obtain the information as soon as possible. We could wait until the following year, but if we are allowed to dip our hands into the coffer and get our money now instead of in the following year, we can get on with the work.” That proposal was approved by the Treasury. In that case, we were not guilty of wrong estimating. The Kimberleys is like the end of the world. In contemplating a project there, such questions as these arise: Will we get tenders? If we do, will the successful tenderer be able to get his gear through in the dry season? These are imponderable questions. Eventually, when a start is made, it is very desirable that the project be pushed on as quickly as possible. But for the Public Accounts Committee’s report, I should have regarded this transaction as one in respect of which we had cut through red tape in order to get the work done more quickly than would otherwise have been possible. But, from the point of view of looking at the project as an economical venture, the answer in respect of costs has been supplied by the Public Accounts Committee.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1144
Debate resumed from 16th October (vide page 623), on motion by Senator Paltridge -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The bill that we are now dealing with is one to appropriate the sum of £456,353 for the purposes of additions, new works and other services involving capital expenditure in the last financial year. I query at once the following statement by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) in the first sentence of his second-reading speech -
The appropriation for Capital’ Works and Services for the financial year 1955-56 amounted to £104,978,000. The actual expenditure was £99,669,000, that is, £5,309,000 less than the appropriation.
I do not query the amount of £104,978,000, but 1 do query the amount of £99,669,000.
If the Minister for National Development (“Senator Spooner), who is handling this measure, will, refer to Table No. 1 - “ Actual Revenue and Expenditure Compared with. Budget Estimates, 1955-56 “ - annexed to
I he budget speech of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) for this financial year, he will see that the budget estimate for Capital Works and Services in 1955-56 was £104,000,000, but that the actual expenditure was only £101,899,930. This, I suggest to the Minister, is very different from the expenditure of £99,669,000 mentioned in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport. There is a very wide discrepancy between the two amounts.
– I am informed that the amount stated in the second-reading speech relates only to annual appropriations, to which must be added the special appropriations. If Senator McKenna is looking at page 232 of the abstract, it is. necessary for him to add to the figures shown on that page the amount on the preceding page.
– I realize tha! certain amounts are appropriated specially, and not annually, but the Treasurer purports to deal with these together in publishing the financial results for the year, and it is very clear that he shows the total expenditure on Capital Works and Services last year as £101,899,930. In other words, the expenditure was £2,100,070 less than’ was provided for in the Estimates. I raise that matter at this stage, because that is the line along which I wish to deal with this measure. I want, first of all, to straighten out the figures. If we agree that provision was made in the Estimates for £104,000,000 and that we spent approximately £101,900,000, or in other words that we failed to reach the estimated expenditure by £2,100,070, I can start off on common ground with the Minister.
I remind him that on 27th September, 1955, in what was apparently a quickly developing economic crisis, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) following the presentation of the budget, made a- speech to the nation from the Parliament on Australia’s economic position. He spoke about the need for every element in the community to combine to halt inflation. He indicated the need for economy in expenditure at all levels, including the governmental level. He announced that the Government intended to practise what it preached and that, in the last financial year, it was going to cut the Estimates for capital works and services by £10,000,000. Now we find, on the figures I have cited, that the total saving was £2,100,070 and that there is no reference either in the Minister’s secondreading speech on this measure or in the budget speech recently delivered by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) to what has happened to the other £8,000,000 by which the Prime Minister pledged his Government to reduce its own works programme.
It is rather interesting to recall a statement that was made by Mr. Kent Huges who was then Minister for Works, in the Parliament on 19th October, 1955, soon after the Prime Minister delivered his statement. I now read from “ Hansard “ of 19th October, 1955, page 1670. Referring to the Prime Minister, Mr. Kent Hughes said -
Nevertheless, he said that the Government recognized an obligation to give the rest of the community a lead in this matter, and it intended, therefore, to make all possible efforts to achieve further economies in finance, labour, equipment and materials. He made particular reference to the Commonwealth programme of capital works and services, and he recalled that in the 1955-56 budget provision of £104,000,000 was being sought for this purpose. He said that we proposed to defer this year projects totalling £10,000,000.
Later in his speech, Mr. Kent Hughes said -
Accordingly, in the period following his statement Cabinet took up the question of how such a reduction should be effected, and it drew up some directions of a general character which were referred to a committee of Ministers headed by the Minister for Defence (Sir Philip Mcbride), which was to go into the detail of the matter and make recommendations on particular items. The committee went to work with a will - 1 note he did not say with a strong will, and I intend to demonstrate soon that it was a very weak will - and 1 propose now to outline what might be called the first fruits of its labours in the form of reductions and deferments of works and other forms of capital expenditure contained in the programme originally covered by the budget.
He then proceeded to detail at length individual items of capital works and commitments that would be cut down. They added up to approximately £4,000,000. So, going to work with a will, the committee trimmed the Estimates by about £4,000,000, and intended to go out forthwith with the axe to slash off another £6,000,000; yet, when we come to the end of the year, we find that even the £4,000,000 has disappeared and that the Government has saved only £2,100,000 and not £10,000,000.
I ask the Minister: What has happened to that committee and to the decision of the Prime Minister? ls this one more case merely of words from this Government, empty words to bemuse and beguile the people, words that suffice for the moment but which mean nothing? Is it a case of one more promise made to the people of Australia which is never to be adverted to again by the Government, not even when it is reviewing the transactions of the year? There is not one word in the Minister’s second-reading speech about that promise made by the Prime Minister, not one word about the failure of the committee that went to work with a will to achieve its purpose. Or is it a case of the departmental officers being instructed to make cuts totalling £10,000,000, but completely ignoring a supine government? It is one or the other. Either the Government was fooling the Parliament and the people or it did its very poor best and was defeated by the departments. On either count it is irresponsible and is open to very severe criticism.
The debate on this measure gives to the Opposition an opportunity to raise this particular matter. T put it to the Minister very seriously that it is incumbent upon, the Government to justify the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government intended to practise what it preached and ruthlessly slash capital works, and also the fact that it had gone to work with a will within a few weeks and told the nation that it had already trimmed the Estimates by £4,000,000, that it would deal with the other £6,000,000 immediately, only to find at the end that it had reduced the £104,000,000 by £2,100,070. What an inglorious performance by a responsible government before the nation and the Parliament! Is it any wonder that we on this side of the chamber claim from time to time that the Government is not ruling, that it is not governing, that it is not doing its duty to the nation? I am asserting that here is pinpointed one of the gross failures of the Government. If it is asking the rest of the community - the hire-purchase companies, the bankers, the people, and above all the States, which are asked to curtail their programmes and activities in the interest of the nation - to effect economies, what kind of lead is it giving to those groups, who are adjured and implored by the Prime Minister of the country to follow his shining example? Is it any wonder that with a lead like that Australia is drifting into economic chaos?
I do not want to address myself in the slightest degree to the details of the bill. It deals with a relatively small amount. The sum involved, which is rather less than £500,000, is relatively insignificant in relation to the total amount of capital expenditure for the Commonwealth last year. I rise simply to direct attention to what, on the face of it, appears to be a gross failure by the Government to honour a promise, to set an example, and to give a lead to the nation. I do not know whether other honorable senators are concerned about pursuing that matter. I content myself by indicting the Government for the failure that I have particularized.
. in reply - Prima facie, the Leader of the. Opposition (Senator McKenna) has made a very strong case, but there is another approach altogether to the matter. The other approach runs along these lines: The Government originally budgeted for a sum of £104,000,000. It realized that that level of activity was too high to sustain, and it stated that that level would be reduced by the elimination of projects totalling £10,000,000. Mind you, the term used was “projects totalling £10,000,000”, not £10,000,000 in cash. 1 remember, quite well, that we went to work with a will to cut the works programme, and we did so in various directions. The figures elude me at the moment, but the cuts ran into some millions of pounds.
– They ran into £4,000,000.
– But, as the year wore on, as happens in a spread of activities of this size, it was stated, in October, 1955, that the saving of expenditure in 1955-56 was estimated to reach £4,000,000.
– That is so far as the committee had then gone.
– The Prime Minister’s promise was to reduce projects worth £10,000,000; that was, to take £10,000,000 off the level of projects, lt remained to be seen what would be the reduction in cash expenditure during the year if the total work were reduced by £10,000,000. In other words, if a project was in hand to cost £20,000,000, it was to be reduced in size to £10,000,000 and £10,000,000 would be cut off the total.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1146
Debate resumed from 25th October (vide page 960), on motion by Senator Henty -
That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1146
Debate resumed from 25th October (vide page 962), on motion by Senator Cooper -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- This bill deals, more or less, with the government of the Northern Territory. At present, the Northern Territory has a Legislative Council. Six members of the council are elected and six are nominated, and the chairman is nominated by the Commonwealth Government. I had some knowledge of the Legislative Council when it was instituted and I believed then, as I believe now, that it did not give the people of the Northern Territory much opportunity to govern themselves. Admittedly, they are in an awkward position compared with other local government bodies, because the Commonwealth finds all the money that is required and the authority that finds the money expects a major voice in the affairs of the organization concerned.
The bill envisages an amendment in connexion with persons who are members of the Legislative Council and have contracts with the Crown. A number of persons are affected; and particularly those who have air strips. They are paid £20 to £30 a year so that aircraft may land on their strips. Some little time ago, an amending bill debarred public servants from election to the Legislative Council. I object to that provision. I believe that every person should have a right to be elected to a legislature - whether Federal, State or local government - without effect upon his occupation. That is the opinion, also, of the Australian Labour party. Admittedly, the act was not all that could be desired. It was a first attempt at giving the people of the Northern Territory a voice in their own government, but this Government debarred 85 to 90 per cent, of the residents from nominating for elections. The locally elected government dealt only with certain matters mentioned in its constitution, and the final decision rested with nominated bodies whose chairmen were appointed by the Crown.
The Northern Territory has grown in importance. It is now productive of great wealth from mining and cattle-raising. Rice fields are being established, and we hope that they will be successful. The Rum Jungle uranium field is being exploited. Gold is still being produced at Tennant Creek, although it is not as important a field as it was before. The time is fast approaching when the Commonwealth Government will have to consider, seriously. giving the people of the Northern Territory a say in their own government. By that I mean that they must be given some responsibility, and, to be quite candid, this provision will have the effect of preventing the Labour party from choosing the candidates it prefers. There are many permanent public servants up there, and even if an eligible person were only a temporary employee, it is problematical whether he would be permitted to seek nomination. The important thing is to have the best possible person representing the residents of the area; but if the field is to be circumvented in the way suggested by this bill, then I venture the opinion that 80 per cent, of the people will be debarred from standing as candidates and the residents there will be very fortunate indeed if of the remaining prospective candidates the most suitable person to represent the area is elected to the legislative council. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I cannot see any objection to removing the bar from those people who contract with the Government, but the Administration will have to be careful that abuses do not take place.
I can see much good in allowing a pastoralist who is receiving anything from £20 to £50 a year by way of rental for a piece of his land that is being used as an airstrip to stand for election, but the Administration will have to be cautious when it comes to the person whom we. look upon as a contractor within the ordinary meaning of the term. I understand that if such a person is elected to the council and the council contracts for certain works or goods, all he is required to do in order to satisfy the law is simply to refrain from voting on the question. That is not good enough. There is no such provision in connexion with local government in Victoria except, unfortunately, in the cities of Melbourne and Geelong. In those cities, such a person perhaps would take no part in the debate and certainly would not vote, and although I am not implying that anything wrong has taken place, I remind honorable senators that all his mates on the council are eligible to vote. I remember an incident in the city of Williamstown some years ago when it was discovered that a certain person, acting under an assumed name, was letting trucks to the council. Needless to say. he had to go. We must guard against such things, but, as a party, we are not at all happy about denying any one the right to stand for election in present circumstances.
After all, when it is all boiled down the Northern Territory is governed from Canberra. The Government appoints six members and, with the chairman, has seven nominees. With seven members out of a total of thirteen, I should be quite happy because those seven have to be in their places and there would be no fighting among members. Seeing that the Government is in this favorable position, I cannot see why it should deny all residents there the right to submit themselves for election as representatives for the remaining seats. Many of the public servants up there have given the best years of their life to the service. In the main, they are the most responsible people in the district and I see no reason why they should be debarred from submitting themselves for election. I should like to deal now with one other matter, and here I do not wish to be unduly harsh towards the customs officials. I remind the Senate that Darwin is really the airport of Australia. In the main, people coming from Singapore land there and have to wait in that town for three or four hours before being transported further. I see no reason why they cannot be examined for customs purposes while enduring that, compulsory, wait at Darwin instead of being examined when they arrive at Mascot where, because of the delay, caused by this examination, it is more than likely that they will miss connecting planes that would carry them to Victoria or to any of the other States. I have made more than one trip abroad and I cannot see why a commonsense aproach to this matter cannot be adopted, especially when it is realized that within the next few weeks we all hope a number of people will be coming from overseas to attend the Olympic Games in Melbourne.
– Provision has been made for that.
– I am delighted to hear from the new Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) that this provision has been made. Having once just missed a plane myself because of the present system, I do not wish others to suffer a similar experience.
Returning to the bill,I repeat that it is my firm conviction that the Government should remove this bar upon a person’s submitting himself for election, especially when we know that this Government has the final say, in any event. The time is fast aproaching when this Parliament will have to give to the people of the Northern Territory the right of self-government. Nothing does more to make for contentment among the people than the knowledge that they have the right to govern themselves. I admit that the Commonwealth Government now finds all the money; but I suggest that if we look at the other side of the ledger and have some regard for the huge volume of the exports, especially of such valuable products as uranium, from the Northern Territory, we must admit that the Northern Territory itself is possibly in a position to find all the money it needs. WhilstI do not expect any amendment to be made at this late hour of the session, I hope it will be made at some future date and that every person, irrespective of whether he works for the Crown, but provided he is a decent citizen, will be given the right to enjoy any position the country has to offer him.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Sitting suspended from 5.47 to 8 p.m.
page 1148
Debate resumed from 26th October (vide page 970), on motion by Senator Henty -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The provision in this bill to raise the maximum horse-power limit of tractors on which bounty is payable under the Tractor Bounty Act is appreciated by the Opposition, and will have the effect of helping to save the tractor manufacturing industry in Western Australia. The Government has frequently expressed its trust in the Tariff Board, but, in this case, it has disregarded, for a year, the recommendations of that body that a bounty rate of £240 be granted for certain classes of tractors with a belt pulley horse-power exceeding 40, but not exceeding 55. The Government did not lack money to implement the Tariff Board’s recommendation, but it allowed a whole year to pass before the increase was granted, and then made it retrospective to 12th October, 1951, which was close to the date of the Tariff Board’s report and recommendation. That twelve months’ delay, however, almost cost the tractor manufacturing industry in Western Australia its existence. During that time, it had encouraging inquiries for the purchase of tractors from overseas and could have entered into contracts of sale, but, owing to the uncertainty of the Government’s attitude, the manufacturers had to mark time until some decision was made. The Western Australian Government, which of all State governments is most concerned in this matter, will, no doubt, benefit from the bounty now provided in the bill.
The history of Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited, of Western Australia, is an interesting one. After the war, the Chamberlain family was responsible for founding the tractor-manufacturing industry, and, although it had a struggle, it received considerable help from the Western Australian Government and is now a going concern. However, the delay on the part of the Commonwealth Government, during the past twelve months, has been a severe hindrance to it. Had this new bounty been paid when the Tariff Board first recommended it, a new lease of life would have been given to the industry, and more employment would have been provided in Western Australia.
On 14th October, 1955, the Tariff Board recommended not only a bounty, but also a duty on tractors. In regard to wheel-type tractors, it recommended -
Under a previous amendment, the Commonwealth Government fixed the profit margin in relation to this subsidized industry at 5 per cent. At that time, the margin was not a reasonable one and the Government was trying to encourage the development of industries, particularly of this nature, lt now appears that the Government has not been sincere in its desire to have a tractor industry in Australia, because little or no attempt has been made to encourage tractor manufacturing firms from overseas to come to Australia. However, Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited have produced a highly efficient tractor. The latest models are of the diesel type, and are equal in performance to the former types produced. However, it is doubtful whether this industry can continue.
The Opposition is keenly interested in the development of heavy industries in Australia, and if some cognizance had been taken of the Tariff Board’s recommendations as soon as they were made, not only Chamberlain Industries in Australia would have been helped but also other tractor manufacturers would have been encouraged to come to Australia. Obviously, vested interests have considerably influenced the Government in the way it has handled tractor bounties over the years. Industries of this kind could employ many skilled tradesmen, and if war broke out they would be most valuable in the production of armaments and munitions. The primary producer is also greatly affected, because of the part that tractors play in agriculture. The argument may be advanced that if a duty were placed on imported tractors the primary producer would be at a disadvantage, but that is really a matter of administration and the Government could help the farmer to carry the load.
I should like the Minister, when replying, to explain why twelve months elapsed, after the Tariff Board’s recommendations were published, before the new bounty was determined. Although the Government proposes to raise the profit margin of this West Australian firm from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent., the amount of private capital now left in the concern is almost negligible. The Opposition does not object to the bill but it contains features which prove conclusively that the Government has been vaccillating in regard to this matter and has not dealt with it in a way that would help to develop heavy industries in Australia. If more tractor manufacturing firms were established in Australia they would be private trading concerns, or at least semi-private concerns assisted by the Government as is Chamberlain Industries Proprietary Limited. Although the bounty has been raised, it is doubtful, at this late stage, whether this Western Australian concern will be able to recover and become an independent industry or whether it will have to continue with the assistance of the State government.
– in reply - I should like to answer one or two of the points raised by Senator Cooke because he and other Western Australian senators have always been very strong advocates for the retention of this industry in Western Australia. It plays a very big part in the industrial life of that State and for that reason the Government intends to continue the payment of this bounty. Senator Cooke is somewhat under a misapprehension in regard to a certain matter about which 1 shall give him complete information. The bill which was passed about a year ago provided for a bounty on tractors up to 55 horse-power. The Chamberlain tractor at that time was equipped with a governor which reduced its power to less than 55 horse-power. However, the bounty has been paid on the Chamberlain tractor during the last twelve months; Senator Cooke is in error in thinking that it has not been paid.
The Government felt that it would be far better if the Chamberlain company were to remove the governor from its tractor, and it is meeting the company by amending the bill so that the bounty will be paid in respect of tractors up to 70 horse-power. By the simple method of removing the governor, the Chamberlain tractor will develop a horse-power of 68 and will still qualify for the bounty under this bill. The honorable senator’s statement that the bounty has not been paid is incorrect. It has been paid during the last twelve months; and now, by the simple method of removing the governor, the Chamberlain tractor will qualify for the bounty on tractors up to 70 horse-power.
The Government, of course, decided against imposing the duty recommended by the Tariff Board. The reason for doing so was to avoid a rise in the cost of tractors which would have to be borne by primary producers throughout Australia. In these days when the primary producer is feeling the impact of rising costs, the Government felt it would not be wise to increase the costs of the industry. In its desire to help the industry in Western Australia it felt it would be better to grant a bounty rather than to impose a duty of 5 per cent. on the whole of primary industry throughout Australia, which would be the effect of the Tariff Board’s recommendation.I think that the Government’s decision is a wise one.
As far as the limitation of 5 per cent. on the capital earnings of a company is concerned, if honorable senators look at the capital construction of the Chamberlain company they will find that the imposition of such a limit will in fact mean that a company can earn almost up to 10 per cent. Consequently, the decision to maintain this 5 per cent minimum is a wise one.
