Senate
22 May 1957

22nd Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A.. M. McMullin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 943

QUESTION

FLOOD DAMAGE AND RELIEF

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My. question relates to the special grant of £250,000 by the Commonwealth Government to the South Australian Government for flood relief and. therefore, is directed to either the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry or the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Commonwealth Government aware that the slow allocation of this money by the South Australian Government is causing serious inconvenience to fruitgrowers who have suffered flood damage? As an illustration, I cite the case of a fruitgrower who could not put implements on his block because of the non-removal of flood banks, and as a consequence was forced to carry the fruit out by hand. Will the Government consider a special grant to assist the fruit-growers in what is known as the Crescent area of Renmark, which received the full brunt of the flood and suffered most from the devastation it caused? Again, I cite the case of a grower who lost 100,000 trees, and cannot replant because of lack of finance. This case is typical of many others in the area. Is the Government aware that the annual meeting of Region 5 of the Murray Valley Development League, held at Barmera recently, expressed its utter disgust at the lack of action in respect of the removal of flood banks and general rehabilitation measures? Is the Commonwealth Government aware that the reconstruction of roads in the flood ravaged areas’ is proceeding so slowly as to impede seriously both industry and transport in the Renmark district? Should the South Australian Government and local governing bodies find that the remaking of roads is beyond their financial means, will the Commonwealth Government consider granting some special assistance to enable them to do so?

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

– The honorable senator mentioned a grant of £250,000, but there was a second grant df £800,000, or a total of £1,050,000 made available by the Commonwealth to South Australia. The general principle followed in all grants such as these is that the Commonwealth co-operates with the States by making money available, leaving to the States the administration of the grant. The Commonwealth takes no part in the administration of grants, but leaves that matter to the States. It is against that background that I shall try to answer the four pointsraised by the honorable senator.

Bis first question is a complaint about the slowness of the allocation. That is a matter for the Government of South Australia, nod the complaint should be directed to that Government. Holding the high opinion that I do of the Government of South Australia, I am sure that it will have an effective answer to any criticism. 1 cannot give any information about the position at Renmark, except to make the point that these grants are not made to cover cases of personal hardship, and that therefore, the proposal to do something at Renmark, if agreed to, would mean embarking on a new policy. I am sorry that I have no knowledge of the facts relating to the other places mentioned by the honorable senator. As to his last question about road construction, I can only say that it gets back to the general principle that the Commonwealth makes funds available. It is for the State governments to distribute the funds, and overriding it all, as I am sure the honorable senator would be the first to admit, is the outstanding capacity and excellence of the South Australian Government in these matters.

page 943

QUESTION

WOOL RESEARCH

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry the following questions: - How many farming and grazing properties have been acquired for the purposes of wool research in the respective States of Australia? How many officers are employed on those properties for the purposes of wool research? How many officers are elsewhere engaged in wool research? Is it intended to make further appointments for this purpose after the Wool Research Bill 1957, now before the Senate, becomes law? If it is intended to make further appointments, how .many are to be made? I do not know whether the Minister has that information readily available. If he has not, I am wondering whether he can use his special powers to get it before the debate on the bill is resumed to-day.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have not that information available. I hardly think the honorable senator expected that I would have it.

Senator Maher:

– No.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

-I shall refer the question, as soon as possible, to the Minister for Primary Industry and see whether I can get the required information for him without delay.

page 944

QUESTION

OVERSEAS VISITS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question, to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it not a fact that many Government members, officials and others have enjoyed numerous free trips to various countries during the past few years? Have these trips broadened the minds of participants? If they have, will the Government consider the submission of a scheme which will make possible visits to other parts of the world by Australian workers in order that their minds may be broadened also?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Attorney-General · QUEENSLAND · LP

– I know it is a fact that many members of Parliament from each side have had the benefit of trips overseas. Bright and all as members on this side were before the trips, I am quite sure that they have benefited very considerably and that their minds have been broadened. As to the effect such trips have had on members on the other side, we may not be able to perceive any vast improvement, and I suggest that the honorable senator himself make inquiries from among his own colleagues to ascertain whether their minds have been broadened. If they have been, I am quite sure we on this side will be delighted to hear it. As to others going overseas, I think the Government, from time to time, has assisted representatives of the vast trade union movement to travel. I think it has also assisted representatives of such bodies as chambers of commerce and so on, to go overseas, and I consider it was money remarkably well spent. Personally, I should be delighted to see the Government, perhaps not bear ing the whole of the expense, but encouraging representatives of our great trade union movement and our great employing organizations to have many more of these trips. I think there is a lot to be learnt from other parts of the world, particularly from the meeting of those engaged in a common interest in a common industry. I think the honorable senator’s suggestion is a very good one indeed.

page 944

QUESTION

FLAX

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Recently, the Minister for Customs and Excise, representing his colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, presented to the Senate the view that there was an investigation proceeding in relation to the flax industry in Australia. Can he say when such investigation is likely to conclude? As the flax-planting season for this year is now right at hand, I invite the attention of the Government to the extremely urgent need for a statement of Government policy on the flax bounty, which, as is well known, will expire on 31st October, 1957, and, as a result, the present flax bounty assistance will apply only to flax planted last year or earlier.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– The Flax Bounty Act 1954 expired on 31st October, 1956. It provided for payment of the bounty for two years. The measure that was passed by the Senate last night will extend the bounty for one year to 31st October, 1957 - five months hence. An inquiry is being conducted by the Government into the whole of the industry, and I am sure that the committee concerned is fully aware of the need to present its report in time to enable the matter to be considered before the next flax season begins.

page 944

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by saying that I understand that under the national health scheme there is provision for disciplining doctors who contravene the spirit or the terms of the legislation. Will the Minister inform me whether action has been taken against doctors in this connexion and, if so, where one can get information about action taken? Why is ho publicity given to such disciplinary action?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I assume that the honorable senator refers to the pensioner medical service. I am quite sure that action has been taken on various occasions against doctors who have infringed the regulations governing that service, but I cannot, at the moment, supply the honorable senator with the information he seeks, including particulars of penalties imposed. However, I shall see that his question is examined by the Minister, and I will obtain a reply as early as possible and post it to him.

page 945

QUESTION

TEA FROM FORMOSA

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address the following questions to the Minister for Customs and Excise: Is it a fact that a licence to import Formosan tea to the value of £3,000 was recently granted? Has any of this tea yet arrived in Australia? Was the tea which is reported in the press to be available in Sydney at 4s. per lb. retail taken from stocks recently imported into Australia? Is it a fact that the Formosan tea that is being offered for sale in Sydney at present is of very low quality, by design of vested interests to kill at birth any proposal to import further supplies of Formosan tea? Is there any guarantee that the present price of Formosan tea will not be raised once a demand for it has been created on the Australian market?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I understand that a licence has been granted to an importer to import Formosan tea to the value of £3,000. I am not in a position to say whether any of that tea has actually arrived in Australia. I do not know. I have no idea whether the Formosan tea at present being offered for sale in Sydney is of low quality, nor do I know whether the tea was recently imported. As far as prices are concerned, I understand that the price of Formosan tea is largely bound up with the Hong Kong market. By unfair trade manipulations, Communist China has deliberately depressed the Hong Kong market with a view to destroying the Formosan tea industry. As to what steps will be taken if another outlet is found for Formosan tea. I am not in a position to say.

page 945

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry indicate what stage has been reached in the negotiations that are currently taking place between the Government and representatives of the dried fruits industry on details of a stabilization plan for the industry?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Senator Pearson indicated to me that he would require this information so I took the opportunity of consulting the Minister for Primary Industry who has advised me as follows: -

As honorable senators are aware, the Government on 16th April last offered the dried vine fruits industry a stabilization plan covering currants and sultanas of the kind known as a give-or-take arrangement. It was indicated that the Government would introduce legislation to give effect to the plan if it were accepted in a ballot of growers. On the 1st May, I was interviewed in Canberra by the chairman of the board of management of the Australian Dried Fruits Association, Mr. R. M. Simes, and the general secretary of the association, Mr. R. B. Curtis. In the light of certain submissions made to me at that discussion I agreed, on behalf of the Government, to the original offer to the industry being amended to provide for the operation of separate pools for currants and sultanas instead of a combined pool as at first proposed. I understand that the board of management of the Australian Dried Fruits Association is meeting this week and that the Government’s stabilization plan offer will be considered at that meeting.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the difficulties of the dried fruits industry, which were aggravated by the disastrous floods of last year, and the need to step up the Australian consumption of dried fruits, will the Government give the most urgent consideration to removing the sales tax on foodstuffs containing dried fruits?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I shall bring the question asked by the honorable senator to the notice of the Minister for Primary Industry, but I remind the honorable senator that the subject to which he has referred is largely a budgetary matter, and that it will receive consideration from the Government when the budget is being prepared.

page 945

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for National Development read newspaper reports about the amount that Now South Wales proposes to seek from the Australian Loan Council to provide for housing? Is the newspaper report correct when it states that the Commonwealth will not agree to give New South Wales an extra £7,000,000 for housing, making the total £17,000,000 this year? Is it not true that the Commonwealth has no say in the way in which the States use loan moneys and that the New South Wales Government can appropriate for housing whatever share of loan moneys it thinks best?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have read the newspaper report to which the honorable senator has referred, and he is correct in his contention. The Australian Loan Council decides on the total amount of loan moneys that will be made available for the year. That is a Loan Council decision. The Loan Council then decides how much of that total amount each State will receive. Again, that is a Loan Council decision. Each State then decides how much of its share of the loan moneys it will appropriate for housing. That is a matter for the State governments. They can appropriate as little, or as much, as they desire for housing.

If the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Cahill, wants to appropriate £17,000,000 for housing, he can do so. That is entirely within his discretion. He could say to-day, before the Loan Council meets to-morrow, that, subject to the concurrence of the Commonwealth which will undoubtedly be forthcoming, he will appropriate for housing the £17,000,000 of which he speaks. It is the same old story. What he or some one else is saying is that he cannot get the sum of £17,000,000. He can get it if he wants it. Unfortunately, the housing shortage in New South Wales is aggravated by the fact that the State Government consistently appropriates for housing a smaller proportion of the total loan funds that are made available than do the other States, particularly Victoria.

page 946

QUESTION

IMPORT LICENSING

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is correct, as reported in the press, that the Government has sought and secured a compromise to the challenge by the Senate’s Regulations and Ordinances Committee to the Government’s import licensing system by undertaking to establish a special advisory appeal board in each State to hear appeals by importers against decisions of the Department of Trade on import licensing. Will the Government ensure that the manufacturing and importing capacity of each State is considered when boards are appointed so that firms which have been labouring under a great disadvantage owing to the imposition of restrictions will be ensured early relief? Will the Government endeavour to appoint trade representatives to the boards to prevent the possibility of appeals being regarded as from Caesar to Caesar?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am sure the honorable senator, being a former Minister, knows that questions which are based on newspaper reports are out of order.

Senator Ashley:

– This is the first time 1 have heard that.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It has always been so. However, I am not availing myself of that point. The question that has been raised by the honorable senator is one of great importance. The word “ compromise “ is hardly the correct word to use in this context. Yesterday, I had quite a long discussion with the Senate’s all-party Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Arising out of that discussion and suggestions that were made to me by the committee, I had a further conference with my colleague, the Minister for Trade. Later to-day, with the indulgence of the Senate, I propose to make a statement on the matter, and I think the substance of it will adequately answer the honorable senator’s question.

page 946

QUESTION

OVERSEAS MARKETING

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade the following question: - Has the attention of the Minister been directed to a statement by Mr. J. A. Ferguson, who is chairman of the New South Wales Milk Board, in which he recommended that an immediate marketing survey should be carried out in the Middle East so that the dairying industry could meet the challenge of lowered demand from Great Britain by exploiting potential markets in the East? Will the Minister inform the Senate what action is being taken by the Department of Trade to assist Australia to obtain markets for dairy products in that area?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am sorry to have to say that I have not seen the newspaper report to which the honorable senator refers, and therefore I cannot express any views upon it. I ask her to place the question on the notice-paper, and I shall get a reply for her.

page 947

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– With your permission, Mr. President, I should like to preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, by stating that on 20th March I directed a question to him regarding the possibility of the installation of facilities for repeating television programmes in various parts of Victoria. I also asked him whether he would inform the Senate as to the amount that was being contributed by commercial interests towards this developmental work, but the reply that I received did not contain any reference to the latter part of my question. On 4th April, I wrote to the department. The reply which I received indicates that television services are very costly and it is, therefore, essential to locate transmitters at vantage points where they will give the greatest service. In view of that reply, I now ask the Minister: What proportion, if any, of the cost of these services is being borne by commercial interests, or is the Commonwealth footing the entire bill?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall be very pleased to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of my colleague, the Postmaster-General, and as soon as I receive a reply I shall post it to the honorable senator.