– The Government has raised the limitation to 10 per cent.
– It is 5 per cent.
– This bill will raise it to 10 per cent. whereas, previously, it was 5 per cent. I want to know why it is being raised to 10 per cent. One can only conjecture the actual amount of profit because this company’s capital has changed materially since the last bill was passed.
– The Government considers that 10 per cent. is not, in normal circumstances, an unreasonable level of profit.
– On the last occasion the Government introduced such a bill it thought it was unreasonable.
– If the honorable senator will wait until I finish, he will realize the point I am making. The Government considers that 10 per cent. is not, in normal circumstances, an unreasonable level of profit but that a return of 5 per cent is quite reasonable in the case of the Chamberlain company in its present stage of development, having in mind its unusual capital structure. The achievement of such a profit would indeed be very encouraging. That is the pointI am making. The limitation of 5 per cent. still applies, but considering the unusual capital construction of this firm it, in fact, allows a profit which is more than the 5 per cent. mentioned in the bill. I think I have answered the question raised by the honorable gentleman.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1150
Debate resumed from 30th October (vide page 1015), on motion by Senator Spooner) -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The purpose of this bill is to amend what we know colloquially as the income tax assessment act. There has been circulated with the bill a very excellent memorandum explaining the provisions of the bill. It has been framed in its usual excellent form by the officers of the Taxation Branch. At this hour, and having regard to the business on the noticepaper, I propose to address myself to the bill with complete brevity, simply indicating its broad nature and the particular sections in which the Opposition is interested and to affirm that the Opposition is not opposing any of them.
With the consent of the Senate I shall have incorporated in “ Hansard “ the introductory note of the explanatory notes which so clearly set out the main purposes of the bill. The introductory note is as follows: -
The main features of the bill are -
Exemption of income of hospital and medical benefits funds registered under the National Health Act 1953-1955 (clause 4 (a));
Discontinuance of the exemption of pay and allowances of members of the Defence Force allotted for duty in the Malayan area (clause 5);
Provision of an alternative basis of depreciation adjustment in relation to insurance and other recoveries on assets lost or destroyed (clause 7);
Provision for deduction of capital expenditure incurred in relation topatent rights, registered designs and copyrights (clauses 9 and 20);
Allowance of deductions of gifts to certain authorities and institutions in Australia (clause 11);
Increases in the special deductions for residents of isolated areas and for members of the Defence Force serving at certain overseas localities ‘ (clauses 12 and 13);
Increase in the maximum deductible amount of life insurance premiums, &c. (clause 15);
Increase in the maximum deductible amount of education expenses of children (clause 17);
Provision for deduction of capital expenditure incurred in timber operations (clause 20).
I propose to deal only with paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. I refer first of all to paragraph 7, dealing with the proposal to increase the maximum deductible amount of life insurancepremiums, superannuation payments, and the like. The relevant clause proposes to lift the deductible amount from £200 to £300. In broad principle the Opposition has no objection to that provision. I simply comment that it is an extraordinary provision in a bill which forms part of a budget which gives no concession in taxation rates generally nor confers any benefits upon the needy sections of the community. It is rather a shock to find the Government giving a concession that will amount simply to a benefit to those who expend in insurance premiums and the like the sum of approximately £6 a week. I have only to affirm that proposition to prove my point that very few Australian citizens will derive any benefit from this bill. Certainly a great body of workers and persons drawing wages and salaries will not be able to save £6 a week - in these days of raging inflation - from their incomes, and invest it with insurance companies.
A similar comment applies to item 8, which is the proposal to increase the maximum deductible amount of education expenses for children. I make exactly the same comment in that case as I made in the matter with which I have just dealt. It is a desirable benefit in itself, but it will operate in favour of very few of our citizens in these difficult times. A further comment to which I direct the Minister’s attention in particular under this heading, is quite a new thought. It is that while parents are given, under this bill, a right to deduct £100 a year in respect of the expense of educating a child to the age of 21 years, the Government has given no thought to some similar concession in favour of those young people who pay their own fees for university education.
The Minister will acknowledge immediately that the Government is very interested in tertiary education. It has continued the Labour Government’s scheme of scholarships to the tune of about £1,000,000 a year, it assists universities generally, and it obviously concedes the principle that it is desirable to have as many skilled persons in our community as possible. There is no class of persons more deserving of consideration than those ambitious young men and women who work throughout the day and devote their nights and weekends to study in order to acquire a university education, acquire some further skill and enter the ranks of the professions.
– Hear, hear!
– Looking at this matter from the coldly technical viewpoint of taxation, we see that the money expended by these people is literally expended in the course of preparing to earn higher incomes in the future. They are really adding to their income potential. I do earnestly address to the Minister - apparently with the support of one of his colleagues, Senator McCallum - a request that the Government give earnest consideration to doing something for the class of persons that I have mentioned. I happen to be one of that category myself, and I know exactly what is involved in working hard all day, studying all night and at the weekends, and sacrificing annual leave year after year with a view to acquiring a university education and qualifications which would allow me to enter into wider fields of income.I have sympathy for those who are in that category, and I cannot see any answer to the proposition that if parents are entitled to a deduction from gross income in respect of what they pay as education expenses for children up to the age of 21 years, those children should be entitled to comparable deductions when they pay their own way at universities.
A third important matter in the memorandum appears in paragraph 6, and has respect to increases in the special deductions from incomes for residents of isolated areas and the members of defence forces serving in certain overseas localities. I was concerned with the Taxation Advisory Committee in 1945, when the principle of zone allowances was first set out in the taxation field. Then zone A, dealing with the northern parts of Australia, attracted an annual deduction of £40. Zone B, covering broadly the central parts of Australia, excluding the coastal strips, and Including portion of Tasmania, was granted a zone allowance of £20. Within two years the £40 in respect of zone A was increased to £120, but the allowance for zone B has remained exactly where it was fixed in 1945.
One does not have to argue that £20 in 1945 was a very different proposition from £20 now, and £20 to-day, or even £30 - which the bill proposes shall be the allowance for zone B - is a most insignificant contribution. It would not make a very appreciable difference in the income tax payable by the residents of zone B. I have put a broad proposition that the zone allowances should be raised very substantially. In the committee stage I shall propose that the allowance for zone B shall be increased to £90, and I shall also propose under this heading an alteration as between zones. I shall move that that portion of Tasmania which is now regarded as zone B shall in the future be regarded as part of zone A.
We support, broadly, the proposal to increase from £120 to £180 the allowance in respect of zone A. We should accept any increase for zone B, but we believe that to increase it by merely 50 per cent, is completely inadequate, and is a most insignificant gesture to the people who live in what are acknowledged to be bad climatic conditions or adverse climatic conditions, who live in isolation and who are affected by the very high cost of living. When those three factors come into combination in any degree,. I think they are worthy of far more consideration than an annual allowable deduction of merely £30 as has been proposed by the Government.
Therefore, I indicate at this stage that I shall move amendments in those terms at an appropriate time, and if the Senate attendants will be good enough to take up the copies of the amendments that I propose, I shall have them circulated now in order to give as much notice as possible of my intentions to the committee. The Opposition does not oppose the bill in any way and, as I indicated at the outset of my speech, for that reason I have been particularly brief in speaking to this motion.
– I am very pleased to hear that the Opposition does not intend to oppose this bill. I believe that the measure is an earnest of the Government’s desire to effect certain improvements by tidying up parts of the taxation legislation. I am very pleased to learn that the Government has agreed to increase from £200 to £300 the allowance in respect of insurance premiums, because I believe, that that will give the people a marked incentive to save. I also compliment .the Government for leaving outside that £300 allowance any payments made in respect of hospital and medical benefits funds.
Senator McKenna has referred to the zone allowance. I agree with the statement in the second-reading speech of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) that once we commence altering the zone allowances we strike a number of difficulties. I appreciate that the Government has in mind a comprehensive examination of the zone allowances as affecting the whole of Australia and its territories. For some time, I have wondered whether it is within the constitutional power of the Commonwealth to differentiate between taxpayers of one State, or portion of a State, and another State or portion of a State. I have often wondered whether the idea of zone allowances as they were introduced by the Chifley Government, is completely within the constitutional power of the Commonwealth, and I believe that the committee recently set up to review the Constitution could very well give consideration to that aspect of this matter - that is, whether it is within the power of the Australian Parliament to apply zone allowances with regard to taxation matters.
That is not a question upon which I shall express an opinion myself, but I do believe that there are grave doubts about it and I should like a considered opinion on it from the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) or his representative in the Senate. 1. am very pleased to see the Government making a forward move in relation to education expenses. As is well known, this Government originated the deduction of £50 about three years ago, raised it to £75 and, I am grateful to note, is now raising it again to £100. Of course, as on the last occasion, items such as the cost of text-books, fares to and from school, and actual payments to schools, colleges and universities may be claimed under this allowance.
I come now to the matter of allowances for gifts. In this connexion, I suggest that the Government consider making deductible gifts made in country areas for the purpose of establishing aerodromes. There is now quite an appreciable number of gifts that are allowable as deductions, including gifts to the Elizabethan Trust, and gifts to the conference that was convened by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in London recently. I think that gifts of money to non-profit-making organizations in country districts for the purpose of establishing aerodromes there - aerodromes of a nonprofitmaking category - could very well be allowable deductions. Such aerodromes are of great value, not only to the Government, but also to the people in country areas. To allow a rebate on gifts for this purpose could very well promote the establishment of additional aerodromes in country districts. At the present time, of course, it is not the policy of the Department of Civil Aviation to establish them.
The Government has, very wisely, taken some note of the Hulme committee’s report, on depreciation, and I am very pleased to see the recommendations of that committee adopted - admittedly only to a small degree - in the present legislation. As I have said from time to time in this chamber, I hope that the major portion of the report - that which relates to deductions for capital improvements such as the erection of buildings in industry - will be heeded in due time.
The timber industry has come in for wellmerited consideration, from the point of view of depreciation. I am very pleased to note this feature. Generally speaking, this bill is an excellent example of the Government’s interest in the many taxation problems that beset this nation. I shall not detain the Senate any longer. I give the bill my wholehearted support. However, I am afraid that I will not be able to support the amendment that has been foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). I hope that the Government will institute a full-scale inquiry, first in relation to the constitutionality of the zone allowances, and secondly, if it is found that zone allowances can be legally granted, as to the areas to which the allowances should apply.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 - (1.) Section twenty-three of the Principal Act is amended -
– I move -
That, after paragraph (a) of sub-clause (1.), the following paragraph be inserted: - “ (aa) by omitting paragraph (k) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: -
pensions and attendants’ allowances paid, and payments of a like nature made, under the Repatriation Act 1920-1956. the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956 or the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940- 1955;’;”.
Honorable senators will recollect that I foreshadowed this amendment in my second-reading speech. The object of the amendment is to grant to persons entitled to pensions under the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve Act) 1956, the concessions that are granted by the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1936-1956 to certain persons in receipt of pensions under the Repatriation Act 1920-1956.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 11 - by leave - taken together and agreed to.
Clause 12 -
Section seventy-nine a of the Principal Act is amended -
by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words “ Twenty pounds “ (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the words “ Thirty pounds “.
– I move -
That the words “ Thirty pounds “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “ Ninety pounds “.
The effect of the amendment is to lift the amount of allowance for residents in zone B from £30 to £90. Having regard to the high cost of living in that zone, the fact that it is somewhat isolated, and considering the climatic conditions there, the Opposition feels that a far more generous allowance than is contemplated by the Government should be made. The issue is completely clear cut. If honorable senators will look at the map that has been circulated with the explanatory notes, they will see that zone B runs from just south of Mackay, misses the whole of the coastal strip down to above Adelaide, misses the coastal strip around Perth, and takes in all the rest of Australia except that portion of zone A at the top of the continent. It extends also to Tasmania which, if honorable senators’ sight is good, may be seen at the bottom of the map. The portion that is marked in red represents the Tasmanian portion of zone B. I do not propose to do more than formally move the amendment and support it with those brief comments.
– I support the amendment, because I think it is most important from Tasmania’s viewpoint. The isolated western region of that State will be dealt with later, and I reserve my comments upon that aspect of the matter till the appropriate time.
– The Government regrets that it is unable to accept the amendment. To accept it would mean a major alteration of the Government’s policy in relation to income tax law and arrangements. Decisions affecting the partition of Australia into zone A and zone B for income tax purposes are reached only after a consideration of important policy issues. I suggest to the committee that it is unreasonable to expect a government to accept an amendment after it has carefully considered the pros and cons of the concessions it is prepared to grant in the form of zone allowances and has placed its decision before the Parliament.
Question put -
That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)
AYES: 22
NOES: 29
Majority . . 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 21 - by leave - taken together.
. -I refer to clause 16 - Payments to medical and hospital benefits funds. I should like the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) to inform me whether the payments in question will be allowed as a deduction in addition to the sum of £300 that is to be allowed for insurance or superannuation premiums, or whether they will be included in that sum of £300.
– They will be in addition to the £300.
.-I refer to clause 15, which seeks to increase the allowable deduction for superannuation and life assurance premiums from £200to £300. I rise only to observe in a somewhat dismal spirit-
– That is nothing unusual, may I say?
– No comment from Senator Kennelly is called for. The increase in the deduction seems to be keeping pace with increases in deductions from salaries of members of Parliament and public servants for superannuation purposes. Deductions from parliamentary salaries have risen this year to £234, and they come now within the group ranging from £200 to £300. Top public servants are in the same group.I am not excited to admiration by the coincidence between the concessional deductions allowed from taxable income and the deductions allowed to members of Parliament and public servants for superannuation.
Clauses agreed to.
– I move -
That after clause 21 the following new clause be inserted: - “21a. Section two hundred and sixty-five a of the Principal Actis amended -
by omitting from sub-section (3.) the words ‘Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1920-1943 ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ Repatriation Act 1920-1956 or under the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956’; and
by omitting from sub-section (4.) all the words to and including the words ‘ that Act ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ Any decision of an authority constituted under the Repatriation Act 1920-1956 on any question affecting the right of any dependants of a deceased member of the Forces to a pension under that Act or under the Repatriation(Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956’.”.
Section 265 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1936-1956 makes provision for release from liability to income tax in respect of the pay and allowances earned as a member of the defence forces by members of the defence forces who die in circumstances entitling their dependants to a pension under the Repatriation Act 1920-1956. The proposed new clause will make similar provision in respect of members of the defence forces who die in circumstances entitling their dependants to a pension under the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956.
Proposed new clause agreed to.
Clause 22 -
The Second Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph 1 of Part I., and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: -
– I move -
That the following words be added at the end of the clause: - “; and (b) by inserting in Part I. as paragraph 10 all words appearing in paragraph 2 of Part II. and by repealing paragraph 2 of Part II.”.
I confess that if one looks at the terms in which the amendment is expressed, it is not very informative. It can be explained quite simply by stating that paragraph (2.) of Part II. sets out an area of Tasmania which is popularly referred to as the west coast. It forms part of zone B. At the time this area was included in zone B, I suggested to the government of the day that it should be dealt with as a very special case, first, on the severity of the climate. The area is exceedingly mountainous, and is completely covered in snow for many months of the winter. It is 165 miles by road from Hobart and at times it is weatherbound. There is access to it by road from the northern part of the island, but the train does not reach Queenstown. It goes part of the way as far as Zeehan. Thereafter, it is some 30 miles to Queenstown and then 26 or 30 miles to the port of Strahan. There are not many people in the area. Most of them are centred in Queenstown, and most of the workers in that area are employed by the Mount Lyell Mining andRailway Company Limited. That is the dominating employer of the area, and special conditions are provided by the company to attract labour to Queenstown and retain it.
The effect of the amendment, briefly, is to take that area out of zone B where the Government proposes there should be an insignificant allowance of £30, and insert it entirely in zone A where there will be a deduction of £180 under the Government’s proposals. We propose to take the west coast of Tasmania out of zone B and put it in zone A.
– The honorable senator is not comparing that area to the north of Australia, is he?
– I would not compare them with regard to the kind of climate, but I do compare the severity of the climate in the two areas. In the northern part of Australia there is dryness and heat. On the west coast of Tasmania the conditions are exactly opposite. The honorable senator should not think of an adverse climate as being merely arid and hot.
– I did not.
– A climate can be severe because it is too wet and too cold. In my experience, it rains nearly all the time in the west coast district, - and that makes living conditions very uncomfortable. On my first campaign for the Senate, I visited the area with Senator Aylett. We went out one morning into heavy snow at Queenstown, and were obliged finally to leave the car. It took us twelve hours to walk 12 miles over Mount Arrowsmith in the snow, which was feet high on the cross arms of the telephone poles, and was breaking the branches of trees around us. It took us from 10 o’clock in the morning until 10 o’clock at night, under conditions which I affirm were exceedingly hazardous from the viewpoint of survival, to make the journey through that country. At times, and for months at a time, the whole area is under snow in that way. There are grave difficulties even in getting in contact at all with that west coast area, so I say to Senator Vincent that living conditions there are equally as severe, in a different way, as those operating anywhere in the north of Australia where they are afflicted by too much heat, too many blowflies and too great a dryness.
– How would they compare with the Snowy Mountains area?
– I cannot speak as to that, but I know it is mountainous, and 1 know it is snowy, so I should imagine that somewhat similar conditions would prevail. I am not able to speak upon that because, I blush to confess, I have not been to the Snowy Mountains area. The area to which I refer is exceedingly isolated; not in the matter of distance, comparable with areas in the north of Australia, but it is exceedingly hard to get at from time to time throughout the year. In the area where the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Limited operates perhaps costs of living are not so high as in the rest of area, and the reason for that one exception in and around Queenstown is that there the company has to grant the people facilities such as cheaper rentals. It provides nearly all the houses.
– It runs the stores.
– It runs the stores and the butcher shops, and the company claims that it sells at a loss. In other words, it is a form of subsidy by the company both to attract people to the area and then, having got them where conditions are particularly unfavorable, to retain them in the area. - I understand that some of my colleagues who are, perhaps, more familiar with the terrain and its difficulties even than I am are anxious to address themselves to this particular matter, and I leave the argument at this stage at that point.
– I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) because of the severity of the climate in this area and for the other reasons stated by him. He has referred to Queenstown. I make reference to the rest of the southwest of Tasmania which is virtually unexplored. Nobody has ever been into about one-third of Tasmania, except perhaps a few people who have worked small tin mines on the outer fringe of the south-west corner, but in time to come that area may improve.
At this stage I foreshadow a further amendment to clause 22. When we have dealt with Senator McKenna’s amendment it may be necessary to see what can be done about mine. I repeat that I support the arguments adduced by the Leader of the Opposition. He knows why these people should be given just as much consideration as is accorded the residents of other areas. The climate on the west coast area is much more severe than that of the north-west coast of Australia. I do not say the distances from civilization are as great, but in Tasmania there is the added fact that the industry carried on in this area is mainly mining and there is every- possibility that in time to come certain towns there will become ghost towns because if mining should peter out there is no other industry to support the area. In the north-west of Australia, however, the main industry is grazing and there is no likelihood of its petering out. These Tasmanians are living under extreme difficulties and there is no doubt that it is possible that some of the towns there will become ghost towns. To support that suggestion. I point out, for example, that where the population of Zeehan was once 20,000, it has now dwindled to something between 300 and 400. These people are prepared to take the risk so far as the future of their families is concerned, and they should be given the consideration suggested by the amendment under discussion.