page 947

QUESTION

CANBERRA MEAT SUPPLY

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to either the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior or the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I am not sure which Minister is responsible. Is it a fact that a butcher trading in Canberra under the name, I understand, of “ Harry the Butcher “ became dissatisfied with the quality of the meat supplied in Canberra and sought to buy in Goulburn and bring to Canberra for consumption better quality meat? Is it a fact that this butcher was prevented from carrying on this business by a high official of the Department of Health, although he offered to allow his meat to undergo any inspection that the Department of Health desired? If this is so, would it be true to say that the Department of Health is using health regulations to prevent the supply of meat from places other than the Canberra abattoir? If so, will the Minister issue directions that the practice should cease?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– 1 shall submit this question to my colleague, the Minister for the Interior. I think that possibly it comes under the health regulations, but nevertheless I shall submit it to that Minister and obtain an answer.

page 947

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– 1 preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, by saying that there is widespread dissatisfaction among certain wool-growers, particularly in Tasmania, because of the Minister’s continued refusal to include representatives of the Australian Primary Producers Union on committees set up by the Government from time to time, including the Wool Use Promotion Committee and the Wool Research Committee which are covered by bills now before the Senate. This refusal means that 25,000 woolgrowers throughout Australia have no voice in management or in the spending of the levies proposed to be made. I ask the Minister -

  1. Have the representations of the Australian Primary Producers Union in this regard been considered?
  2. If so, on what grounds were its representations and requests not granted?
  3. What are the qualifications required for inclusion on these committees of representatives of organizations?
  4. Will the Minister give further consideration to granting the union’s request for inclusion of a representative, at least on the Wool Use Promotion Committee?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– As the question has direct relevance to a measure which the

Senate will be discussing to-day, I think it would be more appropriate if I replied during the course of that debate.

page 948

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INCIDENT OVER TIMOR SEA

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I wish to address questions without notice to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I would like to preface my questions by referring to recent publicity in the press concerning a DC-4 aircraft, operated by a charter company known as the Flying Tiger Airline, which sought assistance from the search and rescue organization at Darwin due to the fact that it was, for a considerable portion of its flight from Djakarta to Darwin, operating on three engines only and concern was felt for its occupants. My questions are: By whom was the aircraft chartered? In cases such as this, what arrangements, if any, are made for the payment of search and rescue charges?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Not only did I see the newspaper article referred to by the honorable senator, but also I was kept posted by officers of the department of the progress of this aircraft as it was making its way to Darwin. The aircraft was owned by the Flying Tiger Airline and was on charter to the Inter-governmental Committee on European Migration. The charter had been arranged by the Australian agents, Australian National Airlines. With regard to that part of the question dealing with the payment for the search and rescue operations, international aircraft operating into Australia are required to pay air-route fees, and these fees include a component which is applied to the search and rescue operations. I was interested to see how it worked out in this particular case, and I noticed that because of prior payments of air-route charges by this airline, which has operated a number of similar flights into Australia, the cost of the particular search and rescue operation referred to by Senator Hannan has, in fact, been covered by previous payments for air-route fees.

page 948

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator ASHLEY:

– Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware that an attempt is being made by the Adver tising Agents Association of Australia to have the Government remove the restrictions on the bringing into Australia of completed commercial advertising films for television? Is it not a fact that recently the actors’ association completed a case before the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission for an award to be made for commercial television? Is the Minister aware that an award has been made consequent upon that case, and that following upon the employers’ log being heard, the employers were chiefly concerned about the fact that the union had placed a ban upon the making of commercial advertising films until such time as certain agreements had been reached between the union and the employers? In view of the employers’ action in obtaining an award and the subsequent revoking of the ban, will the Government ensure that there is no relaxation in restrictions which would allow the advertising agents to bring into Australia completed commercial advertising films in order that they can evade payment under the very award which they obtained, and in doing so, jeopardize the employment of Australian production units, writers, technicians, musicians and actors?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I am afraid that I am not able to answer Senator Ashley’s question immediately. I shall be very pleased to bring it to the notice of my colleague, the Postmaster-General, obtain a reply for the honorable senator, and have it posted to him.

page 948

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LOAN COUNCIL

Senator ANDERSON:

– 1 preface my question to the Leader of the Government by saying that at the Australian Loan Council meeting which is to be held in Parliament House, Canberra, to-morrow, doubtless the State Premiers will seek loan allocations for their respective States in excess of the loans allocated by the Loan Council last year, and, indeed, this morning’s press indicates that the New South Wales Premier intends to ask for some £20,000,000 more. Since the loan funds to be given to the States come in the main from Commonwealth revenue - that is to say, taxation - will the Treasurer again press the State

Premiers to agree to some system of priorities, particularly works priorities, and thus avoid the continued spectacle of unfinished, wasteful and unproductive jobs, and also ensure that Australia as a nation will get proper value for the expenditure of these loan funds raised by taxation?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The question submitted by the honorable senator is one of prime importance. I know that it has exercised the mind of the Treasurer for some considerable time, but notwithstanding that, I do not think it would be wise for us in the Senate to anticipate or canvass the discussion which will be taking place later this week between the various Treasurers and Premiers and the federal Treasurer.

page 949

QUESTION

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY INQUIRY

Senator WRIGHT:
through Senator Annabelle Rankin

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. Did the Commonwealth bear the cost of the Tait inquiry on stevedoring, in relation to - (a) The commissioners, (b) counsel assisting commissioners?
  2. What were the amounts of each of such costs?
  3. Using such costs and the cost of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board representation, viz., £25,302, as an indication, what is the Minister’s estimate of the total cost of the inquiry and reports and the separate costs of the following:- (a) Commissioners; (b) counsel assisting the commission; (c) Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; (d) other parties represented; (e) preparation of reports; (f) witnesses; (g) preparation of evidence by board and industry?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has furnished the following replies: -

  1. Yes.
  2. In relation to - (a) The members of the committee, £35,090; (b) counsel assisting the committee, £28,171.
  3. I have no means of making the estimates desired.

page 949

QUESTION

COAL

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Has the statement appearing on page 13 of the ninth annual report of the Joint Coal Board for the financial year 1955-56, viz., “ the sale of the coal produced continues to be one of the main problems facing the industry “, been brought under the notice of the Minister for Trade?
  2. If so, what action has been taken to improve the sale of coal outside the Commonwealth?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

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

  1. In the promotion of sales of coal overseas, the Department of Trade works in close collaboration with a coal export committee that is functioning under the aegis of the Joint Coal Board. The Department of Trade recently made a survey of possible markets for New South Wales coal in the principal coal-importing countries of the world, and these market prospects are currently being explored not only by the industry generally, but also by the merchants engaged in the export trade from this country.
  2. The New South Wales Department of Railways has co-operated in the drive for export markets by affording rail freight concessions on coal for export. However, a limiting factor in the export of coal has been the inability of the Port of Newcastle, as at present established, to handle more than four or five overseas ships per month in addition to the interstate and intra-state shipments which are normally made through that port. Every effort is therefore being made to promote additional exports of coal through the port of Sydney and also Port Kembla. The developments in the export trade are shown in the following figures, expressed in thousand tons: -

page 950

QUESTION

NAVAL CO-OPERATION WITH AMERICA

Senator HANNAN:

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

  1. Is it a fact that Admiral Stump, Commander of the United States Naval Squadron visiting Australia for the Commemoration of the Battle of the Coral Sea, called, in a speech, for greater cooperation between the Royal Australian Navy and the United States Navy, and suggested that Australian Naval vessels should exercise regularly in the Pacific with American warships?
  2. If so, since co-operation with the United States Navy is vital to our security, will the Minister examine the matter and ascertain whether it would be practicable to arrange for some Australian ships to cruise annually with the United States Pacific Fleet?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for the Navy has furnished the following replies: -

  1. 1 understand that Admiral Stump did say that he recommends regular exercises between the Royal Australian Navy and United States Naval vessels in the Pacific.
  2. Opportunity has been taken in the past to participate in joint manoeuvres, and in fact joint exercises with the United States Naval ships is a feature of our ships’ service while attached to the Strategic Reserve and while serving in Korean waters when fulfilling their United Nations commitment. In the Seato exercises “Albatross” in October, 1956, H.M.A. Ships “Melbourne”, “Sydney”, “Tobruk”, “Anzac”, “Queenborough “, “ Quickmatch “ and “ Quadrant “ were in company with four destroyer escorts and one submarine of the United States Navy, together with Royal Navy and other vessels. Similarly, in the Seato exercise “Astra” just concluded “Melbourne”, “Tobruk”, “Anzac”, “Warramunga”, “ Queenborough “ and “ Quickmatch “ operated with three American destroyer escorts and one submarine. It is expected that such Seato exercises, wherein naval forces of both nations operate under a common command, will be held yearly. On 13th May, H.M.A-S. “Quadrant” proceeded in company with the Flagship U.S.S: “Columbus” and four United States destroyers which visited Melbourne for Coral Sea week.

page 950

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING STATIONS

Senator LAUGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

When are stations 5MG and 5PA in South Australia likely to appoint a News :Officer and Rural Broadcasts Officer to be directly responsible for service at those stations?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer: -

It is intended to relay all local programme material, including the regional news, through SPA from 5MG. Accordingly, a journalist has been appointed and the necessary technical facilities and accommodation are being prepared in Mom Gambier. The officer will commence operations as soon as these arrangements are finalized. The Australian Broadcasting Commission intends ‘also to appoint a regional rural Officer at Mount Gambier.

page 950

QUESTION

BANKING

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minisister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

How much money has been made available by the Savings Bank Divisions of the private trading banks since their inception for long-term loans in the following categories: - Credit Foncier housing loans; semi-government loans; and government loans?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer: -

Information on the assets held by the private savings banks is provided regularly to the Treasury and the central bank. The form in which information on this subject might be published is under consideration, but certain technical difficulties have yet to be resolved. Announcements have, however, been made by the savings banks concerned in relation to the scale of their lending for housing purposes. According to these announcements, the Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank Limited has approved £5,250,000, the Australia and New Zealand Savings Bank Limited has approved £4,500,000, and the Commercial Banking Company Savings Bank Limited plans to lend at the rate of £2,000,000 per annum for housing purposes. Of the total amount of £11,750,000 involved, an amount of £7,000,000 has been stated to be for loans to individuals and £4,750,000 for loans to building societies.

page 950

QUESTION

SYNTHETIC PETROL

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen a most important news item under the caption “Tests Boost Synthetic Petrol’”, in the Sydney “Daily Telegraph”, of 9th May, in which it is stated that road tests promise a great future for the new petrol, which can be made from raw materials plentiful in Australia?
  2. Will the Minister make inquiries and report to the Senate on the real value of this petrol?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am now in a position to give the following answer: -

  1. Yes.. The “ Daily Telegraph “ was commenting on an article published in the May issue of the magazine “ Modern Motor “’ regarding a motor fuel which was not of petroleum origin.
  2. My department advises me as follows: -

The article in the May issue of “ Modern Motor “ refers to the use of a motor fuel stated to be produced from non-petroleum ingredients in an undisclosed secret formula. We cannot therefore comment on the particular fuel referred to in the article. However, it is a fact that motor spirit giving good performance can be produced from nonpetroleum materials such as methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, acetone and benzole. For many years special racing fuels have been produced from such ingredients. It is also a fact that certain of these materials are available in Australia. Nevertheless, good performance does not necessarily accompany economic fuel usage in terms of initial cost and consumption, neither would the present local availability of such materials provide more than a small fraction of Australia’s present consumption of motor spirit.

It will be recalled that during the 1939-45 war plans were well advanced for large-scale production of power alcohol in Australia from wheat which was to be used as an alternative motor fuel to petrol.

page 951

QUESTION

MENTAL HEALTH OF IMMIGRANTS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Committee, appointed to report on the incidence of crime and the general conduct of European migrants, reported in 1955 that generally speaking there was no greater percentage of wrong-doing by European migrants than among Australians?
  2. Is it also a fact that the committee’s investigation showed a greater percentage of southern and eastern Europeans involved in crime than northern or western Europeans?
  3. In view of the growing rate of mental sickness which is becoming evident among eastern and southern European migrants, as shown in records of our hospital reports and mental institutions statistics, will the Minister request the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Committee to institute an inquiry into the incidence of paranoia and schizophrenia among migrants, and to make recommendations as to methods that could be used to give relief to many of these people before they reach the stage of mental breakdown?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– My colleague, the Minister for Immigration, has supplied the following answer: -

  1. A committee of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council established to investigate the conduct of migrants stated, inter alia, in its second report in 1955 that -

    1. It was satisfied that “the incidence rate of crime among aliens is considerably less than the incidence rate for the whole population “.
    2. “For both Superior and Magistrates Courts together the overall incidence of conviction of alien males in 1954 was 5.8 per 1,000. The estimated comparable figure for the Australian population generally was 12.3 per 1,000 “. The alien rate was therefore less than half the overall Australian rate.
  2. Insofar as the honorable senator’s remarks refer to southern Europeans they are not correct. The committee stated as follows: -

The incidence of convictions in individual groups of nationalities was also lower than the Australian rate. The only group that approached the Australian rate was the eastern European group and here, in Superior Courts only, convictions were approximately 90 per cent, of the Australian rate.