.- lt is evident that honorable senators are not familiar with the climatic conditions in the north-western part of Tasmania. Having traversed most of that area, I can claim to speak with knowledge gained from practical experience. I have travelled over the area not only by foot after having had my car bogged down in snow, but also by packhorse, carrying a pack on my own shoulders. In one instance, I found it necessary to carry a human being on my shoulders in order to save his life. Reference has been made to Queenstown. There are other places even more isolated than that. For instance, there is the town of Rosebery where the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia is working. There is also the town of Williamsford to which it is impossible to attract people unless homes are first found for them. One of the reasons why people go there is that they are unable to find homes anywhere else. Even though at times they earn high wages, and despite the inducements held out to them, most of these people would go elsewhere if they could get homes.
In order to give the Senate some idea of the severity of the climate at Rosebery and Williamsford, I point out that in those areas they measure the snow not by inches but by feet. At times the snow over the railway line to Rosebery has been so high that trains have not been able to run for a week. Again, the road to the west from Hobart is completely blocked at certain times and also from Waratah to the White River and on to the Preinan River. At one time, when 3 miles from White River and 7 miles from Waratah, I found it necessary to carry a man on my shoulders for 3 miles to the White River Hotel in order to save his life. The next day we set out to do the 10 miles to Waratah and went through drifts of snow from 10 to 15 feet deep. The trip took us twelve hours. The average depth was anything from 3 to 6 feet. Waratah was smothered in snow up to 3 feet deep for anything from three to five weeks. At Zeehan, of course, we get out of the snow country into the rainy belt where rain is measured not by inches but by feet. As Senator O’Byrne said by way of interjection, the average rainfall is 110 inches a year.
– The climate is uniformly bad throughout the whole twelve months.
– Yes. That reminds me of the story about the Chinaman who went there, arriving on Christmas Day. After having been there for twelve months, he said that there was only one shower at Zeehan, that it started on Christmas Day of one year and was still raining on Christmas Day of the following year. I mention that merely to emphasize the severity of the climate there owing to the extremely heavy annual rainfall. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has mentioned an occasion when he and 1 set out upon a 200-mile journey together. Our car became bogged in 3 feet of snow travelling down Mount Arrowsmith and we were forced to walk through from 3 to 4 feet of snow at the Derwent Bridge Hotel. The only time I came near to being assaulted was when I wanted to carry Senator McKenna, because I did not think he would make the grade. However, he is fit and well, and the fact that he has moved this amendment is an indication that he is well aware of the climatic conditions in that part, of Tasmania. That belt of snow extends southward to within. 25 miles of Hobart. From the time we visited the area on that occasion, it was three weeks before traffic could use the road. That is the place where snow ploughs were first used in Tasmania.
Although Queenstown is extremely isolated its importance to the war effort was so great during the war period that the Labour Government installed a telephone service from Hobart. At that time, labour and materials were very scarce and one of the greatest problems was to persuade workers to remain in the town. Often they would deliberately walk off their jobs. 1 mention these things to illustrate the severity of the climate.
Further down the coast, there is not even a road but in many parts of the area production is still being carried on by the settlers. The climate is extreme, with heavy rainfall and snow. As to isolation, it is 200 miles from Hobart. Not a winter passes without heavy road transport being held up bringing supplies to Queenstown. People with children have to meet the heavy expense of fees at boarding schools in Hobart or Launceston, as well as high fares for children travelling home for the holidays, and then back to school. Further south, the isolation is worse still, and some areas can be reached only by pack horse or on foot. The cost of living is very high. Freight rates on goods carried by pack horse are exorbitant.
The parts I have mentioned are those we are asking to.be taken out of zone C and brought into zone A. If the case in support of this request has not been convincing, in view of what has been said about climatic conditions and isolation, I doubt whether the Senate would ever be convinced. Representatives of Tasmania are most anxious to see the western portion of the State developed, but that cannot be done unless special inducement is given for settlers to go there, as is being done in the case of northern Australia.
.- It is obvious to every one that Senator McKenna’s amendment has been moved in an attempt to anticipate Senator Cole, who, I understand, intends to move an amendment to provide rather special benefits for King Island and the islands in the Furneaux group. However, although the honorable senator’s amendment may have a pinpoint of political purpose, it has substantial merits that should be understood by the Senate. The west coast of Tasmania is a potentially rich area, and deserves our attention. It may yet yield untold wealth, comparable, on present levels, with the riches by which it has rewarded Australia in the past.
Pioneers have stayed in the west coast areas after an era of prosperity, and despite the disadvantages of isolation. There is a railway link to the north-west coast, and a road link to Hobart, each of which involves for the residents excessive transport costs. But the principal means by which .the Federal Parliament should compensate these pioneers who have stayed, after the period of prosperity, to unearth the riches yet to be revealed, is the improvement of the shipping link, upon which depends the copper industry at Mount Lyell. For several years after the war, only as a result of the accidental increase in the world price of copper, that industry was able to surmount its difficulties. The Federal Parliament has a real responsibility for the isolation that has been caused by the expensive and undependable shipping link between Melbourne and Strahan. Everything possible should be done to maintain the pioneers in this area if they are prepared to persevere with their purpose of revealing and developing its riches. Despite the fact that the amendment has been moved for a political purpose, it deserves support on the grounds I have stated.
.- If I were asked to state a case in support of Senator McKenna’s amendment, I could not have chosen words so expressive for the purpose as those that have been chosen by Senator Wright. He put the matter in a nutshell. For some time, the west coast of Tasmania has been considered a special zone for consideration by the Federal Government to encourage people to settle there. As Senator Wright so ably stated, pioneers have remained in that area and have continued, in their own way, to garner the wealth that is in that very rich part of the island.
Many people are inclined to think of Tasmania as an insignificant State, and to leave it off the map. It appears that it was not worthy of consideration when the venue of the Olympic Games was being discussed. But it is a singular island. Tasmania is a land of contrast and conflicts, hopes and fears, loves and hates. But it is a kindly little island, and one that could well set an example to the rest of Australia. Among its people are the grand old pioneering stock and their descendants, who are prepared to forsake the amenities of modern life in the cities and endure rigorous climatic conditions in the undeveloped parts. They are willing to pay extra prices for their goods and to hold their children away from centres of learning until they can afford to pay for them to receive their education at a boarding school. That is the spirit of the pioneers, who have done so much to develop Tasmania. They are the counterpart of those pioneers who were so largely responsible for the development of other parts of Australia. Let us look at the history of Australia and consider what has been the process of development. First of all, the explorers sought a place where men could live profitably. The prospectors followed in their steps, seeing the vision splendid and seeking what lay beneath the surface of the soil. Those were the processes of the great pioneers of this country. Next came the miners - not the pearlminers, the Japanese miners - but genuine miners, like the people who went to the goldfields in the southern part of Western Australia. The miners have gone to the west coast of Tasmania and that is the stage of development that has now been reached. In the general scheme of progress the grazier follows. The land is subdivided, and then comes the farmer; and so progress continues. That is the process of development in a new country.
Many people in Australia do not know that one-third of the area of Tasmania, that dear little island, is yet unexplored. Some of the most venomous snakes are to be found on the west coast of Tasmania. There is the tiger snake, from whose bite people have died within ten hours. Only two years ago, a Victorian university student was hiking through the forest on the west coast of Tasmania-
Honorable senators interjecting,
– I am putting a genuine case on behalf of the people who live on the west coast of Tasmania. The interjections come from foreigners from the mainland who do not understand our personal problems in Tasmania. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and Senators Aylett, Cole and Wright have very ably informed the Senate of the climatic disabilities endured by people on the west coast of that State.
– How big is this island?
– Its area is 26,000 square miles, every inch of which is worth more than twice that of land on the mainland. Those honorable senators have explained its disabilities and how the private shipping companies have let Tasmania down badly. When 1 hear this roaring on the part of some honorable senators, I am reminded of Queenstown on the west coast and of other towns like Strahan, Zeehan and Heemskirk, whose names perpetuate those of ships that were driven ashore by the roaring forties. The earliest explorers came in on the roaring forties, the trade winds that blow from the west. Those are the conditions under which people on the west coast of Tasmania have to live. Honorable senators from the mainland will not understand the personal problems involved.
This area of Tasmania is in great need of development. It has untold mineral resources. It’s iron-ore deposits, if developed and exploited, would equal those of Western Australia and South Australia. The trouble is that the people in this area, living under the conditions 1 have described, are faced with such high expenses that the development of the area has necessarily been retarded. ff encouragement were given to the people on the west coast by way of taxation concessions, more people would be attracted to the area and would be willing to sink their earnings into the development of that region.
Senator Scott interjecting,
– Senator Scott has advocated a similar concession in respect of the north-west of Western Australia. He cannot make fish of one and fowl of the other. The west coast of Tasmania has wonderful forest reserves. Australia, in proportion to its total area, is worse off than any other country for forest resources. Yet, on the west coast of Tasmania are magnificent forests. Trees grow to a height of 100 feet before the first limb branches out. The leaves and foliage are so thick that one could walk along the tops of the trees without falling through. This country has not yet been penetrated by the explorer and is waiting for development. We should encourage people to go into the area by providing some incentive by way of taxation concessions. Residents in that area believe that they should be exempt from sales tax and income tax, although, at the moment, we are asking for only a small concession.
The case put by honorable senators from Tasmania on behalf of the great pioneers of the west coast of that State has very great substance. It is worthy and unanswerable, and I hope that even though this subject has been treated with a certain amount of jocularity, the Government will provide this concession to residents in the area and thus help them to develop this portion of Tasmania which at the moment is suffering disabilities unknown in other parts of Australia. They would be greatly benefited by the concession that is proposed in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
Question put -
That the words proposed to be added (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be so added.
The committee divided.- (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)
AYES: 25
NOES: 28
Majority 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
.-I move -
That at the end of the clausethe following paragraph be added: - “ and (b) by adding at the end of Part II. the following paragraph: -
King Island and the Fumeaux Groupof islands in the Bass Strait.’.”.
The amendment is designed to include King Island and the Fumeaux group of islands - including Flinders Island and Cape Barren Island - within zone B. At present the taxation concessions allowed to taxpayers within zone A and zone B are not given to the taxpayers on those islands. Considering the disability under which the inhabitants of the islands live, I do not understand why they should not be given some zone concessions. Indeed, I maintain that they should have received these concessions before now. I could speak at some length about the difficulties of the islanders and the disabilities under which they live, but I shall content myself with detailing merely a few of these disabilities. Transport to and from the islands is infrequent and expensive; they are isolated from the mainland of Australia and Tasmania, and they lack ports. It is very difficult for ships to carry goods to and from the islands, and therefore the air services have to be used. But air freight is very expensive. For instance, the islanders have to pay about £40 to £60 a ton to air freight the fresh vegetables that are required. Although King Island is a green island, climatic conditions are unsuitable for vegetable growing. Moreover, the land is lowlying and is swept by the roaring ‘forties from the west. Although there are wonderful pastures on the island it is almost impossible to grow vegetables there.
The disabilities under which people live on these islands have been recognized in various ways by both the Tasmanian and Federal Governments. For example, the Federal Government pays a special living allowance of £30 a year to its public servants on the island, and the State Government pays an allowance of £25 a year to its servants. Moreover, public servants are allowed 10s. a week in respect of each motor vehicle that they use because all metal rapidly deteriorates in the salty atmosphere of these islands. When public servants are eligible for leave from their posts they are given special free leave passes to cover the cost of their fares from the islands. Therefore, it will be quite clearly seen that both State and Federal Governments have recognized that those who live on the islands suffer from certain disabilities.
In view of that recognition, and for other reasons, it is quite apparent that the people who live permanently on the islands should have their disabilities recognized by receiving taxation concessions, and I consider one way in which this could be done would be by bringing the islands within tax zone B. The beautiful town of Mackay, and the million dollar towns of Innisfail and Cairns in Queensland are in zone B, although, according ‘to Senator Wood, they have a wonderful climate and the people who live in them suffer very few natural disabilities. If those towns can be classified in zone B and their inhabitants given taxation reductions, surely the islands to which I refer can be similarly classified, because the conditions of life there are infinitely harder and more rigorous than the conditions in the north of Queensland.
– How far off the Tasmanian coast are these islands?
– About 80 miles. In view of all the circumstances that I have detailed, I ask the Government and all honorable senators to give serious consideration to the amendment that I have moved and to provide some taxation relief to the people of King Island and the Furneaux group.
– I support the remarks that have been made by Senator Cole, and I remind the exservicemen members of this chamber that 90 per cent, of the adult male population of the two islands that he mentioned are exservicemen. It was not until returned soldiers from World War I. went there that those islands were settled to any extent, and the development that is now taking place is due to the fact that ex-servicemen of World War II. have settled on blocks there. As was pointed out during the debate on another measure yesterday, about 100 farms on those islands have been allotted to exservicemen of World War II., and another 60 or 70 farms will be allotted to exservicemen on King Island in the near future. The men who served this country well in war are now developing those islands because the job would not be undertaken by any one else.
There is another aspect of the matter that has not been mentioned. The children of the older ex-servicemen settlers on those islands are now of an age at which they are ready for high school training. The settlers, like members of this chamber, like to give their children an opportunity to get higher education. The air fares from King Island and from Flinders Island to Tasmania are as much as the fare to Melbourne, despite the fact that it is twice as far to Melbourne as it is to Tasmania. Unless the settlers pay high air fares for their children to go to either place, and meet the cost of their board, the children cannot get any more than the plain State education. Tasmanian law .requires children to remain at school until they attain the age of sixteen years. Therefore, unless the children on King Island and Flinders Island can go to the high schools or colleges in Tasmania or on the mainland, they must spend the last two or three years of their schooling period sitting around doing nothing at the local schools.
– Of course, there is an area school there.
– Yes, but that school only provides trade and farming training. If the parents want their children to go to high school, and subsequently to a university, they must send them to either the mainland or Tasmania. In view of the fact that so large a percentage of the male population of the two islands are returned soldiers, I support the amendment.
.- Although I am not sufficiently equipped to debate the submission that has been made by certain Tasmanian senators in relation to King Island and Flinders Island in Bass Strait, I think that further thought should be given to the overall question of taxation zoning. If it is contended that places like Townsville and Cairns should be in zone B, I have no hesitation in saying that places like Innamincka in South Australia, Milparinka in the north-western corner of New South Wales, and Hungerford, Thargomindah, and Windorah in the south-west corner of Queensland should be included in zone A. They are situated in arid parts of Australia.
– In which zone does the honorable senator think that Lake Macintosh should be?
– I have never been there, but with such a healthy name it should make life more interesting in an arid part of Australia. I think that consideration should be given to further increasing the taxation allowances for both zones A and B. I do not think that the proposed increase of the allowance for zone A from £120 to £180 is sufficient compensation for people who live away out in the Northern Territory and in the distant parts of Western Australia. It is not enough.
The allowance for zone B is to be increased from £20 to £30; I do not think that that is enough, either. Although it is not for me to determine an appropriate amount, I do not think that that allowance is sufficient for people who are forced to live in the remote areas. While I stand for increased taxation zone allowances for the residences of isolated areas of Australia, I am not discarding the Tasmanian case. As I said before, I am not sufficiently informed on the details of the Tasmanian submission, but I do know something about the inland parts of this great continent. I think that the people who have to live in places where the thermometer runs up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, and the rainfall is limited, are entitled to higher taxation zone allowances than are provided in the measure before the chamber. I urge the Government, after this debate has been concluded, to give further consideration to increasing the zone allowances to just and appropriate amounts.
Question put -
That the words proposed to be added (Senator Cole’s amendment) be added.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)
AYES: 22
NOES: 28
Majority 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 (Liability to provisional tax and contribution).
.- I have no doubt that this clause is understood by every honorable senator.I propose to attach to it, as a matter of relevance, a submission which I hope will be implemented when the next budget is presented, if not earlier. It concerns invalid persons who are required, by reason of their invalidity, to incur special transport expenses in travelling to and from their work. I make a plea for the giving of sympathetic consideration, based on the needs and economic circumstances of the individual, to the allowance of these travelling expenses, which arise out of the special circumstances of the person’s invalidity, as a deduction from income.
I have in mind two persons who have been afflicted by poliomyelitis but who, despitethat disability, have won university degrees and have qualified for useful and productive employment. They have to incur special travelling expenses which, to my dismay, and I hope to the disappointment of every soul in this chamber, have been disallowed on the basis that they are not travelling expenses incurred for the purpose of earning income. The board of review has denied the deduction on the ground that the expense is incurred because, forsooth, of their invalidity.
I raise this matter to-night in a temperate and dispassionate manner so that it will be considered, 1 hope, before the presentation of the next budget. 1 plead for the allowance of this expense as a deduction, because any encouragement that we can give to these Bader-spirited persons who are afflicted by invalidity should be given with the unanimous voice of the National Parliament. 1 raise a plea to which 1 have no doubt the spontaneous spirit of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) will respond. 1 regret that, although representations have been made privately heretofore, this matter, no doubt .because of the cloud that results from the multifarious representations he receives, has not received appropriate consideration. I shall delay the committee no longer. If provision is not made in the next budget, each of us will have the responsibility of making a decision. To-night, 1 content myself with a plea.
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1163
Debate resumed from 31st October (vide page 1051) on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– After the events of the past hour or so, I say with some timidity that this bill, too, has particularly reference to Tasmania. It has its birth in section 96 of the Constitution, which provides for the making of grants, with or without conditions, to the States. The Commonwealth Grants Commission was set up in 1933, and it has submitted some 23 reports recommending annual grants to the States thai have made application for them. Those States are Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. None of the other States has availed itself of the machinery afforded by section 96 of the Constitution. Each year, those States, which have disabilities in the matter of population, climate and terrain, make their applications. Each year we have a most comprehensive, informative and useful report from the commission, and each year the Parliament unanimously supports the recommendations of the commission and the proposals of the Government.
The Opposition, of course, supports the bill. As the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) indicated in his second-reading speech, it provides for a total grant of £18,500,000, of which £5,800.000 will go to South Australia, £9,200,000 to Western Australia, and £3,500,000 to Tasmania. lt is rather interesting to look at the graph which appears at page 77 of the appendices to the commission’s latest report and to note that the grants to those States have risen from £2,020,000 in 1938-39, which was a pre-war year, to £18.500,000 this year. Since the Government took office, they have risen from approximately £11.000.000 to £18,500,000. Those figures are some measure of the enormous inflation that has taken place, lt was initiated primarily by World War II., and then was allowed to develop without control until it is posing, even in a matter like this, one of the gravest problems for the Commonwealth Treasury and the nation.
There is very little disputation regarding the principles and methods adopted by the States Grants Commission. There was a time when 1 was one of the severest critics of the methods employed by the commission. I have not figured in that capacity for quite a few years, because the principles and the methods seem to have gone beyond the realm of argument. I commend the report of the commission to those who are interested in the vital question of Commonwealth and State relations as one that contains a veritable mine of information. The report of the commission is a wonderful addition to the storehouse of knowledge of this Parliament.
The commission argues for us various propositions. I am not going to traverse them because I do not want to contravert any of them, but I make it clear that the commission aims at preserving a relative balance between the claimant States and those that are known as the standard States which are on the eastern seaboard of the Australian mainland so that there is a relatively even level of governmental services and activities throughout Australia. While one finds some minor differences, that is a very important contribution to the homogeniciy of our people. One is impressed to find how the people throughout Australia look, think and act alike. We are in the process of having a substantial dilution at the moment, but the likeness between institutions, services and activities from one end of Australia to the other impresses anybody who travels across the continent.