In view of frequent uninformed statements to the contrary, the committee draws particular attention to the low incidence rate among southern Europeans, which is in all cases less than one-quarter of the overall Australian rate.

  1. The honorable senator is incorrect in his assumption that it is established that rates of mental illness are increasing among eastern and southern European migrants. The position is that returns furnished by State authorities to the Commonwealth Department of Health in relation to mental illness among all migrants are not properly comparable and therefore do not permit firm conclusions to be made in respect of the overall rate of mental illness in the migrant population. The more reliable figures from State authorities indicate, however, that migrants compare favorably with the Australian-born population in this particular regard. In particular, the New South Wales State authorities on 30th July, 1954, stated, inter alia, in furnishing information to the Department of Immigration -

These figures (for admissions) would indicate that the existence of mental diseases among immigrants is appreciably lower than its existence among the natural-born population.

In view of the lack of uniformity between the States in their methods of recording the relevant statistics the Department of Immigration is at present co-operating with the Commonwealth Department of Health with a view to obtaining a more satisfactory basis for recording the incidence of mental illness in the migrant population.

The intention is that, in conjunction with these inquiries, an investigation will be made into the incidence of mental illness in the migrant population on the same lines as that made into the social conduct of migrants by the Committee of the Immigration Advisory Council referred to above. I will in this respect give consideration to the honorable senator’s suggestion that a committee of the Immigration Advisory Council be appointed for this purpose.

I and the Government are fully aware of the importance of providing migrants, particularly in the early stages of their residence in this country, with skilled and friendy assistance to help them overcome their problems, which in some cases must inevitably be associated with the important personal decision to emigrate. To this end trained social workers are employed in each of the State branches of my department and officers in these branches may always be approached for advice.

Late last year Sir Harry Wunderly, the distinguished Australian authority on tuberculosis, visited Europe to survey the procedures and methods used for the medical screening of British and foreign assisted migrants before their departure for Australia. He paid particular attention to the screening methods in use for the detection of tuberculosis and mental disabilities.

In his report, which was recently presented to the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, Sir Harry Wunderly stated -

The conclusion to be drawn from this overseas survey is that the selection of prospective migrants by Australian medical officers is satisfactory and, as the result of increased experience, is of an appreciably higher standard than in 19S0.

The present methods and procedures provide an adequate degree of protection against the embarkation for Australia of medically undesirable migrants from those countries where they are examined by Australian medical officers.

This medical screening compares very favorably with that of the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden, which have the same problems as we have.

page 952

QUESTION

FANNING ISLAND CABLE STATION

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Relative to the forthcoming atomic tests at Christmas Island, what arrangements have been made regarding the staff of the cable station on Fanning Island, approximately only 150 miles away?
  2. Is Fanning Island to be, or has it been, evacuated?
  3. If so, what effect will this have on cable communications between North America and Australia and New Zealand?
  4. If the island is not to be evacuated, why not?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has furnished the following replies: -

  1. None.
  2. No.
  3. No effect.
  4. Because there is no danger the island is not to be evacuated.

page 952

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

  1. Is it a fact that, as a consequence of the establishment of the aluminium production plant at Bell Bay, Tasmania, a substantial population, connected with the industry, has been built up at Georgetown?
  2. Is it a fact that no opportunities, clerical, industrial, or domestic, exist for the employment of the female section of the community at Georgetown?
  3. If so, will the Minister give early consideration to the encouragement of other ancillary industries in the Bell Bay region so that some prospects for employment may be provided for the younger women who live in the area?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has furnished the following replies: -

  1. Yes.
  2. The proportion of female employment at Bell Bay is approximately 5 per cent. Domestic and other business opportunities in Georgetown are a matter for the State government.
  3. The question of the establishment of light industries to enable the employment of female labour would appear to be within the province of the State government.

page 952

QUESTION

COST OF LIVING

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Treasurer seen newspaper reports of the recent judgment given by the Arbitration Court in the “ Basic Wage “ case, stating that the commission could not assume that either the C series or the interim price indices measured with reasonable accuracy the general price level or the cost of living?
  2. Does the Treasurer agree with this view of the indices?
  3. If so, what action has been taken, or is being taken, to compile an index which will measure the general price level and the cost of living with reasonable accuracy?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has furnished the following replies: - 1 and 2. Neither the C series retail price index nor the interim retail price index purports to measure the general price level or the cost of living. Both are measures of retail price movements within the defined field of wage-earner household expenditure. The Statistician has stated this in his publications for a considerable number of years past and explained the position in his evidence before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in June, 1949. This evidence was republished at page 167 of “ Annual Labour Report “, No. 41 of 1952.

  1. The technical difficulties of compiling indexes of the general price level or of the cost of living are very great. So far as is known no industrial tribunal and no party to Arbitration Court proceedings has sought to have such indexes compiled.

page 953

QUESTION

ARCHITECTURAL TRENDS

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

As it is evident that contemporary architecture is that of a period of transition, producing much that is good and full of promise and also much that is bad and destined to be the laughing-stock of the future, will the Minister provide advice and assistance to private associations to ensure that they are not misled by charlatans but are helped to obtain the services of good architects?

Senator HENTY:
LP

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

The question asked by the honorable senator is based upon a personal opinion about a subject which is very much in the realm of controversy, which I am not prepared to enter. The reference that there are charlatans among practising architects might more appropriately be taken up by the honorable senator with the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. It is not the function of the Department of the Interior to advise the public on the relative competence of practising architects. The selection of an architect is a matter of free choice and involves considerations to which most owners give careful thought before consultation.

page 953

QUESTION

FOOD PARCELS FOR HUNGARY

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On 16th May, Senator Cooke asked me the following question: -

I directed a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General on 8th May in relation to the prohibition on the sending of food to Hungary in hermetically sealed tins. The Minister was kind enough to have investigations made, and he informed me that it was because of a postal regulation. I now ask him whether he is aware that postal instruction M 232/28/1 issued on 3rd April, 1957, prohibits the forwarding of parcels containing food in hermetically sealed tins to distressed persons in Hungary. Will the Minister explain to the Senate why this instruction has been issued? Will he inform the Senate of any way that is know to the Government whereby food parcels can be forwarded to distressed persons in Hungary?

I referred this question to my colleague, the Postmaster-General, and the following reply has been furnished: -

  1. The prohibition against sending food in hermetically sealed containers in gift parcels addressed to private individuals in Hungary has applied for a number of years. However, I must point out that this condition, together with other restrictions of weight, quantity of particular items and customs duty payable are imposed by the Hungarian authorities as the country of receipt, and not by the Australian Post Office.
  2. All restrictions normally applied to the importation of gift parcels into Hungary by post were relaxed by that Administration for three weeks in February of this year but became opera tive again on and from 1st March. The nonadmission of food in hermetically sealed containers included in parcels addressed to private individuals was re-affirmed at the same time.
  3. As non-compliance with conditions imposed by any overseas country would only lead to the rejection of such parcels and their return to senders, the general conditions of acceptance are included in the Australian “ Post Office Guide “. Having in mind the plight of the Hungarian people, post office staffs and the public of this country have been kept informed of the changes in acceptance conditions for parcels posted to Hungary.
  4. In addition, post offices in Australia have been issued with lists of items of food which, on the advice of the Hungarian postal administration, may be imported into Hungary. Upon application at any post office senders may ascertain the items of food which are permitted entry by post into that country.

page 953

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On 9th May, Senator Aylett asked me a question relating to the probable establishment of a wool industry fund and the appointment of representatives from growers’ organizations on the committee administering the fund. I referred the question to my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, who has now advised me in the following terms: -

The matter the honorable senator refers to is the subject of the Wool Research Bill, which was introduced into the Senate on 21st May. The bill gives effect to an agreement which has been reached between the Government and the woolgrower organizations in respect of financing and administration of wool research. It provides for the establishment of a statutory body with representatives of federal organizations of wool-growers comprising a majority of its membership.

page 953

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On 14th May, Senator Seward asked me the following question: -

Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen a statement which appeared in the week-end press to the effect that certain doctors are forming themselves into a proprietary company in order to reduce their income tax liability? Has he also seen a statement alleged to have” been made by a Queen’s counsel in New South Wales to the effect that the doctors, in order to obtain the desired protection, would have to arrange for their accounts to be sent out by, and for payment to be made to, the proprietary company, in which case their patients, including pensioners, would be ineligible to receive Commonwealth medical benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled? If the newspaper statement is correct, will the Minister take such steps as are necessary to protect the interests of the patients concerned, particularly those who are pensioners?

I undertook to refer the question to my colleague, who has furnished the following reply: -

The Acting Minister for Health is not aware of any cases where the services of medical practitioners have been made available by proprietary companies. Should any such case actually arise, the question whether Commonwealth medical benefit is payable would be determined in the light or the particular facts. As a general rule, Commonwealth medical benefit is payable where a member of a registered medical benefit organization incurs medical expenses for a professional medical service rendered by a doctor. Commonwealth medical benefit would not necessarily be refused merely on the ground that the medical expenses were payable to a company. Medical attention under the Pensioner Medical Service is provided by doctors who have entered into agreements with the Director-General of Health.

page 954

QUESTION

BROADCAST OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On 2nd May, Senator Wardlaw asked me the following question: -

Tn view of the fact that there are no broadcasts from northern Tasmania of federal parliamentary proceedings, and that residents of Launceston and northern Tasmania generally have extreme difficulty in picking up Hobart stations, will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General ascertain whether it is possible to broadcast question time, at least, from station 7NT?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished the following reply: -

The determination of those stations over which parliamentary broadcasts are practicable is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings.

In the capital cities and Newcastle, where there are two national programme channels, no problem exists. However, the programme broadcast to regional listeners, for whom it is possible to make only one channel available and over which is broadcast a composite of the two metropolitan programmes, inclusion of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings could be made only at the expense of severely restricting the programme now available to country listeners.

In the case of northern Tasmania, broadcasts from Parliament should be heard satisfactorily from station 3LO in Melbourne. Reception conditions for 7ZR Hobart are not very good in northern Tasmania because of the mountainous terrain, but it is possible for listeners in northern Tasmania to pick up the Victorian station. In certain parts of Australia, listeners who wish to hear the parliamentary broadcasts can pick up the metropolitan station, but there are other parts where it will not be possible to listen to parliamentary broadcasts until a second transmitter can be provided at the various regional centres.

page 954

QUESTION

MIL LEL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On 16th May, Senator O’Flaherty asked me the following question: -

I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, by saying that some two years ago arrangements were made for the establishment of an automatic telephone exchange at Mil Lel, which is situated in the south-east corner of South Australia. However, because of certain difficulties it could not be established. Can the Minister inform me what progress has been made with the establishment of that exchange? If he cannot reply offhand, can he obtain the information for me?

The Postmaster-General has supplied the following reply to the honorable senator’s question: -

The line construction required before Mil Lel exchange can be opened is proceeding, and the completion is expected before the end of the year. The automatic exchange installation is planned for completion at the same time as the line construction.

page 954

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– by leave- I desire to announce to the Senate that during the absence abroad of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt), the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) will act as Prime Minister, and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) as Minister for Labour and National Service.

page 954

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY INQUIRY

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

Stevedoring Industry Act - Report of Committee of Inquiry

Honorable senators will recall that, in November, 1954, the Minsiter for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) set up a committee of inquiry into the stevedoring industry in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1954. That committee made an interim report which was tabled in the Senate on 20th March, 1956. The report that I now present is the report of the committee upon completion of its inquiry. It supersedes the previous interim report and embodies in it matters, facts and conclusions that are contained in that report. Printed copies have just come to hand, and 1 present the report to the Senate. Honorable senators will have an opportunity to study its content during the parliamentary recess.

page 955

CUSTOMS (IMPORT LICENSING) REGULATIONS

Notice of motion in the name of Senator Wood for the disallowance of the Customs (Import Licensing) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rule No. 93, of 1956, and made under the Customs Act 1901-1954 - withdrawn.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– by leave - The members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee yesterday discussed with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan) the notice of motion that had been given in my name as a result of discussions and suggestions from the members of the committee. The Leader of the Government, after further discussions with the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), gave assurances to the members of the committee that such actions would be taken as would satisfy the objections of the committee, particularly in relation to principles B and C, as set out in the committee’s report of 3rd November, 1938, and repeated in subsequent reports, which guide the committee in its deliberations.

The action which the Government now proposes to take is one that the committee considered could have been taken by the Senate if the regulations had come before the Senate by legislative enactment.

The committee recognizes the regulation is in accordance with the statute, but because of its arbitrary nature and the extent to which it trespasses upon the personal rights and liberties of citizens, and because of its substantive nature, the committee considers it should have been made by legislative enactment. The fact that the Customs Act 1952 bestows such wide arbitrary powers upon the executive authority shows the necessity for extreme vigilance by this Senate when considering legislation.

Some doubt has been cast upon the status of the principles which guide this committee, but I desire to direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that this Senate adopted the fourth report of the committee of 3rd November, 1938, which set out those principles, thereby giving its sanction to them. Such principles have formed the basis of other reports of the committee and their continued acceptance, in the view of the committee, establishes their validity. Further, the principles that guide the Regulations and Ordinances Committee have been established and accepted to such an extent that a similar committee of the South Australian Parliament has, by resolution, adopted substantially the rules of this committee. Further, by legislative enactment, substantially similar rules have been adopted for a committee akin to the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee which was set up by the Victorian Government.