– Our faults are the same everywhere, too.
– Yes, and even the same stories being told in all the capital cities. It is extraordinary how much we are at home in every part of Australia, whether we are in the centre or on the perimeter. Although the amounts involved in this measure are not large in comparison with the Commonwealth budget, they make a vital difference to the economies and the services of the three States concerned. In fact, as the Minister acknowledged in his second-reading speech, even with the generosity of these grants and the greatly augmented amount that the three States expect to get, the budget deficits for this year will be approximately £822,000 in South Australia, £1,648,000 in Western Australia and £843,000 in Tasmania. They are substantial deficits, and will cause grave concern to those three States.
I pay a tribute to the representatives of the other States in this Senate and in the House of Representatives for their attitude to this measure. There is general unanimity regarding the proposals of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. In anticipation of the same support - and the Opposition is not opposed to the measure but cordially supports it - I thank honorable senators in advance, particularly those from other than the applicant States, for the support that I know will be forthcoming for the bill.
Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania) TI 0.5]. - This bill grants special assistance to the States to correct the lack of uniformity that exists in the economy of the three claimant States in relation to the standard States. Since a Tasmanian, the late Mr. Joseph Lyons, was the Prime Minister of Australia, there has been constituted continuously a Commonwealth Grants Commission. It has exercised the jurisdiction under which the budgets of the claimant States shall be subjected to an annual scrutiny. That is our justification for voting these special grants to those States, after we have the assurance of that responsible commission that the needs of the States justify them. I make it clear that that distinguishes this grant from the grant that I criticized to-day when we were considering a supplementary vote for the reimbursement of the revenues of the States without any responsible scrutiny of the individual State budgets.
– The tax reimbursements are based on an unsatisfactory formula, too.
– That may be, but we guard the taxpayers’ revenues by a proper scrutiny of the expenditure of that money. In that respect, we have set up an agency known as the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It has expressed principles that excite continuous interest and admiration. They have not been subject to any opposition in this Parliament for the past 20 or 22 years. On the contrary, they have been unanimously accepted. That is the distinguishing factor between this special grant and the supplementary grant that I criticized this afternoon. The latter contributes to irresponsibility, because we do not accept our measure of responsibility by seeing that that vote is justified by the needs of the States. The existence of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in relation to this bill justifies us in voting this special assistance.
– The principle that applies to the arbitration measure that was before the Senate to-day applies also to this bill. Until inflation is tackled, everything else is a waste of time. If £600,000 is given to a State government, by the time it is expended it is worth only £400,000 or £500,000.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Anderson). - Order! The Senate is not discussing inflation, and the honorable senator must address his remarks to the measure that is before the chamber.
– We shall need more and more money and bigger grants until the Commonwealth Government puts value back into the £1.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1165
Debate resumed from 31st October (vide page 1101), on motion by Senator Cooper - That the bill be now read a second time.
– I take it that in the course of this debate we are free to discuss simultaneously, the Public Service Arbitration Bill (No. 2), the Australian National Airlines Bill and the Aluminium Industry Bill. I think leave of the Senate was given to that effect when the bills were introduced, and although I shall make only passing reference to those other bills, I should like to feel free to do so.
I intend to address myself, very briefly, to the very important industrial issues that are raised by this bill. My opening comment is that in the dying hours of the last sessional period, there was introduced into this Senate a bill to review comprehensively the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It produced most revolutionary changes in that act. It ought to have been given the fullest consideration; but we were shocked to find that that bill, so vitally affecting the industrial conditions of the workers of Australia, had to be amended to the tune of eleven pages of amendments. That type of thing destroyed all our confidence in the bill, apart from everything else. Now, again in the dying hours of a sessional period - on the very last day - and on top of that previous inglorious performance on the part of the Government, we have major industrial matters raised in legislation and we are presented with eleven printed pages of amendments. I say to the Government that this type of treatment of the Parliament is one of the factors that causes all the distrust of the Government. These things should be circulated long in advance. There should be the most adequate time allowed for discussion. Instead of that, one feels that there is a policy of haste in preparation and of undue haste in presentation to the Parliament.
On picking up this bill and, above all, upon reading the speech of the Minister in which he discounts the content of the bill, we find that the great majority of the provisions in it seek to correct drafting errors, ro improve drafting, to rectify omissions and to make adjustments in the transitional provisions when, as per the last legislation, the question of conciliation and arbitration moved off one base on to another. All that destroys whatever confidence the Opposition might have had in legislation of this type.
Omitting the relative drafting provisions and the adjustment of the transitional provisions, the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill boils down to three main matters. The first is the transfer of Commonwealth undertakings to the new Industrial Commission. That body will function in adjusting the terms and conditions of employment in the industries so committed to its care. There is provision for particular undertakings to be excluded from that transfer. The second main aspect is that the commission is authorized hereafter to make awards that are inconsistent with Commonwealth law, again except in respect of such laws as are either now particularized or may be hereafter particularized by regulation. The third main aspect, of course, is the correction of what was an obvious oversight in the earlier legislation of a vital matter; that is, provision for the representatives of employers and employees to have the right of audience before the newly created Industrial Commission which the court appeared to be denying to them. I should say that is a necessary provision. We are opposing the bill despite the fact that we have no objection to this particular provision relating to audience.
I come back to the three main matters and deal again with the first of them, the transfer of Commonwealth undertakings to the Industrial Commission. We say that is a mistake. A tradition and an experience has grown round the operations of the Public Service Arbitrator. Public servants felt that they were under a sympathetic and competent jurisdiction. Many of them will resent being barred from going to that body. Many of them fear, and, I believe, with great justification, that the conditions they now enjoy will be cut down as a result of the transfer. In many cases, there are in existence agreements between the Commonwealth and those engaged in various trades, agreements which, in many particulars, provide better conditions for the employees than the Industrial Commission and its predecessor, the Federal Arbitration Court, could provide for workers in general. The transfer of workers who enjoy those conditions to the new Industrial Commission poses an instant problem for the commission. What will the commission do, for instance, in the matter of annual leave? The Public Service Arbitrator always allows three weeks. The Arbitration Court normally allowed two weks. I hat is the general standard for annual leave for Australia. If the Industrial Commission, in relation to one industry that happens to be a Commonwealth undertaking, approves three weeks, it is met instantly with a demand from industry at large for three weeks annual holiday instead of two. I think the unions are justified in their fear that the Industrial Commission will look at the larger area and say, “ The broad general condition applying two weeks annual leave shall be the main. We cannot have any exceptions and we will bring the workers in this Commonwealth industry down to the general level, otherwise we are making difficulties.”
That is only one of the factors that operate. Sick leave is another. Far more generous provisions relating to sick leave are granted by the Public Service Arbitrator to Commonwealth employees than are allowed at large by the court, and now by the Industrial Commission. Again, the commission is faced with the problem as to whether it will disturb the general level and standard that has been set in the matter by allowing an exception to the two weeks rule in favour of Commonwealth undertakings or whether it will bring down those undertakings to the norm. The real fear is that that will take place. For instance, there are agreements now pending and not registered. An agreement covering the great body of workers at the aluminium works in Tasmania has not been registered. When this bill becomes operative, that agreement will have to be presented to the new Industrial Commission instead of to the Public Service Arbitrator. The very active fear that these employees have is that that agreement will not be approved because it contains standards which are far higher than those which are normally struck by the Industrial Commission.
I understand that munitions workers operated without a formal award from 1916 till 1951. They operated under agreements made between the Commonwealth and the various unions covering
Commonwealth munitions workers. They did go to the Public Service Arbitrator in 1951, and they do now enjoy an award. They are completely and irrevocably opposed to being forced to go to the Industrial Commission, as it is now called. That type of thing is to be found right through. lt is for the Government, under this bill, to exempt from reference to the Industrial Commission, any particular undertaking, but I point out that there are concerns like Woomera, Maralinga and other undertakings in remote localities where very special conditions ought to be and are prescribed for the workers. What is their feeling when they are taken away from the Public Service Arbitrator and placed on the general level of industry? They fear that there will be a scaling down of their conditions, rather than a general raising of industrial conditions to their level. There is a real fear in the minds of the trade unions about this, and it is one of the main reasons why we oppose the bill.
– Must there be uniformity?
– There has to be uniformity, and it would be difficult for the commission to justify a departure from a norm or standard set-up for an industry.
– But if special circumstances prevail, surely that could be done?
– Perhaps so, but each industry claims that it has special circumstances, just as each of us regards himself as the most important person in the world - and he is, to- himself. Each union thinks that it is connected with the most important industry in the community, that it is subject to special conditions and that it makes a special contribution to the economy of the country. This legislation has about it all the signs of haste, there is obviously no anticipation of the dangers inherent in it, and we oppose it on that account.
I come now to the proposal that, since the Public Service Arbitrator is now free to consent to a reference to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or to arrange for a matter to be sent to that body, it is necessary to endue the commission with power to reach a decision inconsistent with an award or law of the court. That is obviously necessary because if that power were not granted, as it is in the case of the Public Service Arbitrator, there would be no area within which the Industrial Commission could prescribe industrial conditions. The usual safeguards are provided, that the award must be tabled in Parliament, that attention must be directed to the inconsistency and that this Parliament shall be free, under certain conditions, to disallow the award.
In clause 5 of this measure, the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) 1956, and in clause 9 of the Public Service Arbitration Bill (No. 2) provisions are laid down that, apart from the particular statutes named, the Minister may prescribe by regulation certain acts which the Industrial Commission in the one case, or the Public Service Arbitrator in the other, cannot amend. My information is that, owing to the great spread of the Commonwealth Public Service and the enormous growth of legislation affecting its various conditions, 40 or more acts, or sections of acts, would need to be specified to show which particular things are not to be amended by either the arbitrator or the commission.
If honorable senators look at the two clauses to which I have referred they will find power provided for the GovernorGeneral in Council, which means the Government, to prescribe particular acts that neither arbitral body can amend. It would be infinitely better if thought had been given to this matter, if every act that might be so excluded had been listed and a fully considered statement of the position presented to Parliament. That has not been done, and obviously the lazy way has been taken by the Government of saying that it will advise by regulation, at its convenience, what acts may not be amended by either of these tribunals when they are arbitrating and making awards.
I understand that this matter has been greatly concerning the Public Service Association, and that the Minister has given to the High Council of the association an assurance that none of these acts will be so prescribed without notice to and consultation with the High Council. I understand that that assurance has been accepted and is satisfactory to the High Council. I should like the Minister to intimate whether it is the intention of the Government to bring down legislation, rather than draft a regulation to particularize these acts which neither arbitral body can amend, so that the whole Public Service might know quite clearly and in statutory and rather more permanent form just what is its position. 1 hope that the Minister will be in a position to give that assurance because, although Parliament may not meet for some months, there will be an opportunity, in the meantime, to prescribe the various acts. I strongly suggest to the Minister that it ought to give an assurance to the Parliament that these acts will be particularized by legislation at the earliest opportunity.
I have already indicated that the Opposition is not against the provision for the representation of the parties, but because of the general atmosphere and of the industrial unrest and dissatisfaction that we know, in advance, that this legislation will cause, we propose to record our protest by voting against the motion for the second reading of the measure.
Question put -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)
AYES: 29
NOES: 22
Majority 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Debate interrupted.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMulIin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question resolved in the negative.
Debate resumed.
Bil! read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1168
Debate resumed from 31st October (vide page 1101), on motion by Senator Cooper -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– I have already made my remarks on this particular bill. I rise to remind the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) that he forgot to answer a question I addressed to him, and 1 now present him with the opportunity to do so.
– We now embark into the realms of negotiations between the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) and the High Council of the Commonwealth Public Service Organizations. I think the best way to answer the inquiry by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), is to read to him the letter from the Minister for Labour and National Service to Mr. Smith, the president of that council, which sets out the understanding, atmosphere or arrangements that followed their discussion? I shall omit the first two paragraphs, which I do not think are relevant. The remaining portion of the letter reads -
I note that your concern is not with the specific prescription of the three general Acts with which no inconsistent determination or award may be made, but with the power to prescribe other Acts or provisions of other Acts. If it were that Crown employment was governed solely by the Public Service Act. it would have been a comparatively simple matter to prescribe the provisions with which an inconsistent determination or award might not be made. There are. however, a number of other Acts which deal with the conditions of employment in the Services of statutory authorities. Examples are the Broadcasting Act, the Commonwealth Bank Act, the Overseas Telecommunications Act, the Commonwealth Railways Act and the Peace Officers Act. In addition, there are Acts like the Officers Rights Declaration Act, the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act and the Re-establishment and Employment Act. The problem that is apparently troubling you did engage my attention when the Bill was being drafted. I had hoped to find a form of words which would make it apparent that the provisions that might be prescribed should be those dealing with what I might broadly describe as the structure and organization of the various Services, appointments, promotions, discipline and the like. These are matters going to terms and conditions of employment or service with which the Parliament has seen fit to deal specifically, and I would think there would be general agreement that it would be undesirable that power should reside in some arbitral tribunal to make determinations or awards inconsistent with such specific provisions. Unfortunately, it was not found possible to find words which would express, wilh the precision required for Acts of Parliament, this general concept,
I have heard it said that, as the Bill is drafted at the moment, it would be possible to prescribe the whole of the Public Service Act. Theoretically, that is perfectly true. Theoretically, all the other Acts, dealing with employment under the Commonwealth, could be prescribed. Nobody surely imagines for a moment that any of these things would bc done, unless of course Parliament wished to abolish the Public Service Arbitrator, in which event a more direct method would doubtless be used.
Governments must, of course, be presumed to act responsibly. There is, in any event, this safeguard that all regulations are subject to consideration by the Parliament, and may be disallowed. They can thus be subjected to the same Parliamentary control as the proposed legislation.
I am, however, prepared to go further and say that before any proposals were made to the Governor-General in Council for the making of any regulations under the provision with which you are concerned, I will be prepared to arrange for my Department to consult with you or representatives of your Council. This will enable full consideration to be given to any views you or your Council may have, and, as well, give plenty of opportunity for you and your Council to be aware of what is in mind.
That letter was written only the day before yesterday.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– Following the reply given by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) that certain acts are exempted by the bill now before the chamber, I simply put to the Minister that in due course the Government will determine a list of other acts, or provisions in particular acts, which it proposes to prescribe. I was hoping that I might have received an assurance from the Minister that at the earliest opportunity those acts that might be detailed in regulations will be transferred to the act of Parliament itself. Does the Minister see any objection to following that course? I put my argument from the point of view that the acts could be moved in and out day by day by regulation. There is a higher degree of permanency about a piece of legislation. When the Government does make up its mind as to just what the body of law is that it proposes shall not be amended by arbitral tribunals, why should those details not be included along with the acts already mentioned in the bill?
.- I only wish to observe, with some responsibility as a member of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, that I am moved to some disquiet by a proposal that the Executive should have the right to prescribe particular provisions of an act of Parliament, inconsistency with which will render an award of the Public Service Arbitrator effectual or ineffectual. I have “read with great attention the speech delivered by the Minister, and although I regret to say that I have not found any satisfactory alternative solution of the problem, I must say that the proposal that the “Minister should be in charge of the nomination of these provisions which might competently be overridden by the award, is a matter which, to me, is -contradictory of the principles which I believe I came Here “to support. This matter is not passing, as far as I am concerned, by inadvertence. As honorable senators know, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has a duty to report on such things as make for ah undue surrender of parliamentary authority to the executive when exercising its regulationmaking power. If, and when, a report referring to this matter comes -forward, I trust that the committee will be prepared to give it the attention merited by the subject-matter.
– The points raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and Senator Wright illustrate to some extent the difficulties of drawing up this legislation. On “neither point am I instructed that I should give any assurance, but I am told in regard to the matter raised by Senator McKenna that it is under consideration by the department at the present time. I have been specifically requested not to give any assurance that his proposal will be adopted, but merely to state that it is being examined.
– Presumably, it is preferable to think that it might be forgotten?
– No.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1169
-! present the fifth report of the Printing Committee. Report - by leave - adopted.
page 1169
Debate resumed from 31st October (vide page 1101), on motion by Senator Cooper -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1169
Debate resumed from 31st October (vide page 1 101), on motion by Senator Cooper -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amend- merit or debate.
page 1170
Second Rending.
Debate resumed (vide page 1113).
– I have been taken unawares by the calling on of this measure. I expected that we should follow the prescribed order of business.
– The Superannuation Bill (No. 2) 1956 is the next on the list, but we cannot proceed with that because it is proposed to move a Government amendment which cannot be moved until the Australian Security Intelligence Service Organization Bill has been dealt with. The latter measure is not yet available, and so the Superannuation Bill (No. 2) has been postponed. If Senator McKenna is not ready to go on with the bill at present before the Senate, perhaps we may proceed with another bill.
– No, I shall proceed to deal with this measure. The proposal in the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1956, is to increase the amount of the stevedoring industry charge from 6d. to ls. 7d. At this stage, and under present conditions, I do not propose to do more than indicate that the Opposition is not offering any objection to that particular provision. However, consideration of the measure does give us an opportunity to advert to the exceedingly comprehensive report which has been received from the committee that was appointed to examine the costs of stevedoring and shipping in Australia. I have devoted some attention to that report, and I believe that the Senate will readily understand, from the way I have been engaged in this chamber recently, that I have not been able to give the report the attention that it deserves. Therefore, I do not propose to open up that matter in this speech, and will content myself by indicating that the Opposition does not oppose this measure.
The Opposition regrets that its advice was not taken when, in 1954, the Government reduced the charge from lid. to 6d. Honorable senators on this side then argued that the charge should remain as it was in order that it might accumulate to speed up the day when amenities could be provided for the workers, and, above all, to build up a fund to provide for pensions or longservice leave. We believe that the Government made a mistake when it reduced the charge from 1 Id. to 6d., and made a worse mistake in not ensuring that that reduction was translated into a reduction of freights to a certain order and degree. That, unfortunately, did not transpire. We are concerned that this charge - we are not opposing it - should not be translated into higher shipping freights. Of course, 1 know that the Government can do nothing about that. Senator Paltridge, who is the Minister concerned with this particular activity, said in this Senate the other day - and I quite agree with him - that if the interstate shipping lines decide to increase freights, no government in Australia has the power to say them nay. 1 think it is a deplorable situation when any group or body in this community can set even a government at defiance. It is an awkward position for the Government. There is a pretence at consultation, and no doubt certain parties believe that they have reached an agreement, but no agreement is really reached with interstate shippers, who know that they can nominate whatever freight they like, and the Government can do nothing about it.
Doubtless, the Government regrets that it rejected a proposal for a referendum that at least, if carried, would have provided it with some power in this matter. The defects in relation to interstate shippers are attributable to the fact that the Government refused to seek the power to enable it to exercise proper control in this matter. At this stage, I do not intend to open up the whole field of stevedoring activities, and I do not know whether any of my colleagues intend to speak to this measure. Unless some one provokes me at the committee stage, I shall be silent for the remainder of the passage of this bill.
.- The stevedoring industry is of such importance to the whole of the trade and commerce and economy of Australia that it would not be fitting, in the proper deliberations of this Senate, to allow a bill of this magnitude to pass without some comment. It is quite obvious that the preoccupation of all of us since the Tait committee of inquiry submitted its principal report last week has prevented anything like adequate consideration of that report. It comprises a very bulky set of documents. What the fertility of its contents is I have yet to ascertain. I am sure that the Senate as a whole would desire an opportunity to examine that report before passing judgment upon the activities of the Stevedoring Industry Authority.
The other factor with regard to this inquiry is that, since this Senate in its wisdom passed the legislation which constituted the Stevedoring Industry Authority, we have had a quarterly report from the authority to the effect that, excluding the years in which there have been national strikes, the loss of man-hours in the stevedoring industry for the quarter 1st June to 30th September was higher than in any quarter since statistics were first compiled by the board - the predecessor of the authority - in 1949. That may be due to transitory circumstances; we have yet to see.
It will be remembered that, without any apology to anybody, after a vigorous opposition to this legislation in June, I absented myself from the division, because I thought that the decision of the Government was entitled to a trial, if its negation depended upon my own individual vote. Therefore, I absented myself from the division in order to give to the Government both legislation and experience. But it has to justify itself by experience. It is a matter of dismay to me that a bill is now before the Senate which provides for an increase from 6d. to ls. 7d., I understand, per man-hour. I think that that is correct.
– That is right.
– The surcharge upon the wage rate fixed by the Arbitration Court for waterfront labour is to be ls. 7d. per man-hour, in order to defray the cost of holidays and sick payments awarded by the tribunals, increased administrative expenses of the authority, and increased attendance money. We were not favoured by a statement of .the aggregate figure that that would involve, as far as I recollect, although I seem to remember that a figure of something like £1,250,000 was mentioned.
– The figure was £1,078,000.
– Well, Mr. Deputy President, despite the lateness of the hour, I ask your pardon and your patience in order to obtrude upon your attention this view: This is a critical challenge to the economy of Australia and, for my part, it has to be justified by experience.
I therefore indicate that, in committee, I intend to move an amendment limiting the operation of this legislation to twelve months after its commencement, so that there will be provided for the Parliament an opportunity, after fifteen months’ experience of the act, to take this whole matter again into its most earnest and, I hope, anxious consideration.
– Despite the lateness of the hour, I wish to join issue with Senator Wright on one point. I regret that we have to discuss a bill of this nature without having had ample time to consider the report that has been furnished because, from the little I have read of it, 1 am convinced that some considerable time will be needed to study it. Statements made on one page are, in some instances, contradicted on the next. I am not so solicitous of the stevedoring companies as is my friend, Senator Wright.
– I did not utter one syllable of solicitude for them.
– Having heard Senator Wright’s speech on this subject on a previous occasion, and remembering certain things that he said, I appreciate his feelings. If I remember correctly, the report reveals that, since 1 948, the profits of the stevedoring companies have increased by about 601 per cent. On the face of it, £1,078,000 is a lot of money to take out of the industry each year, but it is not so much as appears at first sight when regard is had to all of the headings of expenditure to which the money is applied. In the main, I do not think an excessive sum is paid to persons who perform stevedoring work.
Doubtless, year after year the Government has been asked whether it is possible to organize the introduction of legislation so that on the last night of a sessional period important legislation like this is not placed before us. I cannot speak about the measure any further, because, to make a speech that would give one some satisfaction, it would be necessary to have sufficient time to study the report of the committee of inquiry. I have not, and I doubt whether any other honorable senator has had sufficient time to study it. Therefore, one has more or less to take the bill at its face value.
– 1 remind Senator Kennelly that we are not interested in the stevedoring people but that we are concerned particularly with the primary producers and the timber industry of Tasmania. Unfortunately, I was one of those persons who said that, if the waterside workers were not satisfied with the conditions and wages they received, we should give them a generous wage, even if it were as much as £20 or £25 a week.
We in Tasmania want a quick turn-round of ships. We want the island to be serviced to the utmost capacity of the ships available. For years past, innumerable deputations and conferences have considered the problem of shipping and waterfront conditions in Tasmania, but I say quite definitely that the position continues to deteriorate. It would seem that all those conferences have narrowed down the problem to the following headings: How to overcome the slow turn-round of ships; the long and costly period in port compared with the short money-earning periods at sea; and the monopoly of the employment of labour enjoyed by the waterside workers’ organization. Linked with those points is the fact that, in spite of modern laboursaving appliances, bigger gangs are handling less freight. For many years Tasmanian senators have brought the insular position of Tasmania to the notice of the Senate, and have endeavoured to bring some clarity of thought to bear on the Tasmanian shipping position. Despite all our efforts, the position is still much the same. If, by giving the waterside workers all they asked for. we were able to achieve a quick turnround of ships, we would feel that our efforts had met with greater success.
Although I believe, as I have stated in the past, that the waterside workers are Communist-controlled, I think the bulk of them are not Communists and are good workers. I know from my own experience that, during the off periods when there is «o work on the wharfs and they work for the primary producers, they are excellent men and are eager to meet their employers as far as possible and to do their work thoroughly and expeditiously. But as soon as they return to the wharfs difficulties arise. It has been proved that in Launceston cargo is moved at the rate of 12 tons per man-hour, whereas the old rate was as high as 30 or 40 tons, in fact, some of the old hands say they have handled up to 60 tons an hour. If that is true - and I believe it is - it is very difficult for the waterside workers to explain away the slow turn-round of ships. If honorable senators opposite are able to explain it, I should very much like to hear their explanation.
Within the last two months, some of us were at Devonport with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) when a go-slow strike was in operation. The men were dismissed for going slow; they were moving only one bag of peas per man per hour. If that is to be the reaction to the better conditions that are offered, the position will be almost impossible. I really think the men are entitled to sick pay, holidays and all the other amenities that ordinary workers receive. They are entitled to everything the industry can afford to pay, but we are entitled to expect something from them in return. I have stressed in the past that the capital that is invested in ships, wharfs and sheds is being used on an average for four hours a day. The difficulty experienced in attracting capital investment is great but, when it is invested, for goodness sake let us use it to the utmost capacity.
We all know how difficult the situation was for the timber industry on the occasion of the last strike, and how the waterside workers closed up very many mills which have not been able to re-open. I think the waterside workers ought to remember that, when they strike or think they are fighting the shipowners, they are actually fighting their fellow-unionists and are causing trouble to primary producers throughout the State.
I do not want to vote against the measure. I hope that, when the waterside workers get all they ask for, or all that is fair and reasonable, they will make some effort to improve the turn-round of ships and help industry to maintain its position both interstate and overseas.
.- Like other honorable senators, I have been unable to read through the very voluminous report that has been presented by the committee of inquiry; but the few pages I have been able to peruse have led me, like Senator Kennelly, to form the impression that it could be reduced by 75 per cent. In my opinion, 75 per cent, of it is unnecessary padding which has been included for the purpose of confusing people, particularly the waterside workers.
The bill provides that certain increases shall be granted, but those increases will be cancelled out by inflation or increased prices. In an indirect way, the waterside workers and other workers will pay for whatever extra is to be paid. It seems that payments to be made by the Australian stevedoring industry for attendance money will total approximately £360,000 per annum. Why should attendance money not be paid? He who waits also serves. Therefore, if the shipowners expect thousands of men to stand about the waterfront awaiting their convenience, those men are entitled to be compensated. When I worked on the waterfront, waterside workers did not receive attendance money; we were just treated as being so many animals in a bull pen. We stood in thousands and were picked up according to the whims of the foreman in charge. Since attendance money was introduced, that position has been improved. According to the press, the shipowners, particularly- those who run overseas ships, are not prepared to state why they have increased freight charges. They charge what the traffic will bear so the freights are as high as the shipowners can force the shippers to pay. On the one hand, the waterside workers are tied down (o specific wages and, on the other hand, the shipowners are virtually a law unto themselves. By increasing freight charges, they can reduce the purchasing power of wages and attendance money.
The Opposition is not opposing this bill, but I believe that the waterside workers should adopt the attitude of “ Thank you for nothing “. They will receive only what the average worker will get. That is just enough to keep them while they are able to work. When they cannot work any longer, they are discarded. 1 invite honorable senators to read a scathing condemna- -inn of the Government’s inflationary policy in the last “ Review “ issued by the Institute of Public Affairs of Victoria for the month of July-September. It states that the position is becoming intolerable. This bulletin does not speak for the waterside workers, but for the leading businessmen of Australia. The article under the caption, “ Nation Building “, shows that we have every justification for directing the attention of the Government to the way in which the workers are being fooled and robbed by the inflation of the currency. While it may appear on paper that they are receiving a very good wage, actually, in terms of commodities, they are receiving a lower wage than they were paid previously. In those circumstances, I repeat that the waterside workers are not receiving as much as this bill would suggest.
Senator Wordsworth referred to the slowness with which the waterside workers worked. I am surprised that they acquiesce to the extent they do, in the way in which they are deliberately exploited and misrepresented in this chamber and in another place. If they realized the situation more fully, we would have more cause to complain. I am amazed that they stand deliberate misrepresentation and criticism. If honorable senators on the Government side feel so keenly about this matter, they should try a job on the waterfront and work under the same conditions. Then they would be able to express an opinion. These men are only human beings, and supporters of the Government should noi assume the right to condemn them. That approach antagonizes men and they do nol give good work. Everything depends on management. If men are treated as they deserve, and as we would like to be treated ourselves, relationships are sure to improve.
In effect, the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration fixes the rates of wages, but the shipowners fix the purchasing power of money. While that position continues we cannot expect to get the best results. I remind honorable senators that practical experience without theory is blind, but theory without practical experience is futile. When honorable senators make a theoretical approach to this matter, their conclusions are not based on practical experience but mainly on prejudice.
Senator SEWARD (Western Australia) ril.18]. - I am reluctant to detain the
Senate, but this bill is far too important to be allowed to pass unnoticed. As a matter of fact, I do not like to see the bill go through at all. Senator Kennelly said - as all of us could say - that he had not had time to read the report of the Stevedoring Industry Committee of Inquiry, but this bill is not founded on the report on the industry, but on what has happened since the new authority came into operation. I have made an effort on two or three occasions to get a copy of the committee’s report but I have not been able to get one. I have seen it referred to in the newspapers so apparently they have a copy of the report, but I cannot get one. The new Stevedoring Industry Authority must be judged on that report.
With my colleague, Senator Wright, 1 was opposed to the measure last year and gave my reasons. In case anybody should accuse me of trying to place burdens on the waterside workers, I remind honorable senators that I pointed out previously where disposition of the waterside workers could be improved. This bill suggests that we should increase the stevedoring charge from 6d. to ls. 7d. a ton per man-hour. Before agreeing to that, we should have before us for our guidance the information contained in the Stevedoring Industry Authority’s report. When we discussed this matter on previous occasions, we had the report of the old Stevedoring Industry Board before us to guide us. On this occasion, the only report I have been able to obtain is the one presented for last year, and the.-:fore the only information I can quote is contained in that report. For the year to which it refers, the revenue obtained from a charge of 6d. a ton per man-hour was £998,553. If the charge is to be increased to ls. 7d. a ton per man-hour, the revenue will amount to something over £3,000,000. The attendance money paid in that year came to £355,000. If we double that, the figure will be approximately £700.000. Out of that, of course, administrative expenses have to be met. According to the report to which I have referred, administrative expenses for that year were £843.000. No doubt these costs have increased year by year, but, if £3,000,000 revenue is required, it would seem that they have increased considerably since last year.
I must have more information on these matters. It is all very well to bring down a bill which proposes to increase charges from 6d. to ls. 7d., but we are entitled to the fullest possible information as to the reasons for the proposed increase. We should have detailed information such as that which was provided in the annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, so that we might gain a proper appreciation of the need for increasing charges. Again, the only information that I have been able to obtain - it is that gleaned from reading newspapers - discloses that the man-hours lost in the industry during the last three months amounted to nearly 900,000, which equals a rate of over 3,000,000 a year. That is a matter of which we must take cognizance. When discussing similar legislation last year. I pointed out to the Senate that the percentage of man-hours lost had increased from 2.3 per cent, in 1950 to 6.6 per cent, in 1953, when they totalled 2,675,000. This year, the rate equals 3,000,000, and we are entitled to have from the Stevedoring Industry Authority a detailed report of its activities. I know it has been faced with difficulties such as increasing sling loads and decreasing the number of men a sling load; but we should have some indication as to whether it has been possible to load more or less cargo per man-hour as a result of these alterations. As we have no such information, we cannot be expected to be in a position to consider the matter thoroughly.
It has been suggested that one of the reasons for the increase is the need to provide extra amenities. Whether adequate amenites are provided at the various ports could be ascertained from a perusal of the authority’s report if it were available to us. In my view it is the duty of the port authorities to provide them. I know that at some ports the profits earned are placed in Consolidated Revenue instead of being utilized for the provision of amenities. 1 also know that on one occasion a representative of the board visited Western Australia and criticized the amenities at one port. He told the harbour authorities to provide them. In turn, it was suggested to him that the Stevedoring Industry Board should provide whatever was required. The board’s representative then pointed out to the port authority that the responsibility of providing amenities rests upon it. I agree that it is the duty of the port authorities.
We know also that some wharfs, sheds and so on are not up to date. We cannot expect the men to do good work if they are not provided with proper harbour and wharf facilities. Here again certain port authorities should be made to honour their responsibilities, but we want more information concerning the real position.
I want to give the new authority an opportunity to prove itself. I hope it can, but so far it has not. For instance, again according to press statements, the manhours lost this year are heavier than they have been since 1949. Although I dislike having to vote on this bill because 1 have not the information necessary to enable me to arrive at a considered judgment, 1 suggest that it might be wise to adopt Senator Wright’s suggestion and restrict its operations to twelve months, after which time we should have before us the authority’s report and should therefore be in a better position to determine whether the charge should be increased to ls. 7d. a ton per man-hour or whether some smaller figure would be sufficient.
According to the reports 1 have been able to peruse, the cost of attendance money has fluctuated over the years. For instance, in 1949 it was 2id. per man-hour. By 1951, it had increased to 4d. and then to Hd. in 1952. In 1954, however, it dropped to 6d. Now, the charge proposed by the bill is ls. 7d. or almost double the highest previous figure of Hd. In those circumstances, it is most desirable that we have the most detailed information to enable us to arrive at a sound decision. If we restrict the operations of the measure to a period of twelve months, that information should be available to us. The Government could then bring down another bill to cover future operations. But for Senator Wright’s proposed amendment, I should have found it very difficult to support this measure because I do not think we have sufficient information to enable us to give it proper consideration.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
.- I refer to clause 2, which reads -
This Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the thirtieth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six. and I move -
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment, viz.: - Clause 2, add “, but shall cease to operate on the expiration of one year from that date “.
In this very contentious matter responsibility should not be taken by the Senate to-night of either denying or affirming this very hard increase on the industry. It is due to our sense of responsibility that we should have an opportunity to consider the Tait committee’s report. That report is most voluminous, and none of us has had anything like an adequate opportunity to study it. Just as it is desirable that the new authority should have an opportunity for at least twelve months to justify itself, likewise we have to justify the judgment we pass on it. At this stage of the session, the Senate would do itself credit if it limited the operation of such an important matter as this to twelve months, and I hope the Minister will accept my suggestion.
Sitting suspended from 11.30 p.m. to 12.16 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, 2 November 1956
– The legislation, of which this stevedoring industry charge is the financial support, is distinctly experimental, distinctly dangerous and, if it fails, it can be disastrous to the economy. If the committee has any sense of ils responsibility, not having had a chance of studying the principal report, it has a duty, which nol one senator can escape, of retaining the opportunity to review, in twelve months’ time, this legislation in the light of experience of its operation. This procedure, 1 hope, will encourage the committee to establish a precedent for future action, because, by limiting the terms of operation of legislation with which we are not completely satisfied, we reserve to ourselves the opportunity appropriate to an upper House, and also maintain the principle that the Government, in bringing down measures in another place, should justify legislation by its administration.
This is a unique opportunity for the committee, not to assert an overriding dominance of the Government, but to demonstrate whether it has the spirit to discharge its responsibility as one House of the Parliament. I trust that there are sufficient senators in this committee who have the sense ot purpose that will enable them to support the proposed amendment, and limit the operation of this bill to. twelve months.
– Before the Minister replies, 1 wish to. indicate that the Opposition could support Senator Wright’s proposal to the extent that it believes that this chamber certainly should be given an opportunity for adequate consideration of the report of the Tait committee. I urge upon the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), that, if at all possible’, he should give this chamber an assurance that- an opportunity will be provided when Parliament resumes after recess - and 1 do not mean next week, in case thai should happen - to debate that report. We support Senator Wright- entirely i-n that matter-.
From the size of the report, and the need to consider all the- tables it contains, it is essentia that it- should- be the subject of very close study. From my cursory examination of the committee’s findings in each section of the inquiry, I could probably say something reasonably intelligent, but I should bo afraid to embark, upon a discussion, either at this stage or in the immediate future, without an adequate opportunity to digest and analyse it, and to prepare a carefully reasoned and well-based argument. Each Senator on the Opposition side is eager for the opportunity to debate this matter, and I should be surprised if the Minister, or the Government, resisted our request to do so. Such a debate could easily be arranged in the new session. From, certain indications, it appears that a formal opening of Parliament will take place, and an address-in-reply debate will follow. That is obvious from the fact that a particular bill is in the precincts of the chamber now. If the Government has time for that procedure there should certainly be time for a debate on this report, which is fundamental to the cost structure and of extreme importance to the national economy. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the committee an assurance that such a debate will be arranged.
The Opposition cannot support Senator Wright’s, proposed amendment. Unquestionably, from time to time, this legislation will be brought before Parliament for review. The Minister has indicated why the extra money, for which the bill provides. is required. Although the Opposition does not accept the suggestion- that the whole of the money will be required for the purposes mentioned, we are not prepared to support a proposal that might- bring to an end projects that are of particular- concern- to workers in this industry.
As. an example, I invite honorable senators to- consider the payment of attendance money and the prospects, of employment for waterside workers, in. the immediate future. The amount of attendance money has been raised, and the increase will add an estimated £360,000 a year to the payments. That rate has been awarded, and: all parties have agreed to its being paid. A survey of the industry gives the impression that larger amounts will be required in the forthcoming financial year. Only recently, in Sydney, 3,500 waterside workers were- idle and. in receipt of attendance money. If world trouble develops - and there are strong indications that it will - we may take it that there will be a further falling off in shipping services, and in- their regularity, and this will lead to an increased payment of attendance money.
We are concerned also about amenities for. the workers. They are inadequate, and the new authority should push on with them. They will be costly and the wherewithal to meet that cost will be drawn from these moneys. Unquestionably, the charge will be reviewed from time to time. I think, this is the fifth occasion on. which it has been reviewed, in ten years. It, automatically demands consideration. According to the Minister’s second-reading speech, the fund, is sadly depleted and needs building up. It is dangerous not. to have a reserve fund with which to- meet, a contingency.. If a complete hold-up in shipping for some months were to occur, attendance money would’ make a heavy drain, upon, this fund, In the light of present circumstances, the Opposition cannot support a proposal to limit the operations, of the bill to twelve months. There is ample machinery available to this chamber to press for a review of the measure if that is considered necessary.
Honorable senators on this side feel strongly that this increased charge will not justify substantial increases in freight rates. The recent awards, have conferred perhaps as many benefits upon shipping and stevedoring companies as upon waterside workers. For example, the size of gangs has been reduced to four,, which means that fewer men do the same work, and that is an enormous saving to the stevedoring and the shipping companies. A relief man no longer stands by. Many benefits have been conferred upon the shipowners, also. These have to be offset, when determining freight rates, against the charge that is proposed to be increased by this bill. I shall not detail other benefits that have been accorded to the shipping companies.