As a result of the assurances received from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I have withdrawn the motion standing in my name.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney-General · Queensland · LP

– by leave - At this stage, I do not want to initiate a debate on the definition of the limits and extent of the terms of reference contemplated by the Senate when it appointed the Regulations and Ordinances Committee under Standing Order 36a. Until such time as they are defined, I want it to be placed on record that I personally do not accept the terms, the nature and the details of the report to which Senator Wood has referred as being within the committee’s terms of reference. I hope that the Senate will soon have an opportunity more clearly to set out and define the terms of reference of this very important committee.

As a matter of interest, I wish to inform the Senate that there is a corresponding committee operating in the House of Commons. I refer honorable senators to May’s “ Parliamentary Practice “, fifteenth edition, at page 830, in this connexion. It states -

This Select Committee’s order of reference (o) does not empower them to consider merits or policy, but enables them to draw the attention of the House to provisions which (i) impose a charge on the public revenues, (ii) are made under an enactment which excludes challenge in the law courts, (iii) appear to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute, (iv) purport to have retrospective effect where the parent statute does not so provide, (v) have been withheld from publication or from being laid before Parliament by unjustifiable delay, (vi) have not been notified in proper time to the Speaker in cases where they come into operation before being presented to Parliament (see p. 830 above), or (vii) call for elucidation of their form or purport.

The reason why I think we should have the terms more clearly defined is that it would be completely contrary to representative parliamentary government if the substance of contemplated regulations were discussed in the Senate and embodied in the parent act, if every implication of possible regulations was foreshadowed and met with the approval of the Senate, and if subsequently a small committee of the Senate substituted its opinion for the opinion of the whole Senate. I am not saying that that was necessarily done in this case; indeed, I am not referring to this particular case. I am merely emphasizing the importance of the Senate defining precisely what powers it proposes to hand over to this very important committee. I hope that, in the not too distant future, the Senate will have an opportunity so to decide.

As Senator Wood said, I had the opportunity yesterday to have a very interesting discussion with members of this all-party committee about its report. Unfortunately, two members of it were unavoidably absent. It seems to me that the substance of the committee’s objection to the present licensing procedure was that there was no review of departmental decisions. The committee suggested to me that perhaps there could be devised some means, other than the establishment of a court, to review such decisions. I put the recommendations of the committee to my colleague, the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), and he very readily and very sympathetically listened to the representations that I placed before him1 as put to me by the committee.

Senator Courtice:

– Did he agree to them?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– As a result of that discussion, the Minister agreed to the establishment, in the various capital cities, of licensing advisory review boards. Time will determine their effect. I think the idea has substantial merit, and it will be very interesting to see how the system operates. The point is that the Minister very readily said that, if the committee felt that the system would work satisfactorily, he would be only too pleased to give it a trial.

Senator Courtice:

– He has changed his mind.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It is not a change of mind. As far as I am aware, this is the first time that a practical proposition has been put forward, and to that extent the Senate, the Parliament as a whole, and the people are indebted to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee for the recommendations it has made.

So that there will not be any misunderstanding about how the proposed boards will operate, I propose to read a letter that I have received from the Minister for Trade which contains a brief outline of the kind of review that he and I think the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has in mind. At the risk of boring the Senate, but for the purposes of record, I shall now read the letter, which I received last night. It is as follows: - 21st May, 1957.

My Dear Minister,

I confirm my willingness to establish Licensing Advisory Review Boards to sit in each of the States to hear applicants who have been unsuccessful in applications for import licences and to make a report to the Minister for Trade. There has been a very substantial liberalization of licensing since April 1st and the understanding is that cases submitted to the Review Boards-

They are really advisory review boards - would be restricted to applications made subsequent to the April 1st relaxations.

This would not preclude any application which had been rejected prior to 1st April, being resubmitted to the Department.

The present Internal Appeals Committee of the Department which re-examines many cases each week, and which is the quickest method of getting a reconsideration, would continue to function, but failure before that Committee would not preclude appeal to the proposed Licensing Advisory Review Boards.

A function of the Boards would be to ensure equitable treatment of individual cases within the framework of Government policy decisions.

The Licensing Advisory Review Boards would not hear applications which could be approved only by departure from the current policy of the Government. This is so that the operation of the Advisory Review Boards could not have the result of increasing the total licensing ceiling decided by the Government.

It would also mean that the Boards would have to make any recommendations having regard to the allocations by the Cabinet to the “ A “ and “ B “ Categories and the Administrative section of the import budget.

The Boards would be informed by the Minister for Trade of these basic financial policy decisions of the Government and of the details of policy under which the Department is operating.

The Boards would not hear frivolous appeals and would not hear appeals which were based upon an objection by the applicant to the policy of the Government

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– They will. The letter continues -

The procedure envisaged is that the applicant would first submit to the Board the facts of his case, upon which the Board would consider whether his application could be approved within Government policy. If it could not be approved within Government policy, the applicant would be so advised. If it could be approved within Government policy, the hearing would proceed.

A Board would consist of two non-governmental members chosen for their experience in commercial affairs and an officer of the Department of Trade as Chairman.

Yours sincerely,

  1. Mcewen.

That concludes my remarks. I thank the Senate for its courtesy in granting me leave to make the statement.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave - I at once congratulate the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, which brought in a report upon this matter, upon its vigilance and pertinacity. I have said repeatedly in the Senate that it is a great consolation to me and my colleagues to know that this committee is addressing itself to the very important legislative field that is covered by regulation. It absolves us from personal liability in the matter, and on occasion after occasion I have had cause to be grateful to the committee for its work and reports.

The question as to whether this report was within the committee’s terms of reference does not concern me at the moment. I should be very jealous about restricting the scope of the committee’s approach to its problem in such a way that the terms that have been the principles upon which it has functioned in the past were cut down. I agree without question that the committee is not concerned about matters of policy, and I understand that it makes no such claim. We have the broad effect that the committee’s action has inspired the Government to provide a review, and I am sure that the Government has done so, not only because of the committee’s report, but also because of the widespread feeling of dissatisfaction in the business community about the way in which the regulations have been operating. At least, there will be an opportunity for review within the limits of the letter from the Minister for Trade which has been placed before the Senate.

I am not supremely confident that the system will work exceedingly well, but I certainly think it is entitled to a trial. It is important, and it will have at least a grand psychological effect, but the difficulty of correlating the decisions of the various committees in the various States into one organic whole might be quite large and lead to many difficulties. One must reserve a judgment on the appointment of businessmen to review the applications and business transactions of other businessmen. That may well be open to attack. I think it is an experiment that is worth a trial, but the Opposition will certainly reserve judgment on it until we have seen it in operation. Again, on behalf of the Opposition, I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make a few comments and to record my appreciation of the work of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of the Senate.

page 957

NORFOLK ISLAND ORDINANCES BILL 1957

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill does not raise any new question of policy. The need for the legislation became urgent as the result of a recent advising by the law officers of the Commonwealth that the procedure which had been followed since 1915 in regard to the commencement of ordinances made for Norfolk Island might be open to question. The purpose of the bill is to place beyond doubt the validity of ordinances that have been brought into force in the past and to simplify the procedure for bringing new ordinances into force in the future. Section 8 of the Norfolk Island Act 1913-1935 gives the Governor-General power to make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of Norfolk Island. Ordinances so made shall be published in the manner directed by the Governor-General, and shall come into force at a time to be fixed by him, not being before the date of their publication in Norfolk Island. In accordance with those provisions, the then Governor-General made an ordinance entitled the Interpretation Ordinance 1915 on 19th May, 1915. Section 5 of that ordinance provides that every ordinance shall, unless the contrary intention appears, commence and take effect on the day on which a copy thereof is affixed by order of the Administrator on or near to the Court House, Norfolk Island. Since 1915, all ordinances have been deemed to have commenced in accordance with that provision.

The Attorney-General’s Department now takes the view that, as the law stands at present, every ordinance must be brought into force by the GovernorGeneral fixing the date of commencement, and that the Governor-General cannot delegate the power exercisable by him in pursuance of that provision to the Administrator of Norfolk Island. The view is also taken that the power of commencing the operation of an ordinance is exercisable by order in council, not by ordinance. Legal opinion is that section 5 of the Interpretation Ordinance 1915-1940 is probably ineffectual in the light of the foregoing since what that section purports to do should be done by order in council in pursuance of the Norfolk Island Act. It seems, therefore, that no ordinance made since 1915 has been properly commenced. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to validate ordinances made in the past and to set out clearly the method for the commencement of the ordinances made in the future. This bill is intended to achieve these two purposes.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition has no objection to the two purposes outlined by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) being effectuated. The bill is purely a machinery one, and we do not oppose it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 958

NORFOLK ISLAND BILL 1957

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is intended to repeal the Norfolk Island Act 1913-1935, and to replace it by a new Norfolk Island Act which will contain most of the provisions of the old act, together with some new provisions. As honorable senators will be aware from earlier proceedings in this chamber, it was recently found necessary, as the result of advice by the law officers of the Commonwealth, to re-examine certain sections of the Norfolk Island Act relating to the method followed for the commencement of ordinances made under that act. At the same time it was thought desirable to review the act as a whole in order to see if any other changes or revisions might be necessary after the lapse of over twenty years. The opinion was reached that there would be an advantage in remaking the act, partly for the sake of making the legislation tidier; partly in order to bring it into line with the more recent acts passed by this Parliament in relation to the administration of other Commonwealth Territories; and partly in order to introduce new provisions in relation to the administration of justice and local government for the island community. The greater part of the bill now presented to the chamber simply repeats provisions which are in the existing act, and I shall not refer to those in this speech but draw attention only to those parts of the bill which either amend existing provisions or introduce new provisions.

First, I should perhaps say something about this Territory for the benefit of those senators who have not had the pleasure - and it is indeed a pleasure - of visiting it. A parliamentary delegation did visit the island at the time of the celebration of its centenary last .year, ;anti J .’feel sure that every one of the members of that delegation carried .away a lasting impression of the beauty of its scenery and the kindliness of its people. .Norfolk Island lies about 900 miles off;the east coast of Australia. It has a population of just over 1,000 persons living on an ‘island of an area. of approximately 13 square miles. It might be compared with a piece -of one of the more pleasant parts of -southern England encircled by [the sea. It has also been called the Madeira of .the .Pacific.

The ‘life lived there is the life of a rural community. Hitherto, “the most important cash crop has ‘ been the production of bean seed :but recently a whaling station commenced -operations, with a quota of 150 hump-backed whales, ‘and’ it is possible that an expansion of this activity -will be commercial fishing an’d !the < quick “freezing of vegetables for export. The tourist traffic is also of some importance to the .island and its picturesque past, the romantic ruins which survive from the colonial period and the beauty of its scenery present attractions which .deserve to.be more widely known. A large number of the population are the descendants of the Pitcairn Islanders who came to Norfolk in ;1856.

The most important innovation in the bill is a. proposal to create a. Norfolk Island Council. There is at,present in existence an Advisory -Council -of .eight elected members who have the functions ,of advising -the Administrator on any .matters referred to them and of scrutinizing drafts of ordinances before the ordinances are made by the Governor-General. The bill now before the chamber proposes to create a “Norfolk Island’ Council. It will ‘have all the powers and functions of ‘the present Advisory Council and, in addition, it will be given, by ordinance, control over a defined field of government. These new ‘powers and functions -will include the making of ‘by-laws, the levying of rates and fees and control over its own expenditure. The field -of government in which the council may ‘be given these powers <is set - out ‘in a -schedule to the bill. In “broad -terms it corresponds to the field Of government which- is occupied by .a local -governing authority ‘or by -other :local. authorities set i up for ‘defined -purposes in ^Australian rural areas. For example, among the subjects mentioned- in.the schedule tare ‘roads, .drainage, -.sanitation, .control of live-stock. -pests .and -noxious weeds, electricity .supply, water supply, control of. guesthouses, places of public .entertainment, sale and distribution, of foodstuffs, buildings, road traffic, i trading hours, .and so forth. lt is intended ‘that ‘this council will be inaugurated by ordinance or ordinances in accordance with the provisions .of .the bill -now. before this .chamber. It-will, of course, be necessary for the -smooth working. of the proposed ‘.council that : there .should .be a willingness - on the part - of the island - community to- undertake the burdens, and .responsibilities, of. local self-government. In doing so.they-can.be assured. of the ready support and encouragement :of the Government. This opens the way .to. a .greater measure of autonomy than the island .community .has ever previously enjoyed. On matters other than those confided to the- council, the. provision “for making ordinances for the Territory will continue unchanged. “This procedure is for advice to flow from the council, the Administrator and the Minister to the Governor-General.