The Opposition adheres to the view that this legislation should be allowed to operate until the need for a review of it is obvious. There are many arguments for strengthening the fund at the moment, but we should not hesitate to move for a debate in this chamber if that were deemed necessary. We certainly will not be content to limit the period of operation of this measure until we see what progress is made with providing amenities for waterside workers, and. until consideration has been given to matters such as pensions and long-service leave. [ remember addressing an argument to this Senate some years ago at the time the Government made a reduction in the charge from l id. to 6d. I pointed out that the fund should be built up and a reserve accumulated. I also pointed out that amenities were not being provided” on a proper basis and. that consideration should be given to the provision of retiring allowances, long service leave and matters of that kind. I” think, by and large, it was rather unfortunate that that reduction took place, because otherwise the fund might be substantial now. No need would now arise for this increase had the fund been allowed to accumulate at the rate of lid. per hour. With those words, I indicate the attitude of the Opposition to the proposed amendment.
– I am surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), with his long experience, saying that the Opposition will press for a review of this legislation. He can, of course, press for such a review until he is black in the face, but he cannot bring about that review unless something compels it to be brought about. Tt is with the object of compelling that review that’ the, amendment has been moved. I think it is a most laudable amendment.. The Leader of the Opposition stressed the need for extra money to pay for amenities, increased stevedoring charges, attendance money and so forth. Earlier, I indicated that by raising the charge from 6d. to- ls. 7d., according to the last annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, the revenue will amount to over £3,000,000 a year. Attendance money paid during the last twelve months amounted to £355,000. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has indicated that another £360,000 will be required which will bring the total amount, needed for attendance- money to £715,000. When the new authority took over it had a reserve of £701,000. That- £701,000 will just meet the attendance money to be paid and the £3,000,000 will cope with, administrative and other charges.
In view of the expenditure that has taken place over past years, the £3.000.000 should be ample to carry the new authority through the next twelve months. The point T make is that the Senate has no information from the new authority to justify an increase from 6d. to ls. 7d., making the charge three times what it has been in the past. The only information we have is that the authority has lost a record number of man-hours during the three months it has been in operation. If we had any other information we might be justified in allowing the board to continue indefinitely. However, I think the Senate would be very wise to limit the operation of this bill for twelve months- so that honorable senators can be sure that the matter will come’ up for revision at the end of that period. If we give the authority this extra revenue and it proves to be more that it requires, obviously the matter will not come up for revision. In these days our object should be to keep charges at a minimum. I cannot imagine why we should give this amount of money” away without having proper information as to its disposal.
Therefore; I appeal to the Senate to give the amendment more consideration and join with supporters of it to limit the- operation of this- bill. I also appeal to the Minister to do that. I do not see how there can be anything wrong with- that suggestion. We will not lose anything by limiting: the bill, to a twelve-months trial. During that period we will obtain a full report from the new authority. Those who have spoken on this measure have said that they have not the necessary information at the present time, nor have they had an opportunity to study the voluminous report that has been made available. It is essential that the Senate should have that information before it agrees to increase this charge to1s. 7d. per man-hour without any limitation.
. -I am sorry to say that the Government does not feel disposed to accept the amendment advocated by Senator Wright and Senator Seward. Senator Wright has based his argument upon the ground that the amendment should be supported as a result of a feeling of indecision. I put the argument back to him on the very same grounds upon which he has advanced it. After all, whether for good or ill, there has just been a major reconstruction of waterfront activity. The change is part of a big general scheme affected by the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill with which we have just dealt and the bill with which we are presently dealing. The present bill provides for the financing of an increase in attendance money, amenities, and the encouragement of employees to take advantage of superannuation schemes under governmental authority. There should not be an air of indecision about such matters, I say with respect, if they are to be successful. We must go forward in a way which will give the parties affected, the shipowners, employees and stevedoring people, confidence in the plan which the Government is putting forward and in which all parties are expected to co-operate. If the plan proves to be successful it will be a permanent feature of the waterfront.
I do not think one can expect a major change like that to be successful if it is advanced in an atmosphere of trial with the provision of a review at the end of twelve months. Nor, indeed, is it necessary to put it forward in such an atmosphere. The Senate will have before it this time next year the Estimates covering this sphere of governmental activities. It can examine those Estimates and express its views upon them. However, I concede the point of view that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition that such an important document as the Tait committee’s report should be in some way formally placed before the Senate so that honorable senators can have an adequate opportunity to examine and debate it. I accede to his request and shall make arrangements through my leader, when the Parliament re-assembles, to facilitate such a discussion.
Senator Wright (Tasmania) [12.34 a.m.]. - I wish to add only one or two remarks. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has shown astuteness in readily accepting the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) to engage in a debate which is assured of perfect ineffectuality. It is supererogation on the part of the Minister following the assurance by the Opposition that it would not support the amendment. Secondly, insofar as this is essentially a programme for a major reconstruction of the industry, it is greatly to be deplored that the Minister did not in June last indicate that its provisions would involve an impost upon taxpayers to the extent which is now revealed. We still have responsibility, notwithstanding our habituation to mismanaging millions, to consider the extent to which the people’s money is extracted from them. Here we are making a great execution of the people. The suggestion that it could be as readily dealt with as a part of the Estimates is very naive. It suggests a spirit of great irresponsibility that the fate of the Government on the Estimates should be made to depend upon one particular item like this. If that is the implication, let it be plainly understood.
Question put -
That the request for amendment (Senator Wright’s) be agreed to.
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)
AYES: 6
NOES: 38
Majority . . 32
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without requests; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1179
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is designed to terminate inquiries by and on behalf of prospective purchasers of land as to whether any Commonwealth land tax is owing on the land that is being purchased. By virtue of section 56 of the Land Tax Assessment Act, any land tax which has not been paid is a first charge on the land in respect of which the tax has been assessed. The liability for unpaid land tax falls on any purchaser or holder of the land except where a bona fide purchaser for value had, at the time of purchase, made due inquiry at the Land Tax Office and had no official notice of the liability. In the interests of revenue collection these provisions were continued in force when land tax was abolished several years ago. Since then, practically all arrears of land tax have been collected, but inquiries by and on behalf of intending purchasers have continued’.
To answer these inquiries, it is necessary to maintain staff and retain records occupying valuable office accommodation. The official costs - apart from the expenses of intending purchasers - are out of all proportion to the amount of land tax that remains to be collected. It is accordingly proposed to relieve intending purchasers of land of the need to make these inquiries, by granting them immunity from liability for payment of any tax that may be owing in respect of the land which is being purchased There are two exceptions to this general immunity. These are cases where, at the time of purchase, a charge for the tax was registered at the titles office or a caveat was lodged with the Registrar General or other appropriate authority. These provisions will come into operation when the bill receives the Royal Assent. I commend the bill to the Senate.
– The Opposition supports the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– Will the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) inform me whether, unless the subject land comes within the ambit of the two exceptions, the Commonwealth will forgo the collection of land tax that is owing on it?
– The Commonwealth is forgoing, not the debt due to it, but the security that it might hold.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1179
Debate resumed (vide page 1113).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1180
Debate resumed (vide page 1114).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1180
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.
, - 1 move -
That the bill be now read a second time. The object of this bill is to provide a statu .o.y basis for the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. The bill will provide the officers employed in that organization with contractual rights against the Commonwealth, subject only to the control of Parliament.
The organization exists, at present, on a purely executive basis, in pursuance of a directive or charter issued by the late Mr. Chifley, on 16th March, 1949, when he was Prime Minister, to the first DirectorGeneral of Security, Mr. Justice Reed, of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made minor alterations to that directive or charter when he appointed the present Director-General, Brigadier C. C. F. Spry, in July, 1950. At present, officers in the organization are subject to the right of the Crown to terminate their appointment at pleasure. It is a well-known, and wellestablished rule of law that, apart from statutory provision to the contrary, a contract of service under the Crown is terminable at pleasure, although contractual arrangements may be made for service to continue for a period of years. The Public Service Act impliedly ablates this prerogative right of the Crown in relation to the Public Service of the Commonwealth. This bill will, amongst other things, protect officers and employees of the security service against the exercise by the Crown of the right to terminate their contract of service at pleasure.
The security service of the United Kingdom has no statutory basis. On the other hand, in the United States of America, Congress has given legislative authority for both the internal and external security services.
During the Royal Commission on Espionage, attacks were made on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. This conduct convinced the Government that it was necessary to follow the example of the United States of America and make statutory provision for the protection, and thereby preserve the efficiency, of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization.
An examination of the bill shows that the constitution, organization and functions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization remain unchanged. It will, of course, be realized that it is not appropriate to apply the provisions of the Public Service Act to the security service, which must operate outside the framework of that act.
Under section 67 of the Constitution, the Director-General of Security has been issued with a delegation by the Governor-General to appoint and dismiss officers of the organization, and officers so appointed are declared to be exempt employees, for the purposes of the Public Service Act. In the name, and on behalf of the Commonwealth, he has entered into agreements for service with persons on the staff of the organization, and to many of these persons he has purported to give permanent appointment. The terms and conditions of service, including the salaries, correspond broadly with those to be found in the Commonwealth Public Service. I should add that these terms and conditions of service were fixed by a committee consisting of the chairman of the Public Service Board, the SolicitorGeneral and the Director-General of Security.
There is no necessity for me to enlarge upon the need for an efficient security service or upon the importance of providing proper security of tenure for its officers whose task is most difficult and arduous. Australia has every reason to be proud of the achievements and reputation of the security service and to be grateful to the officers whose efforts have made these achievements possible.
One of the main objects of the bill is to create conditions in the service which will attract men of high integrity and great ability to the security service. This will not be possible unless they can be made to feel that their careers in the Australian Security Intelligence Organization are secure. At present, the officers of the organization have been drawn from the Commonwealth Public Service, the legal profession, the police forces of the States, and other walks of life. They are discharging their duties loyally and efficiently. It is important not only to have a properly constituted security service, but also to ensure that the staff is selected from the very best men available. The bill itself merely provides statutory authority for the existence of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and proceeds to define its functions in broad terms, which are also sufficient to exclude activities in which a security service should not be engaged. The bill also provides for the rights of officers and employees of the service as officers of the Commonwealth.
Although it is quite clear from the terms of the bill, I emphasize that the Australian Security intelligence Organization is an organization whose function is to obtain intelligence relating to espionage, sabotage and subversion and to advise departments of State on the security measures which should be adopted and maintained within the departments. The Australian Security Intelligence Organization has no police function and is not concerned with matters which are within the province of those responsible for law enforcement. The organization has no authority to interfere in the administration of a department, it cannot give directions to any department of State as to the measures for security which it ought to adopt, and it cannot itself take or institute any executive action which is not purely of an advisory nature. While the security service doss not trespass on the preserves of the armed services, it cooperates closely with them and, in particular, with their intelligence services. In a real sense, it constitutes a fourth branch of the defence forces of the Commonwealth.
The act will be administered by the Attorney-General, who is the Minister ordinarily responsible for the security service. In security matters which affect the Government as a whole, the DirectorGeneral of Security has direct access to the Prime Minister. The bill does not provide for the manner or for the degree in which ministerial authority should be exercised in relation to the security service. In this particular field it is, of course, impossible and, even undesirable, for a Minister to attempt to exercise the same supervision and authority that he does in his own department. It is the view of the Government that it is the proper course to make the Director-General of Security responsible for the control of the organization and to allow the authority to be exercised by the responsible Minister to be determined by convention and in the light of existing circumstances.
This bill will necessitate amendments to the Superannuation Bill. Those amendments will be moved at the appropriate stage. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
– I must really protest against being called upon to debate a bill of this importance after dealing with a multiplicity of bills throughout this long day and night, and against being expected now to address oneself to it with vim. It is unfortunate that it was hot introduced earlier when it might have had precedence over other measures and been given the attention that it really deserves.
I think that the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan) has adequately described the purposes of the bill. He began by acknowledging the fact that the security service was established by Labour in March. 1949. It so happened that I was Acting AttorneyGeneral at the time. 1 had something at least to do with its establishment and with settling the charter that is its directive and which we are now asked to confirm explicitly in this bill.
– lt is unchanged.
– It is completely unchanged, as the Minister has reminded me. That is an indication that the Chifley Labour Government did address itself very thoroughly to what was required for security. The functions of this organization as now described in the bill accord very fully with the purposes that Labour had in mind <a the time of its establishment.
This measure has quite a simple purpose. lt does no more than give statutory recognition to the organization, and it achieves its main purpose by giving statutory tenure to the officers of the organization. If the conceding of security of tenure to those officers is desirable, and 1 concede that it is, I think I may fairly ask the Government why something was not done about it earlier. At the time we established the security service, we recognized that conditions in the modern world demanded some such body. We look upon it as being a rather unpleasant necessity, but recognized it nevertheless as being a necessity. It would be far better for everybody if there were no need for counter-espionage or to safeguard against sabotage and subversion from within and without the country. It is unpleasant that activities that are and must be conducted in secret take place within the community. However, we recognize that it is perfectly unavoidable.
The practice followed by this Government is the one that we adopted; we made available certain moneys to the organization and did not see to their application. That is another feature that is not pleasant, but which is inescapable. The security service must have undisclosed agents functioning in all kinds of places. They would not bc performing their proper duty if they did not do that. And, of course, they must make payment for the services that are rendered to them. The moment receipts have to be signed, auditors are admitted and the accounts become public, the usefulness of the agent is completely negatived. In many instances, the agents must be under cover. Probably many of them are known to but very few people in the security service. There are special missions, and varying payments are made according to the services that are rendered. That is not the kind of contract that I take it is sought to be made permanent, as it were, under this legislation. I imagine that agents w’ill be employed from time to time as required for ad hoc jobs, and that the moment their purpose is fulfilled or they are discovered they will necessarily be discarded. That is an incident of their employment. Of course, one does not like to believe that investigations are taking place in the community from all sorts of angles to determine the trustworthiness of people who might emer the Public Service, apply for naturalization, seek passports or promotion in the Public Service, lt is necessary to have some sort of secret screening. That cannot be done without secret investigation and secret reports, and in that lies the real danger to civil liberties.
When we set up the security service, we realized the danger. With that in mind, we appointed a Supreme Court judge to ensure a proper judicial approach to the administration of the service. I am not to be taken as saying that only a person with the training and calibre of a judge is fit to be head of security, but I do say that whoever takes that position should be concerned primarily with civil liberties. The main function of a security service is to safeguard the nation. One can easily visualize the kind of man who would go single-mindedly to his goal, and overlook the fact that individual freedoms, and freedom of the spirit must be safeguarded, and that secret reports open the door to those whom the late Mr. Chifley stigmatized as pimps, liars and perjurers.
After practical experience, we are concerned because there are grave gaps which this bill doos not attempt to fill. I shall deal with that matter from the minor aspect first. The terms and conditions of the men in the service, according to the AttorneyGeneral, are broadly in line with those of the Commonwealth Public Service. That being so, there should be an appeal board for any man who is demoted or dismissed for misconduct or over-zealousness or anything of that nature. This bill does not purport to give such protection to an officer. One presumes that the bill leaves an officer of the department entirely at the mercy of the chief of security, and without the right of appeal. We believe that the bill, in dealing with the terms and conditions of employment of officers of the security service, should itself contain provisions for an impartial tribunal of an appellate nature to deal with staff matters involving demotion, failure to achieve promotion, dismissal and so on. We think that the absence of Such provisions is a grave defect in the bill. The Minister, in arguing that the 511 i is broadly in line with the provisions of the Commonwealth 1 Public Service, must see himself that there is a serious gap.
– There must be a gap-
– 1 should like the Minister to tell the Senate what is likely to happen. Am I correct in assuming that every officer of the security service is entirely at the mercy of the DirectorGeneral of Security, and if he makes a decision, there is no appeal from it? I think that, unquestionably, that is the position.
– It is a case of, “ You are in the Army “, you know.
– That is a point that I take up with the Minister. This is not the Army. He reminds me of something that happened in World War II. When the Labour government took office, we found that military intelligence officers had interned 7,500 persons in Australia.
– I am talking about Army discipline.
– There was a great outcry at the time because the percentage of enemy nationals interned in Australia was infinitely higher than the percentage interned in Great Britain, which was right in the heart of hostilities. The Labour government appointed a committee, of which Senator Cooper was a member. Mr. Calwell was president. In the course of a year’s examination beginning in 1942, just after the Labour government took office, each individual case was examined. Those persons had been interned by military intelligence - not security - and without hesitation that all-party committee released 7,000 of the 7,500. That was an instance of Army activity. I am informed by those who should know that there was no trouble with the 7.000 who were released. That is why I take the point up with the Minister when he says, “ When you are in the security service you are in the Army “.
– I said they were under Army discipline.
– It means exactly the same thing. Those men expect to remain permanent officers, and I sympathize with their desire. A truly efficient intelligence or counter-intelligence service can be evolved only over a long period of years, and with training.
– They are volunteers; not conscripts.
– They are, indeed. They are also civilians and citizens of Australia, and are not to be treated as though they had no rights. 1 do not suggest carrying that to the point of absurdity. It is not necessary to parade security officers. At one time, the Government affirmed that proposition, but I have heard the contrary affirmed by the Attorney-General’s predecessor, who said that security officers could not be presented in public. I have some sympathy with that principle.
The appellate tribunal should review those disciplinary matters for the security service, and should not necessarily function in public to satisfy the Opposition. All we need to be satisfied about is that the tribunal is so constituted as to be both efficient and impartial. Surely it should be easy to set up, for the security service, an appellate tribunal, which could itself determine whether it would settle matters in public or private, having regard to the needs of security. I should imagine from what I know of security that the tribunal would sit, for the most part, in private, lt would be desirable to let the breath of publicity into proceedings now and again to reassure the public and the members of this Parliament, but it should not be difficult for the Government to appoint a tribunal so constituted that it would command the confidence of the Parliament and the people of Australia, as well as the members of the security service itself.
– Drawn from outside the service?
– I do not limit it in the slightest way. The person appointed to hear appeals might be a judge or a man from the Public Service.
– But outside the security service.
– Yes. Yet, I would not deny to security its representation on such a tribunal.
– lt is like the police force.
– That is just the point 1 was about to make. In the police force, they have their representation; the department is represented, and there is an impartial tribunal. The Opposition has not been dogmatic about the type of tribunal; we are concerned that there should be such a tribunal and that its personnel should be known to the public. I am not suggesting that all its activities should be known to the public.
The other aspect is one I touched upon rather lightly a moment ago. It is the need to protect persons, and 1 invite the Senate to be particularly concerned about that. It is the duty of security to screen persons in any key, or dangerous, position in the Commonwealth Public Service. Necessarily, there are reports upon individuals who are applicants for appointment, promotion or transfer, and that type of thing. The reports are presented by security. They are asked for by departments. It is part of the duty of security officers to give them; and to be ready to give them, they have their network out. They are examining the lives of individuals in key positions. They necessarily keep records, and they necessarily make reports. The real danger, and the point where the security service could go wrong is that reports are made about citizens of Australia which are damning in their operation and effect upon the lives of those citizens; and that effect and: that operation can take place entirely without the knowledge of the individuals concerned. I- am not accusing the security service of irresponsibility at all, but one must concede the possibility of error and mistake.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that they should publish their reports?
– Not in any way. I am not suggesting that in the slightest degree, but I am suggesting that where a report is made to a. department or body, or in circumstances where the interests of- an individual are jeopardized, that individual should be notified of the fact. He should be given an opportunity to meet the allegations that are made against him.
– Does the honorable senator think he should be supplied with a copy of the report?
– I have not said that. I said he should be given notification ofl the allegations that are made against him. That does not mean that he is to be supplied with a copy of the report. Above all. he must; be given an opportunity, if He wishes- to take that opportunity, to meet those allegations. I cited a case that must influence the’ minds of honorable senators when I stated that the 7,500 internees were reduced by an impartial examination to 500 who were utterly incorrigible enemy aliens.
– They were the “ Australia First “ ones, not Dr. Evatt’s internees?
– We certainly put people in when we were in government, and we also let people out. We have no apologies to make for what was done when we were in office, but we certainly reversed the procedure of the preceding government when we took this question of internment from Military Intelligence and entrusted it to civil authorities. The question of the internment of enemy aliens was taken entirely from the military authorities and handed over to the Commissioner of Police in New South Wales, and it was administered from a- sensible civil viewpoint and with far more justice than had happened prior to that. We feel that we must do just what was done in the United States of America. There, according to the “ London Times “, so recently as 6t’h September last, the security service examined 2,300.000 members of the American Public Service in two years and had security reports upon 10,000,000 citizens and still gave a man the opportunity to disprove allegations made against him.
It is not a perfect set-up, but a man isgiven an opportunity; and we believe that in the interests of civil liberty there should be a tribunal, again carrying the confidenceof the people of Australia and the members of this Parliament - I am not suggesting with any’ particularity the form it’ should take1 - which could give a man notification that an allegation has been made against h i,h’ which must prejudice’ his career or his interests, and: also’ give him an’ opportunity to’ meet it. He’ must Be given that opportunity. He must know the case he has tomeet, and he must be given a- hearing. That is the one safeguard that must be provided in respect of security procedure. The- alternative could be to vest- complete power in the security service, give it- all the money it requires, ask no questions and let it do What it likes. It’ is true that theoretically our security service is hot’ capable of police action, but I want to say that it does not need that power because it already has power to demand’ the co-operation of any department. It- may seek the* co-operation, of the Commonwealth Investigation Branch.
Indeed, it may seek the co-operation of any Commonwealth department at all. It may function, in effect, through departments or through the State police authorities. Everybody is willing and ready to give cooperation in the interests of the security of Australia. The security service does not need formal police powers conferred upon it. Those powers are available to it on every hand whenever it asks for help and cooperation. So, I indicate that although it is literally technically true that the security service has no police powers, very wide police powers are instantly available to it at call. It is a service that we must have, but it is a service that should have those two safeguards hovering round it, safeguards which are no block upon security and which, in fact, preserve the civil rights of Australians. The failure to give us any information on those two aspects, the failure to provide any safeguards of the nature I have indicated obliges us to reject a measure to which, on the face of it, we would have no objection. If those safeguards were provided, we should have no objection to the security service being placed on a statutory basis, although, as the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan) has told us, the corresponding service in the United Kingdom operates without any statutory authority at all. There is a wonderful tradition in the security service in the United Kingdom, and I have no doubt that we are developing and will develop quite a good tradition in this country.
The third point to which I wish to address my remarks in opposition to the measure relates to the latter part of the Attorney-General’s second-reading speech where he says -
The bill does not provide for the manner or for the degree in which ministerial authority should be exercised in relation to the security service. In this particular field it is, of course impossible and, even undesirable for a Minister to attempt to exercise the same supervision and authority which he does in his own department. It is the view of the Government that it is the proper course to make the Direcor-General of Security responsible for the control of the organization and to allow the authority to be exercised by the responsible Minister to be determined by convention and in the light of existing circumstances.
All I can say is that it is extraordinary that after seven years of this Government’s control of the security forces of Australia the Attorney-General should indicate that the degree of ministerial responsibility to be exercised has still got to be worked out and has to be determined by convention. If that is the case, then there has been a complete abdication of responsibility on the part of the Government. Surely, in seven years, convention would have determined the exact relationship between the ministerial head and the service.. I can agree with the Minister that it is undesirable that exactly the same relations should be maintained with security as with any other department. lt would be undesirable that the Minister should know even the name or, sometimes, the work, of a security agent. On occasion, I have refused to allow the name of an agent to be mentioned to me. I did not want the knowledge. It might have been dangerous to the man concerned that anybody should know, and 1 did not want to be in a position where I could even jeopardize him. I can agree with the Minister about that.
The Opposition holds very strongly the view that in the case of a service with such enormous powers there must be a high degree of ministerial responsibility, and we should like this legislation to determine, in some way, that degree of responsibility. I do not suggest that it can be fixed with definiteness what responsibility the AttorneyGeneral, who is the Minister in charge of this service, must exercise. However, we should be assured that the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth is constantly kept informed of broad activities and trends, so that he can be accountable to this Parliament for what is done in the name of security. Otherwise, there could be a washing of hands - and a dangerous washing of hands - when it came to fixing responsibility.
I have covered the three main points with which the Opposition is concerned. We Wil vote against the bill because these outstanding matters are not covered. The Opposition is not alone in objecting to this kind of measure, and I conclude by reading to the Senate extracts from articles that appeared in two Australian newspapers of note. The first is from the Melbourne “Age”, of 30th October last. It is as follows: -
There are many aspects of the Security Service which have worried many thinking people in recent years and Mr. Menzies will have a good opportunity to answer legitimate criticism as to whom the service should be responsible.
The reputations of too many innocent people are endangered by the untrammelled use of security powers by men responsible to no one in particular.
We cannot blindly entrust the security of this country to one individual - give him all the money he wants, and then hope for the best. Responsibility demands far more than that. 1 say, frankly, that it is a shock to me to know that, even yet, the relation between the Attorney-General and the security service has not been worked out with very great care and definition. The second extract I shall read is from a leading article that appeared in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ on 25th October last. lt pinpoints the public viewpoint, lt is as follows: -
It is to be hoped, however, that Mr. Menzies does not leave it at this, but, during the bill’s progress sees that the Government makes a real attempt to come to grips with the serious and important criticisms which have been levelled at the organization. The first of these is that, in the final analysis, security does not seem to be responsible to any one. Previously, Mr Menzies has admitted that even he has not been aware of the full extent of the actions of security officers.
The security service must be made responsible to someone. The idea of giving it a completely free hand will never be accepted by Australians. Yet this is a point which the bill does not appear to clarify. Secondly, although security cannot take or institute any executive action, there is ample evidence to show that its advice has remarkably compelling qualities - so compelling that, unless the action taken on the advice is made subject to appeal, the results may be both dangerous and undesirable. In actual fact, security’s advice has in the past been decisive on the granting (or refusal) of a job, or on the issue (or refusal) of a passport, though the persons concerned have never been allowed to know the basis for adverse reports. These alone are reasons why the bill should be considered with the utmost care.
Both those articles, which are temperate and reasonable, are in fundamental accord with the arguments I have been addressing to the Senate for some time.
– Although 1 do not agree with many of the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Mckenna) honorable senators will agree with me that his speech was a reasonable one. It was devoid of that splenetic hatred which has been vomited over the security service by the lunatic utterances of people in other places. Certainly, it was not in evidence to-night, and that is good to know.
– Why introduce that note into the debate?
– I do not propose to allow to pass, without comment, the vicious attacks that have been made from time to lime on the security service. But because they were not made by Senator McKenna to-night, honorable senators enjoyed the refreshing change in the approach of the Opposition. This debate has shown quite clearly that the service which we are now discussing operates under the same charter of responsibility, and is using exactly the same methods of obtaining information, as were in operation during the regime of the Labour administration. It is a fact, also - although it has not been mentioned so far in the debate - that with the exception of two or at the most three members, those who hold responsible positions in this organization are the same men who held responsible positions in it under the Labour government. It is, therefore, clear that with the same personnel operating under the charter as before, this is a continuing service which I was glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition admit was necessary and unavoidable. That being so, it is obvious that the bill merely gives to these men, whose positions were created by executive action, and who could, therefore, lose their means of livelihood by executive action, the protection of statutory conditions. That is all the bill is designed to do, and all that it does.
I gathered from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that that proposal in the measure is regarded by the Opposition as reasonable, right and proper. That being so, the question arises whether the bill should contain some other provisions. What does the Opposition suggest? I should like to answer an attack, although not a violent one, made on the Government by Senator McKenna. He said that the action contemplated in this bill was necessary, and should have been taken early in the life of the present Government. He suggested, in effect, that the Government had failed in its duty. The proper answer is that never, until very recently, was the security service attacked so violently, nor was it in such apparent danger of attack should the government of this country change. This is a new phenomenon in government, and that is why the Government is taking the action which the measure authorizes. It was not taken some years ago because it was not then considered necessary.
Although I do not agree, it can be argued that members of this service should be given even more security than they have now, and should be provided with an appeal board outside the service. If they were members of the Public Service, they would expect to have that privilege; but they joined this service, as the Leader of the Senate has pointed out, as volunteers, knowing the conditions of service in this particular branch. They are in the same position as an employee in private industry outside the protection of the Public Service.
Because of the special nature of the duties they have to perform, it is better for them to be in what is. in fact, a service subject to what the Leader of the Opposition rightly called a type of military discipline, or, at any rate, a type of discipline not subject to the myriad appeals based on seniority in relation to promotions where an officer has to prove that no one else can fill a position better than he can. Tn a service of this kind, that tyne of thin» is out of place. Nobody is comnelled to join the security service. He nay do so out of a sens° of duty to his country, knowing the conditions before;hand.
The other no,nt brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition was that there should be Given to any person upon whom a security report has been made, a cony of that report so that the person, if he wished, could anneal against it. T believe that that is an impossible condition to provide in a security service. With the world in the condition in which it is to-day, a person has to be completely assured that his government will not be overthrown and tyranny imposed, or else he is forced into the position the Hungarians were forced into and he has to fight against tanks and die. That has occurred in country after country. It has been proved in Germany, Russia, Hungary and many other countries. One either protects vital service positions or runs the risk of being overthrown and having to fight. Has not the country any rights? There must be a right to prevent people who are even the associates nf Communists from being put into positions which would enable them to pass on information. 1 believe that there must be such a right. 1 believe that no injustice is being, or has been, done.
This is a matter upon which people can have different views. I believe that my point of view is in the interests of this country. It is the point of view which I support and honorable senators opposite who do not support such a point of view can shout as loudly as they like, but they will not affect the opinion I hold - and which I propose to propound publicly, because I feel it is my duty to do so.
During the whole course of public discussion concerning the operations of the security service over the last few years, and during the hearing of the special commission which the security service brought about, it appears to me that there has been a constant and carefully directed attack on the deputy director of that service, a man who is one of the best Australians who has grown up in this country. He has been accused of every possible crime which the Communists could write in their “ Tribune “ newspaper. One expects that, because if he has been doing his job properly - as he has - then he will worry those whom he is appointed to fight, and one can expect them to attack him in their newspapers. As came out in the Petrov report, the Russians paid him a compliment by clearly showing in their Moscow letters that they were worried and disturbed by the increasing penetration by our security service into their spy ring activities.
However, one of the worst things alleged against Mr. Richards was that he was in some way responsible for the blunder, which may have been excusable, committed by the previous Labour government in interning in Sydney a number of men and women who belonged to an organization known as the Australia First Movement. I think it should be stated here and now that Mr. Richards had nothing whatever to do with the action of the previous government in interning those Sydney people. Mr. Richards at that time was a detective-sergeant in Western Australia whose branch conducted a case against four individuals in that State. Those individuals were tried by jury and as a result two of them were convicted. The other two were interned by the then Labour government for the rest of the war, although they were not convicted by the jury. That was the sole connexion that Mr. Richards had with the Australia First Movement, and the sole connexion that anybody can rightly say he bad. it is wrong that such a man, who has done so much for this country and other democratic countries in the Petrov case alone, should be accused of these things.
– The honorable member is drawing red herrings across the trail.
– When I hear, from the other side of the chamber, the stale cry about red herrings, I should like to know whether the allegation is that the things Mr. Richards has found out for this country are red herrings and not true. If that is what is meant I would recommend that those who are burbling on the other side should read the findings of the judges in the Petrov case on the facts, which have been accepted in Australia and also overseas. I bring these points out not for the purpose of making a political attack on anybody, but because I think this man deserves very well of this country. He has been publicly attacked, and he should be publicly defended.
– I have only a few words to say on this bill. Firstly, I protest against the lateness of the hour at which this bill has been brought before the Senate. This matter will now pass out of the jurisdiction of the Parliament. Although it is a very important matter indeed, this will probably be the last opportunity the Senate will have of debating it. In other countries criticisms against the police have resulted in punishments being meted out to those who have dared to criticize. Having had a little experience of activities of secret police in other countries, I was pleased to read the other day that when the Hungarian people were able to throw off the yoke of their Communist rulers, the first people they hanged by the toes from the trees were the secret police. I read that in yesterday’s press.
– Would the honorable senator like to do that here?
– Wait! I do not want words put into my mouth. I wish to point out that we are setting up something in this country. It is a fact that the previous Government accepted the responsibility of setting up this service during the last year in which it was in office. We placed the organization under the control of a judge, believing that with his great experience of life and his knowledge of the law he would be able to administer the service as it should be administered in a democratic country. But a secret police organization is quite different from the organization that we established.
I suggest that we degrade ourselves to the level of dictatorships when we set up secret police services. I agree that there should be espionage and counter-espionage services in the armed forces, under proper discipline and operating in accordance with the great traditions of the armed services, but if we have a police service which is not answerable to the Parliament and is completely self-contained, it will be an element that is foreign to our way of life. I should like to see a full-dress debate on this matter, because it is important that we should know whether we are heading towards the establishment of a certain type of police state. It is quite apparent that the Government can influence an organization of this type, and one of the excuses for the introduction of this measure is a statement by the Government that it has not seen a service attacked as violently as the security service was recently attacked, and that, therefore, the members of the service should be protected in the event of a change of government.
– The present Government has not changed for a long time.
– Senator Vincent is just a moth before the flame. If one government can act to protect the security service, then any other government which might be more to the right or the left than any of the parties at present in this chamber could also act to alter the service. For example, the security service could be filled with new recruits of a different type to those at present in the service - in whom we have every confidence - and so we could find a Frankenstein monster created in our midst.
I do not like to see the development of a secret police organization in this country. In countries where such an organization has been set up it has become a menace, and the first thing that the people of those countries have done after they have regained their freedom has been to get rid of the secret police. The punishment meted out recently to the secret police in Hungary is a warning to all other countries, and 1 hope that Australia will not live to regret the setting up of a similar organization. Those who belong to the organization have a responsibility to see that we do not regret having established a security service.
– I do not apologize for discussing this matter at the present late hour, because it is a very important measure. I agree with Senator O’Byrne that a measure such as this should have been discussed more fully, because it is the most important bill that has seen the light of day during this sitting of the Parliament. Senator O’Byrne made a rather woolly remark about a police state. 1 point out that the members of the security service are not policemen. They prefer no charges and make no arrests. Nor are they policemen in any other respect. Even if they were policemen they would have to prefer charges in accordance with the laws of the land, which would act as controls on their activities. Therefore, all this nonsensical talk about secret police is really rather silly, and I do not propose to waste the time of the Senate by referring to it at any greater length.
I welcome this bill most heartily, and support it strongly. The fourth arm of our defence services - as it has been rightly called - has not received proper recognition either inside or outside this Parliament. In many ways it has been decried and rather unfairly criticized by many people who should know better. As far as I could understand, Senator McKenna put forward three objections to the bill. He said that it laid down no right of appeal for the personnel of the service, and that he would prefer to see some sort of tribunal established to deal with the reports made from time to time by the security service. I was not clear about what the tribunal would have to do, but 1 gather that Senator McKenna considered it essential that there should be some tribunal independent of the security service which should have something to do with the reports of the service.
He also questioned ministerial responsibility for the security service. They are quite genuine objections, but they disclose a complete absence of a proper appreciation of the nature of a security service. This service is a defence service, primarily, essentially and finally, and that should dispose of Senator McKenna’s objections. How could an army set up an appeal board to discuss the demotion of one of Her Majesty’s officers? Would it not be ridiculous? How could an appeal board discuss the merits of an officer who would not even be known to the rest of the service? It is all very well to be generous and say “ Let us have an independent tribunal to consider appeals “, but when we consider what sort of a body such a tribunal would be, it is obvious that we cannot set up any body other than the service itself to consider matters within the service. That is the reason why there is not an independent tribunal to look after the members of the security service, just as there is no independent body to consider the promotions of officers in the Royal Australian Navy.
Senator McKenna has perhaps overlooked the nature of the work of the security service. The objection of Senator McKenna with regard to a tribunal to deal with the reports of the service sounds rather good. But surely that would be a negation of the whole principle of security. If anybody else had anything to do with these security reports, can Senator McKenna suggest at what stage the persons concerned should be informed? What should they be informed about? We must remember that these reports do not relate to offences against the law. The security of this country is something a good deal apart from the law of the land. Most of the reports would not be conclusive, and they would not be admitted in evidence in a court of law. The thing becomes fantastic when we consider the realities of the problem, and I suggest that Senator McKenna has nol given proper consideration to the true nature and function of the security service. Otherwise, he would not suggest that anybody but members of the security service should see the reports.
I come now to the matter of ministerial responsibility. Here, of course, I agree entirely with one of Senator McKenna’s propositions, which is that there should be a high degree of ministerial responsibility. But that is merely a platitude. The Minister is essentially responsible, as a matter oi good constitutional law, but I do not think that Senator McKenna meant that at all. I think he meant that there should be a Minister who would, in some way, investigate and have day-to-day knowledge of the activities of the security service. 1 do not think that the Attorney-General has any intention of ignoring the activities of the security service. I think that Senator McKenna’s only objection was that an actual definition of ministerial responsibility has not been inserted in the bill. With the greatest of respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I point out that the degree of ministerial responsibility is never put in a statute. I invite Senator McKenna to place before us any statute that dennes with particularity the actual ministerial responsibility that the Minister concerned is obliged to accept. It is good constitutional law that the Minister has, in fact, complete responsibility, but it would be wrong and unrealistic to attempt to define the actual day-to-day responsibility of the Minister administering this particular organization.
Having said that about the observations of the Leader of the Opposition, 1 want to make a couple of observations myself concerning security in this country. I think that we have built up in Australia one of the finest security services in the world, and one of which we can be justifiably proud. I think that the achievements of our security service during the last couple of years have been the envy of all the democracies. I can hear honorable senators on the other side scoffing. They scoff with very good reason; they do not like the security service very much.
There are two aspects of security which, 1 suggest, should be given some consideration by our Government. We have a very good security service, but we have some rotten laws relating to security. There are no teeth in those laws. I suggest that it is high time that our Government gave some thought to the legislation in connexion with security in two broad fields: One, to deal with the Communist elements in our Public Service, and the other, to give legislative power generally with respect to laws relating to subversion. I invite honorable senators on the other side who are now making a bit of noise to listen to what the Royal Commission on Espionage says on this subject. Of course, I know that they do not like the commission’s report, but what 1 am about to quote from it is not against their interests. Referring to our legislative weaknesses, the royal commission said, in paragraph 1073, at page 288 -
Apart from the difficulties arising from the law of evidence, it seems that the law of Australia is inadequate to combat espionage, particularly in time of peace. It is beyond our power and duty under the Letters Patent to make recommendations regarding alteration of the law, but it is our duty to consider the law in order to report whether there has been any unlawful communication of information or documents to Soviet agents. That is the only head of illegality with which we are concerned under the Letters Patent-
In other words, we lack adequate laws relating to espionage, and lack adequate laws to enable our security service to deal with the Communist element in our Public Service. I suggest that there is an obligation upon the Government to investigate this particular lack.