The .bill will, (however, make a : slight change in the ;procedure for submission (0 ordinances to this .Parliament. Ordinances will .have to be tabled within -fifteen sitting days, instead of thirty actual days, and can be disallowed by this Parliament, ,if notice thereof is given within fifteen sitting days after tabling. The bill-will also provide that, if the conditions -concerning tabling are not complied with, an ordinance shall be void and of no effect; and that, if notice of motion ‘is given in Parliament to disallow any -ordinance and such motion has .not .been withdrawn or Otherwise .disposed of ‘.within :fifteen .sitting ‘days, the .ordinance ‘.shall be i deemed .to :have been disallowed. .These tabling provisions -are -similar .to those .contained in the Commonwealth Acts .-Interpretation Act and will be in -.line -with .an. earlier recommendation of -the .Senate Standing .Committee - on Regulations and Ordinances. The committee considers the i present .provision .of tabling .Norfolk Island ordinances within 30 .days to »be unsatisfactory, as it .could mean .that Parliament rises before it .has time to consider an ordinance .and -the 30 days expire before it is again in session. Opportunity ‘to ‘move for disallowance would in consequence be lost.

Opportunity is being taken in the bill to give the “ Norfolk Island Government Gazette “ formal standing and for the making of ordinances to be notified in it. This will do away with the present archaic practice of posting notices regarding ordinances on or near to the Court House, Norfolk Island.

Another change - a small one - concerns the office of Administrator. Previously, the office was created under ordinance. Now it is proposed that it should be created by act of this Parliament, in the same way as in the other territories. The Administrator, who is charged with administering the government on behalf of the Commonwealth, will be appointed by the GovernorGeneral by commission, will hold office during the pleasure of the GovernorGeneral, and will be required to exercise and perform all powers and functions that belong to his office in accordance with the tenor of his commission and in accordance with such instructions as are given to him by the Minister. The Administrator is at present appointed under the Administration Ordinance 1936. That ordinance makes provision for the appointment of a deputy of the Administrator, but there is no existing provision for the appointment of an acting Administrator. This bill now makes that provision.

A third change concerns the courts. The present provision in relation to the organization, jurisdiction and constitution of courts is unsatisfactory. The bill provides for the establishment for the first time of a Supreme Court and for an appeal from the Supreme Court to the High Court of Australia. It provides for Supreme Court practice and procedure and for the establishment and jurisdiction of other courts, not being superior courts, to be covered by ordinance. In passing, I may mention that there is happily not enough litigation or crime on the island to occupy the whole time of a judge and it is intended to continue the system under which the judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory will also hold a separate appointment as judge of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island.

The bill will also make provision to enable the Supreme Court to sit outside the island to deal with cases other than criminal proceedings. Such a provision could well save the expense and time of the judge having to go to Norfolk Island to hear an undefended case if the person concerned happened to be in Australia. Such a provision would, however, only be likely to be used on rare occasions. The bill generally incorporates the provisions relating to appointment and tenure of judges, acting judges, qualification of judges and oaths of office in the act, on lines similar to those in the other territories. While preserving the Governor-General’s power to grant remission of sentences, the bill re-writes this part so as to make it possible to introduce for the first time a code of remission of sentences for good conduct for prisoners serving imprisonment on Norfolk Island. The code will be on the lines of those existing in the Australian States.

May I now refer to some of the lesser modifications of the existing act which the bill proposes to make. There has been some doubt, due to the wording of the existing act, whether a retrospective ordinance may validly be made. The bill makes it quite clear that such an ordinance may validly be made, but with the specific exception that such an ordinance may not be made which imposes a penalty in respect of an act or omission occurring before the date of publication of notice of the making of the ordinance in the “ Norfolk Island Government Gazette “. It also makes provision for regulations to be made under the act.

There are also some instances where it is considered that matters at present included in the act might more properly be dealt with by ordinance in order to meet changing local circumstances from time to time. The principal instance of this is the provision relating to the sale and manufacture of alcoholic liquor. It is considered that this can be dealt with better by ordinance than by act of the Commonwealth Parliament. On the other hand, some matters which are at present dealt with by ordinance could more properly be covered by the act. An example of this is the provision that the public accounts of Norfolk Island shall be subject to inspection and audit by the Auditor-General for the Commonwealth.

The present act provides that the Governor-General, or any person authorized by him, may, in accordance with law, make grants or other dispositions of Crown lands in Norfolk Island. The Minister for State administering the Norfolk Island Act 1913-1935, or any Minister or member of the Executive Council for the time being acting for or on behalf of the Minister of State administering the Norfolk Island Act, has for many years been granting leases of Crown lands and authorizing the occupation or use of waste lands in Norfolk Island under such a delegation from the Governor-General. The bill will make provision for the Minister to grant leases of Crown lands and to authorize the occupation or use of waste lands in Norfolk Island.

In commending the bill to the chamber, I again emphasize that the only two substantial changes which it makes are those relating to the creation of a Norfolk Island Council in place of the Norfolk Island Advisory Council, and the provisions in relation to the Supreme Court. The other clauses of the bill either repeat sections of the existing act or make the minor improvements which I have described. I commend the bill to the chamber both because it will extend the opportunity of the islanders to share in the management of their own affairs and because it gives a neater and more effective piece of legislation.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2.15 p.m.

page 961

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: -

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill 1957.

Australian Antarctic Territory Bill 1957.

Heard Island and McDonald Islands Bill 1957.

page 961

CUSTOMS BILL 1957

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with an amendment.

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

Clause 5 -

After section thirty-five of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - “ 35a. - (1.) Where a person who has, or has been entrusted with, the possession, custody or control of dutiable goods which are subject to the control of the Customs -

when so requested by a Collector, does not account for those goods to the satisfaction of a Collector, based upon reasonable grounds, . . .

House of Representatives’ amendment -

Omit the words “based upon reasonable grounds,”.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

As honorable senators will recall, proposed new section 35a, which is dealt with in clause 5 of the bill, was amended by the Senate on 2nd May, when the words “ based upon reasonable grounds “ were inserted after the word “ Collector “ in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.). However, these words have been omitted from the proposed sub-section by the House of Representatives, which has thus restored the bill to its original form. I support the amendment made by the House of Representatives, and shall show that the addition of the words “based upon reasonable grounds “ is not necessary. The intention of my colleague, Senator Wright, when he moved for the inclusion of those words, was no doubt to prevent a collector from exercising his authority under the section in an arbitrary, capricious or unfair manner, and to ensure that any such exercise of authority should be brought under the surveillance of the courts. That protection is already amply assured under the existing law without the addition of those words. Indeed, under well-settled provisions of the law an obligation already exists for a collector to act reasonably, and therefore the additional words are not necessary. Moreover, if inserted in the legislation they would work adversely to good administration. When the case “ Regina v. the Canadian Pacific Tobacco Company Limited “ came before the High Court, Mr. Justice Webb said that counsel had raised, among other questions, the question, “ To what extent can a court review the dissatisfaction of a collector? “. In answering that question the learned judge said -

It is the failure to satisfy the Collector that finally determines the liability to pay the duty on the deficiency. It is the Collector’s want of satisfaction, and not a court’s, that, is made the test of liability by section 105. The court must, however, examine the material which was before the’ Collector to,see whether there could: have been any. reasonable ground for the’ dissatisfaction of the Collector. But unless the court’ finds that his want of satisfaction was not’ honest, or was arbitrary or capricious, or against sound and fundamental) principle, or based on some fundamental’ error or illegal, it cannot interfere.

Later, in the same judgment, His Honour, cited with approval the following statement of- the- law from a judgment of the Privy Council- -

The court is always entitled to examine the facts which are shown by the evidence to have been before a> Minister- when he made’ his determination, lft those.- facts- are,-, in the opinion of- the court, insufficient! in. law to support- it, the, determination cannot’ stand. In such a case the. determination can only have been an arbitrary one.

That, judgment shows that where a person is required to account for goods to the satisfaction, of a collector, a collector cannot unfairly or capriciously, refuse to be satisfied if evidence which could cause a reasonable, person to be satisfied. is. produced. For this reason, the Government cannot see the need for the inclusion in proposed section 35a of the words “ based upon reasonable grounds “. The requirement “ to the satisfaction of a Collector “ occurs frequently without qualification in’ the customs and’ excise acts, and in regulations and securities. If the expression- is- qualified when used’ in proposed section’ 35a, it could be inferred that- some different meaning is to be applied to the expression in that section from that applicable when the expression is used in tHc numerous other cases without’ qualification. Honorable senators will appreciate that such a situation is- undesirable. For these1 reasons; Task the committee to accept the* amendment made by the House of Representatives’.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader ofl the. Opposition · Tasmania

, - Speaking- for the Opposition, I. indicate that we are not prepared to accept the amendment of the House of. Representatives: The Minister; in. thecourse , of his speech; indicated in effect that there, is, no. need, for- the addition- of- the words “ based upon reasonable, grounds.” for the reason that the law enables a court to review the..matter- adequately; I take -that to-be his- argument: If- that were the case, which I. dispute,- there could be no possible objection, to the addition of the words to make clear what’ the Minister himself indicates, is the law. The Minister has- relied upon. the. Canadian Pacific Tobacco case, which, I found some, weeks- ago, when I endeavoured to inform- my. mind on it. had not been reported in the recognized’- law reports. I discovered, to my. amazement, that there was- only one copy of the judgment in . Canberra; it was. in the possession of the Department’ of Customs and: Excise. The Attorney-General’s Department had only, a. brief printed report’ of the effect. of the decision; but iti did. not have the report. However, the Minister was good enough in the last few days, to give, me an opportunity to peruse the judgment, and I’ thank him for his courtesy, in. that matter.

I notice that, in, quoting from the judge ment, the Minister- made an incidental; reference to a i judgment by the -Privy Council in a case which he.- did! not. name, but in- the course of which he- read an extract from the. judgment. The extract from the Privy Council judgment: that was read to us by the Minister- just now- is as follows: -

The Court is always entitled to examine the facts’ which are shown by the evidence to have been before the Minister when he. made his determination. If those facts are. in the opinion of the Court insufficient in law-

They are the words to which I direct the Minister’s attention in particular - to support it, the determination cannot stand. In such a case the determination can only have been an arbitrary one.

The. reference there is. to whether,, in the opinion of the court; the.f acts are insufficient in. law to. support. the exercise of. discretion by, the. officer. That, applies- to the type of case where the act, unlike the present one, specifies that in determining a matter to his satisfaction the statutory officer shall have regard to factor (a), factor, (b), and factor (c).. If- the officer fails to advert to any one or more of those factors in the exercise of a discretion, when. he. is,, by law,, compelled to do so, then the court will unquestionably hold, that he was not satisfied’ in law. That is the type of case ‘to ‘which that particular’ extract, is referable; That is the- broad position.

The case- we are considering is not that type1 of case; it is the case where; under the proposed new section; a person- has dutiable goods which are subject to control of the customs, and, when so requested by the collector, a person does not account for those goods to the satisfaction of the collector. That is the way in which the provision was presented to us. There is no word there to1 suggest that he must take into account factor (a), (b) or (c), or any particular factor. It is left open as a matter of discretion.

The committee may recall that when the matter was discussed in this chamber before, I interjected- the* discussion was quite objective at the time- - and indicated that it was a matter of good” faith. I suggest that is the effect , of the decision; and even of the decision of Mr. Justice. Webb. I think- the judgment! quoted carries it no further than, that a court will always interfere- if there has Been bad faith. If, for instance, a collector did not address his mind to the matter at all; if. it could be established that he* said, “ I do not like a man who has been named after a colour “; if the man’s name was Black, or Blue, or Brown,, or something of the kind; and if the collector just arbitrarily expressed his dissatisfaction on that ground, it would be arbitrary, capricious, and the rest: I think the Minister, in the extract he quoted, affirms what is the prime law in this matter, when he says: -

It is the Collector’s want of satisfaction and not a. Court’s that is made the test of liability by section 105.

It1 must be the collector’s decision. It will not be disturbed, even if the court, on looking at the facts, does not agree with the conclusion that he reached. Even if the court, on looking at the facts that were before the collector, says-

Senator Vincent:

– Even if the facts, in the opinion of the appeal court, were not sufficient, it would not be a ground, for appeal?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, it is still a matter for the collector alone. Expressed in the very wide terms in which it was in the bill; it would, be entirely for the collector. There is ample authority for - that, and Ii do draw the committee’s: attention to’ the- fact that when’ quoting Mr-. Justice Webb’s judgment, the- Minister did: not read an extract from’ another judgment- to which. His; Honour referred:. There appears the extract quoted by the Minister now; and ‘immediately -under- it is- a further -case, Fraser’s case, already quoted in the judgment, which Mr. Justice Webb quoteswith approval: Here is the exact quotation which the Minister has not put before the committee -

If the discretion has been exercised bona fide, uninfluenced by* irrelevant considerations, not arbitrarily or- illegally, no court is entitled to interfere, even if the court, had the discretion been there, might have exercised it otherwise.

Senator Vincent:

– Does not the Leader of the Opposition think, that would: still bo a good proposition in law, even if the words– which’ he now suggests are not in; should be put in?