Having said that, I now wish to refer to the very fine work that was done by the heads of the security service, particularly the man that Senator Gorton mentioned - Deputy Director Richards. He comes from my own State of Western Australia, but it is not for that reason that I desire to say a word about him to-night. He has not been mentioned very much in this chamber, but his name has been dragged in the gutter by other people, and I think that it is high time that some one spoke up for him, and also for Brigadier Spry. Both are very fine Australians. Richards was a policeman; I knew him as such many years ago. He rose from the ranks. During the war, he did some very fine security work on behalf of the Labour government of Western Australia. Finally, he was appointed to the security service in the federal sphere.
– By a Labour government.
– That is so. I think that it is right to say - and I do not think that Brigadier Spry would contradict this statement - that it was due entirely to his very fine work that the Petrov matter was brought to such a satisfactory conclusion. He became one of the finest security men in the world. 1 make that statement publicly with great pleasure. I should now like to refer to what the commission said in its report about Mr. Richards.
– What has this to do with the bill?
– It has this to do with the bill: For the whole of this afternoon I listened-in to the proceedings in another place. In the main, the debate on this matter concerned Richards and other members of the security service. Most of the speakers endeavoured to throw as much mud as possible at Richards. Therefore, I feel justified in standing in my place in this chamber and saying what I think about him. I think that it is proper that I should do so, because other honorable senators have said what they think about him. At page 425 of the report, after making some remarks about Lockwood, Grundeman, and Dalziel, the commission went on to say -
As day followed day and all that we heard was constant reiteration of vague charges of infamy, wc demanded of counsel, on 1st September, that they formulate with some exactitude their allegations. Dr. Evatt then charged that Exhibit J had been fabricated by the Petrovs as part of a political conspiracy with the enforced aid of O’sullivan who, he alleged, had been blackmailed into collaborating in the fabrication of the document and into inserting therein as sources the names of himself. Grundeman and Dalziel. The political conspiracy was alleged to be one to injure Dr. Evatt and the Australian Labour party by procuring the false insertion in Exhibit J of the names of three of his secretaries as sources wilh the intention that the Petrovs should so nicely time their actions that Exhibit J could be produced and published on the eve of the federal elections in 1954. He-
Meaning Dr. Evatt - further charged thai at least one senior officer of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, Richards, had been guilty of serious derelictions of duty in that, without proper care and inquiry, he had accepted from Petrov fabricated documents, had paid him large sums of public money for them, and had “ uttered “ these documents, presumably to ihe Prime Minister of Australia.
Counsel for Lockwood alleged, in effect, a conspiracy between the Petrovs and Richards to “ plant “ upon his client a fabricated document, namely Exhibit J, for some purpose which counsel himself did not then clearly specify. . . . At ‘he close of the evidence the charges made by both counsel remained substantially unchanged save that counsel for Lockwood did not. persist in his charge of conspiracy against Richards, but alleged against him grave derelictions of duty.
– Who has been attacking him, anyhow?
– He has been attacked all day.
– Order! The honorable senator cannot refer to other debates that have taken place.
– In paragraph 42 of Appendix No. 2, the learned judges summed up Richards’s conduct by saying -
Although, in the result, all the charges turned out to be fantastic and wholly unsupported by any credible evidence, they were grave and necessitated patient judicial inquiry by us.
I wish to direct attention to one or two other references to Richards. Paragraph 57 of Appendix No. 2 at page 429 of the report reads -
The evidence of these persons, supported as it is by the contemporaneous records, entirely disposes of all suggestions of improper or negligent conduct on the part of Richards or any other officer of ihe Security Service.
In fairness to Mr. Richards, I think these things must be said in the Parliament.
Senator Sheehan interjecting,
– A great deal has been said against Richards. Despite the fact that Senator Sheehan does not like me saying it, and despite the fact that it is perfectly obvious why he does not like my saying it, I. insist on saying that I have a very high regard for this very fine Australian. Finally, J suggest that Australia owes a great debt to Richards for the manner in which he handled this matter. He handled it with great dignity, efficiency, and honour to his country.
– in reply - I am appreciative of the way in which the Senate has received this bill. From all accounts, it has been received here in a much more agreeable manner than it was received elsewhere. However, I wish to reply to one or two remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). He asked why this measure was not introduced earlier.
– Mr. President, has any time limit been placed on this debate? I rose to say a few words, and I thought you gave me the call. When the Minister rose, I thought he intended to move that the question be put, and I resumed my seat. If he does not intend to move the closure, 1 protest!
– Order! The Minister will proceed.
– What is the position? I protest. When the Minister rose, I resumed my seat, expecting that he was about to move that the question be put.
– Order! The Minister rose, and I gave him the call.
– The usual practice, Mr. President-
– Order! That is the practice.
– With due respect, Mr. President, 1 point out that unless a bill has been declared an urgent measure, it is usual to allow the debate to proceed. I have not delayed the Senate, as did Senator Vincent, by introducing irrelevancies.
– I protest, too. I also rose to get the call.
– Order! It is not a question of protesting. That might come later in some other way. The Minister has the call, and he will proceed.
– I protest against the impropriety of the Minister continuing his speech when other honorable senators want to address the Chair.
– Order! The honorable senator will resume his seat.
– I want to address you, Mr. President. The Minister is the man who should be made to resume his seat.
– Order! The honorable senator will resume his seat.
– The Minister is the man who should be made to resume his seat.
– Order! The Minister rose and I gave him the call. He is closing the debate. I cannot deal with the protest at the present time. The Minister is replying to the debate,- and he will continue.
– I shall not delay the Senate for very long. The Leader of the Opposition asked why there had been delay in introducing such a measure as this. I am sorry that he asked that question. I am quite sure that the great majority of the members of the great Australian Labour party are not affected, but there are elements and influences within it that have put in jeopardy the security service, which has been established to safeguard the security of the country. Therefore, we who have a great regard for the security of Australia want the watchdogs of our security to be in a position where they will not be at the whim, the wish, and the call of people who have no regard for the services that they have rendered.
– The real Gestapo is working now. We see what is happening now.
– Senator Sheehan, who, I know, is a great football fan, is very disturbed because there is no umpire. He says that the rule of seniority should apply, that there should be the right of appeal against dismissals, promotions, retrogression and so forth. The persons whom we, and the people of Australia generally, want in this service are the best available - people of outstanding credit, outstanding ability, and a strong sense of duty to their country. Qualifications and attributes of that kind cannot be measured in terms of years of seniority or before boards of appeal. 1 said that I know Senator Sheehan is a very keen football follower. I believe he follows the Richmond team.
– Order!
– With due respect, Mr. President, I am speaking about the security service, and am making this point: If in a football team-
– Is the Minister in order?
– It is all right, the President has agreed with me. If a better player comes to that team-
– Which team?
– Any team. If a better player becomes available from somewhere else, a good team man will stand down in favour of the newcomer.
– I rise to order. I want to know whether it is possible for the Minister to connect his remarks with the bill. He has spent nearly five minutes talking about some football teams in Melbourne.
– Order! The Minister might be developing a point, but I think he got well away from the subject-matter of the bill.
– 1 accept your correction, Mr. President. The point that 1 am making is that our security people are a team. If we are to get the best type of people in that team, we cannot have them appealing to somebody about status or promotion - whether they are getting on better than or as well as somebody else.
This is a devoted service, lt requires complete sacrifice of self-interest in the service of their country, not disputes as to whether its members are working twenty hours or twelve hours a month or forty hours a week as the case may be. They are people who are devoted to the calling to which they have pledged themselves. The type of person that we want in our security service is not the type that is likely to appeal if told by his superiors, “ Well, Mr. So-and-so, we thank you for the effort you have made but we have a better man to take your place. We are putting somebody over your head “. That is the type of man that we must have in this service if we are to have the best.
– Who is to be the judge of that?
– A man, I hope, of the calibre of the present director. If we continue to have a man of the calibre of Brigadier Spry our country will be eternally grateful and fortunate. If we have as assistant to him a man like Mr. Richards-
– Does the Minister say that Brigadier Spry and Mr. Richards are the bulwark against espionage in this country? The Minister should not talk rot. He knows that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force have their services-
– At the moment, I happen to be making this speech. At the head of our security organization we have men who are completely trusted by this Government and who are highly respected, not only throughout Australia, but throughout the free world. We are fortunate in having men such as Brigadier Spry and his assistant, Mr. Richards, at the head of this organization. They are men who have no personal interest - no axe to grind - no antagonism or hatred. They are men who are devoted to their country and to the protection of their country against its enemies.
I have no more to say except to commend this bill to the Senate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.
Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) proposed -
That the bill be now read a third time.
– I desire to adopt the most unusual course that I have adopted since I have been a member of the Senate and speak on the motion for the third reading. I do so because of the extraneous and new matter that was introduced into the discussion on a bill which has for its purpose the control of employment conditions in the security service - a service which is so necessary for the safety of this nation. It is regrettable that this new matter was introduced. In my opinion, it was contrary to the whole purpose for which the bill was introduced and it ran counter to the manner in which it was presented by the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan) in his second-reading speech. I regret that during the discussion that we have had, the spirit of totalitarian countries which we abhor found expression in the speeches of some honorable senators in this Australian Parliament. It would be most regrettable if the views which were put forward by those honorable senators were to be accepted as the opinion of the Australian nation.
We are a nation which cherishes freedom, but we realize that we must have a security organization. We appreciate that there are men who join an organization of this kind because they are imbued with the greatest of patriotic motives - the preservation of our nation. But I feel that if people join this institution for the purpose of protecting the country, they, too, are entitled to protection. We find in this bill and in the sentiments expressed by honorable senators on the other side of the chamber no protection for the man or woman, who desires to serve this country, against people of a despicable nature who would seek to bring about their downfall because of the work that they are performing in this country. They have no protection, and must accept the stories that we have been told about them, or the punishment that might be meted out to them.
Therefore, I am glad that the expression of such thoughts was confined to two honorable senators. I regret that they would deal in the manner that they have advocated with loyal, patriotic Australians who desire to serve the country in this organization.
It was interesting to find out, as a result of the Petrov Commission, how the Russians spied upon one another. Petrov and Mrs. Petrov gave evidence before the commission that they had been spies. I hope that if our security service is ever the subject of an inquiry by a royal commission, we shall not hear evidence that Australians have spied on Australians, working together in an organization that should have for its objective the protection of this country.
Lots of things have been said in this chamber that had nothing to do with the bill. Senator Vincent could well have asked the Senate for permission to incorporate in “ Hansard “ the reams of evidence that he read from the report of the royal commission. The incorporation of the unread matter would have had as much effect as the reading of it had. I was surprised to hear Senator Gorton introduce the matter which he did introduce into this debate.
The Opposition is eager to ensure that the people who take on this distasteful work shall have some protection. It is not every one who would take on the work. But, once having taken it on, these. people are entitled to protection; and this bill will give them no protection at all. It is an awful commentary on a freedom-loving country that when we set up such an organization, we clothe it with that power. We detest it because it exists in totalitarian countries.
– I direct attention to the policy of submitting adverse reports and acting on them ex parte. I had experience of that when I was Minister for Aircraft Production. An adverse report was submitted against certain executive officers, and I was expected to accept that report and act on it. I refused to do so. 1 advised the officerincharge to hear the officer before taking any action that we might regret. He did so, and after hearing the explanation of the officer who had been the subject of an adverse report, he himself refused to take action. The bill does not provide for dealing with persons who are victims of adverse reports. I might say without exaggeration that for years hundreds of men and women in the Postal Department were judged on adverse reports, and did not have a chance to protect themselves. I had that experience both in the Postal Department and the Department of Aircraft Production. This bill does not provide any corrective, and yet the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan) claims that he is acting justly. He said that he had confidence in the men concerned.
We must remember that security officers are as much creatures of their personal and political prejudices as are most people. I am not complaining of that, but I do complain when the adverse reports are accepted ex parte, and the victims are punished. Under this bill, the abuses of the past will be repeated in the future, because when men are given absolute power over their fellows, they abuse it in nine cases out of ten.
– I shall not keep the chamber for long.
– Then talk a bit of sense for a change.
– I am dumbfounded by Senator Kendall’s interjection. I would not be so rude, but if I liked I might say something that he would not appreciate. At least, he is not the Gestapo yet. I know what would happen if Senator Kendall had his way. I take exception to the statement by the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan) that when an officer of the security service is not wanted any longer, Brigadier Spry can say to him - to Mr. Richards, perhaps - “ You have done a good job old chap, but we do not want you any longer “. That is not fair. Men are only human, and jealousies creep into every organization. With all due respect to Brigadier Spry and Mr. Richards, they are no different from anybody else. The Australian Labour party set up the security organization for reasons other than those given by Senator Vincent. The security service that is protecting this country from espionage belongs to the military forces.
The Attorney-General would be one of the first to favour a fascisti. Men like him supported Hitler in 1930, and we know what happened in Germany with the Gestapo. The Labour government set up the security service because of happenings on the espionage side in our own country.
The press was mainly to blame, and there were leakages. The service that protects us operates in the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. Everybody in Australia knows Brigadier Spry and Mr. Richards. What great bulwarks against espionage they would be! It is ridiculous. We ask the Senate to reject the bill as it is, and to include the amendments that have been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 1195
Debate resumed from 24th October (vide page 864), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– I do not propose to discuss the bill in detail. It has been submitted following an investigation that takes place every five years. It might give some slight help to persons over age who are still in the Public Service, and to some who transfer from one section of the service to another. I hope that at some future time we shall discuss a national superannuation scheme, and I shall reserve my comments until that time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– I refer to clause 10, which reads, in part - “(1.) Section forty b of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ (2.) Where-
That in proposed section 40b (2.) paragraph (a) be omitted and the following paragraph inserted in lieu thereof: - “ (a) the employment of a contributor, being a person who is deemed to be an employee by virtue of sub-section (5.) or (6.) of section four of this Act, subsection (6.) of section nine of the High Commissioner Act 1909-1952 or subsection (2.) of section thirteen of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1956, terminates or is terminated; and “.
That in sub-clause (2.) after the word “subsection “ the following words be inserted: - “, except insofar as it relates to persons employed under the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1956,”.
I refer also to clause 15, which reads, in part - (1.) Section sixty aba of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ (2.) Where-
That in proposed section 60a ba (2.) paragraph (a) be omitted and the following paragraph inserted in lieu thereof: - “ (a) the employment of a contributor to the Provident Account, being a person who is deemed to be an employee by virtue of sub-section (5.) or (6.) of section four of this Act, sub-section (6.) of section nine of the High Commissioner Act 1909-1952 or sub-section (2.) of section thirteen of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1956, terminates or is terminated; and “.
That in sub-clause (2.) after the word “subsection “ the following words be inserted: - “, except insofar as it relates to persons employed under the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1956,”.
There are four amendments to the bill, and they are consequential on the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill.
Clause 13 (2.) of that bill makes provision for temporary employees of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization to become contributors under the Superannuation Act in circumstances comparable with those specified in section 4 (5.) of the Superannuation Act in respect of other temporary employees of the Commonwealth.
The effect of the proposed amendments will be that temporary employees of the organization, who are contributing under the Superannuation Act by virtue of clause 13 (2.) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill, will not cease to be contributors under that act by reason of their transferring to another position in the employment of the Commonwealth or an approved authority of the Commonwealth.
Clause 10 of the Superannuation Bill (No. 2) 1956 proposes to insert in the Superannuation Act 1922-1956 new section 40b, which will allow contributors to the Superannuation Fund who resign from the Public Service, or from the service of an authority of the Commonwealth, and immediately become employed by another department of the Public Service, or another authority of the Commonwealth, to continue to contribute to the Superannuation Fund as if they had not so resigned.
Clause 15 of the Superannuation Bill (No. 2) 1956 proposes to insert in the Superannuation Act 1922-1956 a new section 60aba, which will make similar provision in respect of contributors to the Provident Account.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1196
Bill returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment.
In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendment):
Clause 3 -
Section four of the Principal Act is amended -
by omitting from sub-section (2.) all the words after the words “ by virtue of this sub-section “ and inserting in their stead the words - “ unless: -
that person or a dependant of that person is, or has been, entitled to a pension under the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956 or to any other benefit provided under that Act by reason of the incapacity or death of that person as a result of an occurrence that happened during service to which thai Act applies.”.
House of Representatives’ amendment -
Omit paragraph (d), insert the following paragraph: - “ (d) that person, not being a person to whom the last preceding paragraph applies, served, after the commencement of the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, in an area prescribed to be, or to have been, an operational area for the purposes of this paragraph.’.”.
– I move -
That the amendment be agreed to. The bill, which passed through the Senate a few days ago, provided that eligibility for war service homes turned upon a member of the Strategic Reserve becoming entitled to a benefit under the Repatriation Act as a result of a wound or sickness. In other words, the war service homes benefit was dependent upon the member becoming disabled or sick. Representations were made to the Government suggesting that it was not fair to require that there should be a disability. It was suggested that we could have an anomalous situation in which two soldiers, serving side by side, would be treated differently. One, who might be a very good soldier and decorated as the result of his actions in the field, would not become eligible for a war service home merely because he had not been wounded, or ill, and had returned hale and hearty. Beside him might be a serviceman who was not nearly so capable but who would, through contracting an illness, become liable for a repatriation benefit.
It was put to the Government that the test should be whether the serviceman was in action. The effect of the amendment is to provide that .eligibility will turn on the areas and periods of service. This will determine whether a particular unit was in action and, if so, the members of that unit will become eligible for a war service home whether they suffer a disability or not.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Resolution reported; report adopted.
page 1197
The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: -
Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Bill 1956.
Broadcasting and Television Bill (No. 3) 1956. Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Bill 1956.
Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1956. National Health Bill (No. 2) 1956. Re-establishment and Employment Bill 1956. Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1956. Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1956. Commonwealth Railways Bill 1956.
page 1197
Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this bill.
page 1197
– On 25th October, Senator Robertson asked the following question: -
Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been directed to a para graph in to-day’s “ Sydney Morning Herald “ stating that the children attending the eastern districts school for sub-normal children were noi receiving free milk under the Commonwealth Government’s scheme of supplying free milk to school children? Will the Minister institute inquiries into this matter so that this and similar schools, wherever established, may be included in. the distribution of free milk granted by the Commonwealth Government to the school children of Australia?
The Minister for Health has now furnished the following reply: -
The question of including children attending centres for sub-normal children in the Commonwealth free milk scheme has recently been the subject of correspondence with the New South Wales Minister for Education. The Minister for Education has been advised that such centres may be regarded as schools for the purposes of the States Grants (Milk for School Children) Act 1950 and are therefore eligible to. participate in the scheme on the same basis as other schools
page 1197
Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) agreed to -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn .till Thursday next, 8th November, at 3 p.m.
Senate adjourned at 2.44 a.m. (Friday).
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 November 1956, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1956/19561101_senate_22_s9/>.