Senator MCKENNA:

– That is a good proposition in law, but in a moment I will carry the argument to the proposition- that a. court should not look at’ the fact unless there is- something to suggest the man, vested -with the discretion has acted in bad faith. L use that term at the moment to cover “ capriciously “, “ arbitrarily “, andi all the rest of the terms. It will only enter into a consideration of whether the decision of the collector that we have in this case should be set aside or not if there is something relevant to good faith and good conscience in the matter. The court will, not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the collector unless some- element of bad faith can be imported into it. I. think that is completely clear.

Quite frankly, at this late stage in the sessional period; 1 do not like embarking upon a. discussion of this matter which will take much time, but I think it is important; and’ I. should like to refer the committee,, as briefly as I can, to a case in. the: Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom as recently as 1947 where these very words were in issue.

The judgment: is;. lengthy; and, like the Minister, I can only make selections from it. on. the question of satisfaction to drive home my point. This is a post-war- case in the United Kingdom. Many areas were extensively damaged, and the law provided that where there had been extensivedamage and the Minister was satisfied that this part of the area should, be laid out afresh and redeveloped as a whole, he was given powers, of compulsory purchase. There we have a completely analogous case to the provision as it was first presented1 to’ us1 in the- Senate. T refer to- the words, “Where the Minister is satisfied that this part of the area should be laid out afresh “. The head-note states, in connexion with the findings -

The Minister is under no obligation to reveal the information other than the evidence at the public inquiry-

That was provided by statute - on which he is acting for it is not for the courts to decide whether the Minister had sufficient material to justify his satisfaction.

There is a clear indication that except in the rare cases where mala fides is established or alleged a court is not prepared to look at the facts before the officer vested with the discretion.

Senator Vincent:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the words which he wants to add would cover the position?

Senator McKENNA:

– I should say they would. It enables the court to look into all the facts that were before the Collector and to determine whether he acted reasonably and had reasonable grounds. The court may not agree with his conclusions, but as long as the court finds that he had reasonable grounds, it will not disturb his decision. Authorities can be found all over the place on this broad proposition about satisfaction. Put broadly, I think they are that the court will not substitute its decision for that of the statutory officer in any circumstances, but will set aside his decision and exercise a discretion only if there is bad faith. I use that term very generally. But, when you import into that that the officer’s judgment must be exercised and his decision reached upon reasonable grounds, you let the fresh air of a court enter the situation to determine whether the grounds were reasonable.

Senator Kendall:

– It does not say, “ reasonable grounds “, surely.

Senator McKENNA:

– They are the words that were added in this chamber. The provision, as it read originally, was -

Where a person who has, or has been entrusted with, the possession, custody or control of dutiable goods which are subject to the control of the Customs -

when so requested by a Collector, does not account for those goods to the satisfaction of a Collector

The words, “ based upon reasonable grounds “ were inserted by this chamber.

The House of Representatives considers that the words should be deleted. That is the actual issue. The question, then, is: Do those words which we put in remain, or do they not remain?

I should like to quote a few relevant passages from the judgment to which I have just referred. It is the judgment in the case of “ Robinson v. The Minister of Town and Country Planning “. It is to be found in 1947 Law Reports, King’s Bench Division, at page 702. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Greene, was in charge of the case. I have already indicated to the Senate the section of the act. The Minister had to be satisfied of a certain fact. His Honour said, at page 713 -

The other class of matter is, in my view, one of opinion and policy as to which the Minister, assuming always that he acts bona fide, is the sole judge; namely, he must be satisfied that it is requisite for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with extensive war damage that all or some part of the land in question should be laid out afresh and re-developed as a whole. The words “ requisite “ and “ satisfactorily “ clearly indicate that the question is one of opinion and policy, matters which are peculiarly for the Minister himself to decide. No objective test is possible.

Again, at page 714, His Honour said -

There are, as it appears to me, a variety of grounds on which this argument should be rejected. It imports an objective test into a matter to which such a test is entirely inappropriate since it leaves to the court to decide what matters are and what are not sufficient to justify a conclusion as to the requisiteness; this is necessarily so since the question which, according to the argument, the court has to propound to itself will be, was the evidence before the Minister such as to entitle him to be satisfied on the point of requisiteness; and this is to substitute a test formulated, in some unexplained manner and according to some unascertainable principle, by the court itself for the opinion of the Minister to which the language of the sub-section commits the decision.

It will be seen that the judgment tended strongly against the court superimposing its judgment upon that of the Minister. On the following page, Lord Greene stated -

But the proposition is in general true that a Minister cannot be compelled to disclose to the court material which has come to him in his executive capacity.

It is true that if any Minister - I am speaking of a Minister - cares to take the attitude in relation to a departmental matter that it would be against public policy that it should be disclosed, no court will compel him to disclose it. No court, once he takes that point, will regard what was before him as examinable.

Senator Vincent:

– Would the honorable senator say that the weight of evidence differs in two cases - one where reasonable grounds are prescribed and one where the word “ reasonable “ is not added to the condition?

Senator McKENNA:

– I think there is a distinction. 1 think that the addition of the words “ based upon reasonable grounds “ would leave it open to a court to look at the grounds, to determine whether they were reasonable. The other question, I admit, is arguable. If it is left at satisfaction, authorities can be found, such as the one cited by the Minister for Customs and Excise, which say that the courts will examine the material before the officer, but I could cite cases of equal authority which say that the courts will not look at it. We should remove whatever doubt there is by adding the words “ based upon reasonable grounds “ because I affirm that, without doubt, that addition would enable a court to look into the matter. Let me read a further extract from the judgment. Lord Greene went on to say -

How can this Minister, who is entrusted by Parliament with the power to make or not to make an executive order according to his judgment and acts bona fide (as he must be assumed to do in the absence of evidence to the contrary), be called upon to justify his decision by proving that he had before him materials sufficient to support it? Such justification, if it is to be called for, must be called for by Parliament, not by the courts, and I can see no ground in the language of the Act, in principle, or in authority for thinking otherwise.

There is the answer to the honorable senator who asked me a question a little while ago. The Master of the Rolls points out that if we want the courts to go into the grounds and into the material that was before the person vested with the discretion, Parliament should call for that to be done; it should make clear that it intends that those things shall be gone into. The amendment clearly does make that call. It opens the door to the courts to examine the material and to prevent arbitrary decisions from being made that no court would be entitled to look at. That is a principle that I should think every one of us would be prepared to contend for. It surprises me that there is any objection to it. The one objection that would appear to have some merit is this; that if we make this alteration, it will differentiate between that particular provision and other similar provisions of the act.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Anderson). - Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I have given a good deal of consideration to this matter since the vote was last taken in this chamber. At that time, I was in some doubt whether it would help to put these words in, because I am always reluctant to give unnecessary power to any official. I always listen with great attention to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and to another honorable senator, who sits behind me, because I like to be persuaded beyond doubt that the Government is right when it is conferring power on an official. I have come to the conclusion that these words are not necessary. I am afraid that I could not follow fully the argument of Senator McKenna, because much of it depends on the opinions of courts, with which a layman is not familiar. But while I do not want to give officials too much power, I certainly do not want to hinder them in the ordinary pursuit of their duty. I think we can make a mistake either way. We can give them too clear a mandate, or we can hamper them with unnecessary instructions which would involve bringing matters before the courts when there was no need for that to be done. I am satisfied with the explanation that has been given by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty), and I am prepared to support the clause as it originally stood.

Question put -

That the amendment be agreed to.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 22

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 966

WOOL RESEARCHBILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumedfrom21st May (vide page938), on motionbySenator Paltridge -

Thatthe billbe now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Senate has before it the Wool Research Bill 1957. I wish to point out to the Senate and to the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), in particular, that thisbill and the bills covered by orders of the day numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all part of a general pattern. They are all interconnected to serve the purposes of wool research and wool use promotion. If the Senate agrees, I propose that we debate the five bills together so that we may save time in considering the subsidiarymeasures.

The (PRESIDENT. -There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator McKENNA:

– First, Ishould like to comment on the Minister’s secondreading speech and to pay him the compliment of saying that I think it was one of the best second-reading speeches with which a bill has been introduced in this chamber for a long time. It dealt with the very important matter of wool research and wool use promotion. The Minister took the opportunity to review very thoroughly the important place that wool has in our economy and, in particular, the effect it has upon our balance of payments position. He developed very soundly the case for the need for research into wool and related problems. I thought that the Minister did very well to give some instances of what had already been achieved by research. Hedid so well in that connexion that I do not propose to go over the. ground that was covered by him under the three headsI have indicated. I hope that all other Ministers who have bills to present to this chamber will regard the speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport on this measure as a model.

I comment at once that it is not easy tograspthe effect of the five bills that we are taking together merely by reading them. Somestudyis required to determine, first, whythere should be twotax bills, one relating towool used locally andthe other towool which is exported. In addition, ineach ofthetax billsthere are two different types ofcharges.Itisnecessaryto refer to the Wool TaxAssessment Billto discover that the firstof those chargesrelates to wooluse promotion and the second to wool research. Itis a jobfor either a skilled draftsman or a lawyertopursue the ramifications andthe interlocking nature ofthese provisionsto get a clear pictureofthem.Ipropose toreview them without regard toindividual bills and as awhole.

My recollection of the history of the approach to wool research in Australia is that the first act-the WoolPublicity and Research Act-waspassed in 1936 . A charge of only 6d. a bale wasfixed then to provide the fundsto enable research to proceed in Australia. In 1944, the yield from that tax was only £82,000. Of that amount, £39,000 went to the International Wool Secretariat in London which was representative of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. The1936 act was repealed by ‘the Labour government in 1945 when the wholebasis of research was recast, and a new charge of 2s. a bale was imposed to provide funds for wool use promotion. At the same time, the Government made a contribution of 2s. a bale for research. It is rather interesting to note the enormous rise in the charge that was made upon participants in the industry. The charge was quadrupled; it was lifted from6d, which amount applied from 1936, to 2s. a bale.

There was another development in 1946 when the WoolIndustry Fund Act provided for a fundtobe set upforthebenefit of woolresearch.An amount of £7,000,000 thathad been collected by the Central Wool Committeewas usedto establish the fund.Itwas invested and ear-marked for the purposes of wool research. The present Government amended the act in1 1952. and’ increased the charge for wool use- promotion from a minimum of 2s. to a maximum, of 5s:, and’ settled the charge at 4s. This Government doubled the charge! All this, was done, of course, with’ the concurrence of those engaged in the industry:

In 1953; the Government repealed the previous acts and enacted: a new omnibus act. The new act dealt with the two subjects of research and wool use promotion in the one measure. The bills that are now before the Senate are really a comprehensive set of proposals to cover the whole field. We have before us a bill to deal with wool research, a separate bill to deal with wool use promotion, two taxing bills and a- wool tax- assessment bill; The net result’ of all’ that is that the Govern? ment’s contribution, towards wool’ research will be lifted from 2s. to 4s. a bale. That is a very substantial contribution towards the programme. For the first time, the growers- are making: a contribution to research at the high level of 2s. a bale. The other moneys that’ will be available for research will come from the Wool Industry Fund, to which. I have referred.. The total revenue for. research, would seem to be in the neighbourhood of £1,750,000 per annum.

I leave the’ question of research and pass tO’ the question of wool use promotion, the charge- for which will be left where it is at the’ present time, that is, a maximum charge.- of 5s. or a minimum charge of 2s. a- bale;. with the charge running at the level of 4s.. a bale.

That; Broadly, is the programme that will Bc implemented by the five bills. Their purposes are worthy and will be in the interest; not only of the growers, but of Australia as a whole. The Opposition has noi hesitation in’ supporting the measures.

Since I commenced speaking I have had placed in my hand, through the courtesy of Senator Cole, notification of an amendment that he proposes te move in the committee stage. The one thing in it in which. I- am interested- is a proposal’ that the Australian Primary Producers Union should’ be represented’ on the Australian Wool Bureau. I. had intended to say something on that subject and to express myself- in- favour of the proposal at the- appropriate time: Subject to consideration’ of the exact terms of Senator Cole’s amendment; I- might perhaps be prepared’ to support it at the- appropriate time:

I, in common, with a good many honorable senators, I understand, have been requested by the Australian Primary Producers. Union tot press the Government tr> accord it representation on the bureau* The. union!s case rests upon the fact, that it has a very large membership, that, itoperates: in many. States, , and that it has a wool, committee, which looks after the interests- of those, of its members who are concerned in wool-growing. I think.it might be more opportune if si were to reserve -my remarks, on that subject until Senator Cole’s proposal- is. under, consideration.

In conclusion; I again congratulate the Minister upon- his second-reading speech; On behalf of the Opposition, I support the whole- plan, and I- trust that the good-results that have been obtained hitherto- through research and wool use promotion will be continued under the new aegis..

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

!- As this is the final day of the current, sessional period-

Senator Brown:

– How does, the honorable senator know?

Senator MAHER:

– As I’ understand’ the situation, it is. No one can be really certain-, but we are working on that assumption. I was about to say that I have not. had- sufficient time to prepare and complete a- proper coverage of what is involved in this- form of taxation on the wool-grower. The proposed legislation will mean that, inevitably, the wool-growers will be required to contribute a further. 2s. per bale, ls. per fadge or butt, and 4d. per bag, which means that their total contribution or tax will be brought up to 6s. a bale. In addition to that, the Commonwealth Government will contribute 4s. a bale.

I- admit the~ importance of wool research. Much useful- work has already been done, but without doubt there is scope for more intensive research into the quality of wool fibre. That is all the more desirable in view of the challenge of” synthetics on the. world’s markets: That being so, we- can justify the expenditure that has been made in the past and, with wool realizing reasonably good prices - I use the term “ reasonably good “ because of ever-increasing costs in the industry - the wool-growers can perhaps stand up to a further increase of 2s. a bale. We should, therefore, employ officers who are skilled and capable of performing this important branch of research.

I do not want to adopt a parsimonious attitude towards this matter, but I should like to say that to many small wool-growers this tax is rather burdensome. I think it can be fairly said that most of the wool that is grown in Australia is produced by the smaller growers, that is, those who have smaller flocks. Many of the big Stations that we knew at the turn of the century have been broken up for closer settlement, and the trend is continually in favour of smaller areas for wool-growing. So there are now many more wool-growers throughout Australia who have to bear this impost of 6s. a bale for research purposes.

As the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), who is in charge of the bill, said in his second-reading speech, the fact that the overall return from the wool industry for the current financial year, on the basis of its export value, will be approximately £500,000,000 indicates that this industry is of vast importance to the Australian economy. But we must not overlook the fact that at the bottom of the ladder there are very many small growers who find it difficult to meet a tax of this kind. The individual small grower - indeed, every grower of wool - finds that rising costs are cutting deeply into his income. Every twelve months applications are made to the various industrial courts by the Australian Workers Union for increased wages in the pastoral industry. The courts invariably concede rising costs, with the result that wages for pastoral employees have increased substantially over the past few years.

Land rents in Queensland have been rising steadily. In fact, appraisements recently have risen by 100 per cent., and in many cases by 200 per cent. In addition, shire rates have been heavily increased, and income tax is at a fairly high level. The purchase of fencing materials, windmills, oil engines, motor trucks and utilities, petrol and all the other things that are essential to wool-growers in remote areas absorbs a very substantial part of the gross income from wool, in spite of the present level of values. Although the imposts envisaged in the bills seem to be desirable, we should ponder upon their effect on the wool-growers. This contribution has risen progressively from the original amount of 2s. a bale to 4s. a bale a year or two ago, and now it is again on the increase to 6s. a bale. The wool-grower naturally asks where it is to stop. Australian woolgrowers will now be called upon to contribute over £1,350,000 per annum for the purposes of wool research and wool sales promotion. The Commonwealth Government, I agree, has been making a substantial contribution, which is now about £445,000 per annum and which will increase to about £890,000 per annum. This means that the total expenditure by the Commonwealth Government and the wool industry combined will reach about £2,250,000 per annum, of which, as stated by the Minister, about £1,700,000 will be paid into the Wool Research Trust Fund. This sum is to be ear-marked specially for wool research. This is big money and should surely cover the needs of the Wool Research Committee for many years to come. I hope that that will be the case.

This morning in the Senate I asked the Minister for particulars of the number of farms or stations which have been acquired by the Comm’onwealth Government on behalf of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization for purposes of wool research. I also sought particulars of the number of persons employed on those farms and stations, and I asked whether it was proposed to use the increased receipts in this fund to acquire further farms and stations for wool research purposes and whether the staff of the farms and stations would be increased. Unfortunately, there was not time for a reply to be compiled in full and put through the hands of the Minister. However, I must thank Mr. Wallace, of the Department of Primary Industry, who was kind enough to go to a good deal of trouble to let me have that information. He has informed me that station properties are at present operated by the C.S.I.R.O. in Victoria, at Highett; in

New South Wales, at Deniliquin, Trangie - in co-operation with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture - Chiswick, Glenfield - in co-operation with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture - and Prospect, where the establishment is basically a research laboratory; in Queensland, at Cunnamulla, Julia Creek, and Yeerongpilly. Mr. Wallace also states that a lot of work is done in conjunction with the University of Queensland. In South Australia, work is done at the Waite Research Institute on a co-operative basis, and there is a substation at Robe. In Western Australia the organization works on a co-operative basis with the Western Australian Institute of Agriculture, which is operated under the University of Western Australia, and there is also co-operative research on various private farms in that State. In Tasmania, co-operative work is also undertaken on private properties.

It can be seen that there is quite a number of station properties operated by the C.S.I.R.O. in the various States. Mr. Wallace informs me that it was difficult to say how many people employed on these stations were directly concerned - that is an important qualification - with wool, as most of the staff is engaged also on research other than wool research, into pastoral improvement, animal husbandry in relation to dairy cattle, pigs, and sheep, and parasites of cattle. Mr. Wallace went on to say -

I am unable to give you the total number of people employed generally at the above stations. I tried to get the information from the C.S.I.R.O. office in Canberra, but they could not oblige. They stated that the information would be available from the head office of the C.S.I.R.O. in Melbourne, but time will not permit this office to be contacted before this bill goes through. Perhaps I might be able to do something for you in this respect at a later date.

The important point that I would like to emphasize is that contributions for research into the wool fibre have apparently been utilized in the past to maintain these station depots and to employ technical officers there. There has not been concentration on the study of the wool fibre. Funds have been dispersed on activities over a wider field of pasture improvement, parasites of cattle, and other elements of rural activity. Effort has not been directed specifically to maintaining the wool fibre as a valuable world commodity in the face of the challenge of synthetics.

If we are to meet the challenge of synthetics, research must be conducted into the wool itself, and we must not use our valuable technical officers over a wider field of effort. If the latter course is adopted, we shall not achieve the end for which this tax on the wool industry has been specifically designed. There is room for the new Wool Research Committee to look into this important phase and to see whether it is not possible to concentrate on wool research. I hold the view that we will achieve much more valuable results and incur less expense and impose less taxes on the wool industry if we have a limited number of quality research officials to tackle the problem of the wool fibre. We should not disperse that effort in remote station properties all over Australia.

In every group of men there are leaders of thought, leaders in inventive resourcefulness, and leaders in research of every kind. Would it not be better to bring together the leaders and let them conduct wool research in one place, where they could supervise, direct, encourage and instruct men of lesser qualifications in the technical field? Good young cadets, lacking perhaps the grounding and instruction which could come from men more thoroughly qualified, perhaps in metropolitan areas or otherwise far removed from field work, are being sent to stations dispersed over a wide area.

I hope that this important aspect of the matter will not be lost upon the Minister and that the proposed Wool Research Committee will look into it. This legislation has the goodwill of senators and members of Parliament, as well as of the public generally, because it is known that wool means so much to our economy. We are prepared, perhaps, to spend money on matters related to wool with a little too much abandon, without examining whether we are really getting value for our expenditure. We must not lose sight of this particular fact. The Minister acknowledged it in his second-reading speech, and I think it is worth while quoting it afresh for the benefit of honorable senators. He said -

One of the most remarkable features of the development of our highly efficient wool industry is the extent of the achievement of the woolgrowers themselves. It is to them that most of the credit for the development of the merino as a breed, which is renowned throughout the world, is due.

There is .not much our old merino stud masters do .not know about sheep and wool. Whilst there may be. some chemical and technical processes that -are a little beyond .them, it .takes .a .pretty good -man to get ahead .of -what our merino stud masters -know about the industry in this country to-day. When allocations of money are made, let us be sure that we use the money for the purpose for which we are told it is needed, namely, research into wool, and that it .is not devoted to employing -men to look into other .phases of .pastoral activity which are fairly well covered ib,y the departments of agriculture and stock in .the ‘various States.

I should ‘like to say, ‘too, that we must not overlook that the wool-grower ‘has been responsible for an impressive increase - -those .were .the -Minister’s words - –in the value and volume of wool grown and exported. We .have produced, and we are, producing (record quantities of wool,, and the world recognizes the quality .of the product by .paying us a price which is -on. a good basis .to-day. We should do anything we can to help the wool-grower, through the -use of chemical processes, .to make our -wool position unchallengeable. -A committee of nine men representative .of -various sections of primary industry - the majority will -be wool-growers - is to be -set up. The committee’s main job, as far as I can judge from ‘this ‘bill, will be to see that the money which we vote is utilized for the purpose for which we are voting it and not used for research into other pastoral activities. 1 agree with the principles of ‘the bill, but I ‘hope that the -committee will see that the contributors get value ‘for their money. -Senator O’BYRNE (Tasmania) 13.18]. - My remarks on this bill will be very brief. First, I wish to congratulate the Minister for ‘Shipping ‘and Transport (Senator Paltridge) on the introduction of this bill. We are .pleased indeed to see that the initiative has been taken to get on with the matter of improving, not only the ‘basic conditions for the growing Of our wool, but all the phases of the industry right up to the stage of selling and -using the wool. That will be done as a result of the money that will become available through ‘the institution .of this fund. Like the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), I should. like i to mention that iwc in .Tasmania are interested .in ‘having i the .-Australian .Primary ,Producers .Union represented on the Australian Wool .Bureau. We feel that the Australian Primary -Producers .Union, having -such .wide .ramifications, rand < representing such a large .body .of primary -producers -throughout this .country, should .have a representative on the bureau.

I should like also ‘to mention, on the one -hand, that the case put up by Senator “Maher was a very good one from’ the point of view -df the wool-grower. On the other hand, from the national point- of view, seeing that the wool industry “is ‘so prosperous, and that the ““Commonwealth ‘Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has successfully devoted -so much df its energy over the years to the wool industry, I think it is very hard to separate the activities -of one particular section >of primary ‘industry from those of another. He mentioned ‘the various .research -.stations .throughout the Commonwealth. It .is, .of .course, vitally important .that these stations should be widely distributed. For instance, in the St. George and Cunnamulla areas where Senator Maher lives there is .a wonderful research ..station that has :done excellent work over the ..years in the investigation of the .effect .of -blow-fly. in . sheep. To-day the stage has .been reached, through the. research work of the C.S.I.R.O. into that aspect of sheep-raising, where aldrin -and dieldrin have virtually brought the blow:fly menace completely -under. control.

Another interesting fact mentioned in the second-reading speech. df the .”Minister - and implicit in the setting up .of .the .fund - is the use of : these .chemicals .aldrin and dieldrin -in the next phase of production, namely the moth-proofing of the material manufactured out of the wool ‘fibre. As Senator ‘Maher ‘has ‘mentioned,: the activities of the various .research stations are :not devoted -entirely to wool. “He said that research -.into the pig .’industry, :the cattle industry, .cattle tick and other (matters is carried (‘on, rand the :wool-grower has been asked to finance this -research .through the levy <that-.is -being made of him. However, that -position applies < elsewhere. . = In Victoria, research is proceeding :at the Highett ‘research station into “such -things -as foot rot, intestinal worm -infection, .pink eye .and scabby mouth, diseases which. do not occur in Queensland. That work is -being done by -the ‘C.S.I.R.O. with possibly :a greater proportion of ‘Commonwealth funds. The wool industry throughout the country is obtaining the ‘benefit of the combined efforts of research into primary industries.

I see the justice in Senator Maher’s point that the cattle industry and other primary industries should make some contribution towards research into ‘their problems and that research should be conducted exclusively “into wool fibres and the sheep indus- ^ try itself; into the wool when it is shorn and later when’1 it is presented on the world’s markets. However, I think it is a very good idea to build up a ‘substantial reserve of funds so that scholarships can be offered and ; anything else that ‘the bureau sees ‘fit to promote :the interests of the wool industry.

It is interesting to note ‘that the average cut -per sheep throughout Australia ‘to-day is about 9 lb. for the fleece, yet ‘in some of the many stud flocks cuts of up to 11 5 -lb. to 20 lb. are obtained. The average cut obtained at these studs is 16 lb. -or 17 lb. df wool. There is a difference between the average cut of 9 lb., and cuts of 15 lb. or 16 lb., and even up to 18 lb. that have become possible with pasture improvement, water conservation and the right type of feed. After all, what goes down the throat of the sheep is responsible for 80 per cent, of the quality of the wool. If a sheep has the right feed, it will grow better wool and have a better frame. All these factors are associated with soil and pasture improvement and the provision of adequate supplies of good water, so that stock will not have to travel far to drink, and thus reduce the quality of the wool. These are factors of great .importance and justify thorough investigation by the .committee. Considering the value of the wool industry to our economy, ,and the -work that is being done by individual farmers, this body will .be a co-ordinating .organization and can only result in great .benefit to the wool industry. I am .confident that the .Australian people, both now and in the future, will benefit greatly by the use that will be made of this fund .in the development of techniques associated with the production and manufacture of wool. I .support the bill.

Senator COLE:
4Leader .o’f the Anti-Communist Labour party · Tasmania

– As many .aspects cif wool production are prominent in these ‘bills and are ‘matters ‘df great interest ‘to Australia as a nation, I do not -think that any wool-grower should mind ‘paying ‘the contribution, or tax, for which -this measure ‘provides. ‘Indeed, I am ‘sure that wool-growers will get back much more for their investment than they will pay under the scheme outlined in the bill. I rose only to notify the Senate that members of this party are satisfied with the bills, except for one small matter concerning the Wool .Use Promotion Bill, and the bureau that is to be set up. J mention now that, in committee, I shall move an amendment affecting the membership of the bureau.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

-. - il :endorse .the protest of Senator ;Maher -against -important bills such, as those now before the . Senate ‘.being brought before this chamber so late in the sessional period. As :a general mule, the Senate is not given -sufficient :time ito consider the legislation -brought before it. 1 ,mar.vel at the capacity of the Leader ;df -.the Opposition (Senator McKenna) -to debate ‘legislation .as <he does when r-so -little ‘Opportunity ‘is afforded to him :to study it. -Honorable senators are entitled to have at least a day to ; become acquainted with each piece of legislation presented ‘to them. That applies .particularly ito .members :of the -various committees of the Parliament, .who .have even less opportunity than other members have to study the legislation ‘before the Parliament.

Although this is an important bill, -I shall -not take long in discussing it, but -I do -not want this ‘opportunity to -pass without paying -my tribute to the work o’f the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial “Research Organization, particularly its operations :in Western Australia. In ‘that State, as in other parts of Australia, it has been actively engaged in ‘research into matters relating to sheep and wool. That organization ‘has an excellent man in >Dr. Bennetts, -who has been in Western Austra’lia for ‘many <years, and has been investigating a ‘number of complaints such as braxy-like -disease, :toxic paralysis, and wasting ‘disease ‘in cattle, which are peculiar to Western Australia and have -caused much concern ‘to ‘Stock-breeders. ‘In every case the CS.I.R.’O. has overcome many dim.culties and produced a cure, and ‘has thus rendered great service to wool-growers and stock-breeders in Western Australia. The fund which this legislation will provide will increase the opportunity of the C.S.I.R.O. and other organizations to render valuable service to the nation. I do not think that Senator Maher mentioned the name of the research station at Kojonup, in the southwestern district of Western Australia, where valuable work is being done on the property known as “ Calrossie “. Much valuable work has been done by woolgrowers, not only in increasing the sheepcarrying capacity of land, but also in adding to the weight of the fleece per sheep. The weight of the fleece has been increased by 50 per cent, and the carrying capacity of the land by 55 per cent, as a result of the work that has been undertaken.

I have recently read an excellent publication issued by the Haddon Rig property, in which some particulars are given and photographs shown of two rams, one of the latest type and one of many years ago. We have only to study the pictures reproduced in that publication to see the improvement that has been brought about by wool-growers in the type of sheep produced and the quality of their wool. My support for this measure is strengthened by the fact that it has the support of the wool-growing interests. Their support of it makes it unnecessary for us in this chamber to examine the measure as thoroughly as we otherwise would feel called upon to do. The fact that they have signified their readiness to increase their contribution, so that there will be available a total of 6s. a bale, is evidence that they are in favour of this measure. The total of 6s. a bale will be expended on the basis of 4s. for the promotion of wool and 2s. for research. I repeat that I could not allow this opportunity to pass without paying a tribute to the valuable work that has been done for the industry by the C.S.I.R.O., particularly in Western Australia.

At the close of the wool marketing season during World War II. numbers of wool stores were handed over to organizations connected with wool-growing, and were to be a source of revenue to the woolgrowing industry, by furnishing funds for bodies such as this. Can the Minister say whether those stores are still held, what revenue is derived from them, and how much of it will go- into one or other of these funds?

Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania

– I support the bills before the Senate. They are important measures which are designed to assist in the development of the Australian wool industry. In my opinion, it is necessary to have on the various committees proper representation of the wool-growing interests, as well as of scientific and manufacturing interests. Of course, it is also important that there :hall be sufficient finance for these organizations to carry out their work efficiently. ‘”’ I think that the contributions that will be made by the Commonwealth Government and by the industry itself, as set out in the bill, are fair and reasonable, and I know that they will have the full support of the organizations concerned. The statement that the wool industry is of great importance to Australia cannot be gainsaid. That is evident from the fact that its turnover will amount to about £500,000,000 this year. As about 50 per cent, of the wool grown in Australia is exported, it is clear that every effort should be made to protect and develop this valuable industry.

It is important also that the various organizations that are set up in connexion with the wool industry should keep in close touch with developments in the manufacture of synthetic materials. The latest information is that about £20,000,000 a year is being expended by the manufacturers of synthetic materials in an endeavour to produce goods that will compete with wool. This particular aspect should be given special attention by the committee when it takes over its duties.

Another matter of vital importance, particularly to those in the manufacturing field, is that they should be kept acquainted with the latest improvements in manufacture. I believe that there is a big market open for the sale of textiles of which advantage has not been taken by Australia. I refer particularly to the overseas market for fine wool textiles. I do not think that Australian manufacturers are sufficiently alive to the great advantage they have in the excellent raw materials available in Australia for the manufacture of goods for export. I should say that either they have been overlooked or there has been some other reason why they have not been exploited. It may be that they need new machinery or new methods of manufacture, and I hope that the new committee will cover this important aspect of the wool industry. I did mention the recommendation of the A.P.P.U. That is a very important organization which came into being in 1945. It now has a membership of 100,000 and of that number 25,000 are wool-growers. I should like to see that body represented on the various committees that are to be set up. There is nothing further that I can add. I strongly support the bill.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– in reply - I rise merely to express briefly my pleasure at the reception the Senate has given to this bill, to notify Senator Cole formally that the Government is unable to accept his amendment, and to pass some brief comment upon the remarks of Senator Maher in particular.

Senator Maher expresses some doubt as to the use to which the wool-growers’ funds will be put in the field of wool research. Possibly the most convincing answer I can give to his doubt would be to say that the wool-growers’ organizations concerned in. these negotiations have entered into this contract quite freely and with no doubt that the money that they are contributing will be well expended.

The wool-growers’ fund will be looked after by a very alert committee. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, which is the executive body controlling all these moneys used in research activities, will be kept, I do not doubt, under very close surveillance by this committee to see that these funds do not go astray.

I was interested to hear Senator Maher’s comment about the necessity for not maintaining too many of these field stations and so conserving expenditure. I appreciate his point; indeed, I always do because I know he pays particular attention to the important question of costs. In this respect, however, I do point out that a policy of centralization, if I may so describe it, can be carried too far and could defeat the very purpose of this field research, in that it is necessary that research be conducted in a number of localities in order to get results from as broad a field as possible.

Senator Maher also made some mention of wool fibre research. I can assure him and the industry that the funds provided for wool fibre research are looked after very well indeed inasmuch as that type of research is undertaken at laboratories. I remind him that at the laboratories in Geelong in Victoria and at Ryde in New South Wales the work done is exclusively wool fibre research.

During the second reading debate, mention was made of extension work. I should like it to be thoroughly understood that although provision is made in the bill for the expenditure of money on extension work, it is the view of the Government that the fund should not be looked upon as the major source of finance for extension work generally. It is considered that such expenditure should be confined principally to the application of the results of research derived from the wool research programme. As that matter, too, will be under the continuing surveillance of the research committee, I have no doubt that none of the funds will escape, and that the moneys will be expended on the purposes described in the bill.

Senator Seward:

asked what had happened to the number of wool sheds which were taken over by the Wool Bureau after the war. He probably recalls that by the 1953 act, control of these stores was vested in the Wool Bureau, and any revenue derived therefrom is spent on maintenance of and improved equipment for those buildings. There is also provision in the act that any surplus moneys may be applied to wool use promotion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I refer to clause 12, which deals with the composition of the Wool Research Committee. I was very disappointed to find that when the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) moved an amendment in another place to add to the personnel of this committee two representatives of the trade unions, his amendment was rejected by the Government. I would move a similar amendment in this chamber, but I know that the Opposition could not carry it; and; even if we did , the amendment would be rejected in another place. Therefore, I merely express my grave disturbance at the factthat the Government hasfailedto recognize the part! the employees of this great industry play.

Honorable- senators might ask whatrepresentatives of trade unions would know about wool research. I point out’ that the men working in this industry, at all levels, from the shepherds out in the field to the people who are engaged in: the transport, shearing, classing, scouring and manufacturing processes,. indeed all the people handling . wool and its products at all stages, live in far closer proximity to the sheep and wool than do the owners of the sheep. This vast army of men devote their lives to the care of sheep and the handling of the products from sheep. Itis certain that they would be aware of problemsconnected with the industry in a most practical way and might well be able to contribute valuable thoughts and suggestions for research to the body charged with responsibility for research;

I point out that when the Labour government passed the Wool Use Promotion- Act in1945 it provided for representation on the; body then set up - the Wool Consultative Council - of the Australian WorkersUnion and the Australian. Textile Workers Union. There were two representatives from the trades unions, in common with wool manufacturers; textile distributors, authorities concerned with technical education and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.I have never heard any criticism of the manner in which that body, with that comprehensive representation, functioned: It appears to me that it would be desirable to bring together for the purpose of directing research those who have a financial interest in the sheep, in the ownership and proprietorship, and those, who, down the years, do all the work. I do not. propose to move an amendment, because I realize that it would be futile to do so. On behalf of the Opposition. I merely place on record our great disappointment that the request has not been granted by. the Minister.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister forShipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) does not propose to move an amendment, I take this opportunity to put as gently as I can - I do not want to provoke him - the Government’s point of view on this matter. It is true, as he has said; that an amendment was moved in another place; and equally, true that the Government did not accept it.

The purposeof theWool Research Committee is to recommend the expenditure of moneys in the Wool Research Trust Fund’ on scientific and economic research; the co-ordination and application of the results of such research and the dissemination of information and advice relating to research in connexion with the wool’ industry. It will be observed that it is not the function of this committee to concern itself in any way either with labour or managerial problems. It is purely and simply a research committee. I point out to theLeader of the Opposition that ifit so occurs that any employee engaged in the industrydoes want toput a certain point of view to the committee, it willbeopentohim togoto the committee, and equally it, will be open to the committee to hear that point of view put by the. employee: concerned. But the. functions of the committee are such that it is considered it would be appropriate for a trade union representative to beplaced upon it.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Wool Consultative Council, which went out. of existence in 1953, and on which there were two trade union representatives. It was not, to say the least, a very effective committee.I do not lay the blame for that at the door of the trade union representatives. I merely place on record that it went out of existence in 1953 with a record’ of not Having done very much in the interests of the wool” industry.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

;- Clause 9 reads -

The purposes in respect of which expenditure may be approved under the last preceding section are purposes in relation to the following matters: - .

scientific or economic research in- connexion with the production or use of wool, or of goods made wholly on partly from wool;

In his secondreading speech, the Minister fon Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) referred: to the fact that a considerable amount of research in relation to wool is being carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.I point outthat someof the research being undertaken by the C.S.I.R.O. would appear to be similar to the research for. which money will be made available from, the fund. Will the Minister inform me of the extent to which money will be made available to the C.S.I.R.O. for the carrying out of research on behalf of the council? Is it envisaged that there will be a direct grant in this connexion? Is it intended that there shall be a. sharing of the cost of some of the research work now being done by the C.S.I.R.O.? I should like the Minister to indicate the line of demarcationbetween money; from the. fund. spent on research conducted by the C.S.I.R.O. and money madeavailable to. the: wool industry.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for CivilAviation · Western Australia · LP

– The bill provides for the undertaking of joint projects such as Senator O’Byrne has in mind, where it is in the interests of the wool industry so to do. There would be no bar against the C.S.I.R.O. and this committee getting together financially and in other ways to engage in any form of. research approvedby the committee. The bill provides that the committee shall examine all projects which might be of use or benefit tothe wool industry. Itwill havepower to recommend the expenditure of money on any project that it deems suitable.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– Will the Minister give a definite assurance that money from the fund will not be used for the purpose of duplicating research already being undertaken? We do not want a new team of research workers in the wool industry, duplicating work already being done by the C.S.I.R.O. I ask the Minister to state the position specifically so that when the fundis established, those administering. it will realize that they must work in close co-operation with other bodies. We do not want a new top-heavy, organization; doing research work that is already being done by the C.S.I.R.O. If, that were so, there might be petty jealousiesbetween researchers working for the organization and those working for the fund. Instead of co-operation, there would be dissipation of effort I should like the Minister to make a. statement- now for the guidance of the committee when it is established.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I can readily give to Senator O’Byrne an assurance that there will be no duplication of research activities. Indeed, one of the objectives of the bill is to avoid: duplication and unnecessary expense. I would point out, asI might well have done when I was last on myfeet that included in the committee will be a representative of the C.S.I.R.O. who will, doubtless, maintain close liaison between that organization and the committee.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.’.

page 975

WOOL TAX, BILL. (No. 1) 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 939); on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 975

WOOL TAX BILL (No: 2) 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 939), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 975

WOOL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 939), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed throughits remaining stages withoutamendment or debate.

page 976

WOOL USE PROMOTION BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 940), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Tasmania

– I desire to propose an amendment to clause 6, which reads - (1.) Section nine of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (1.), (2.) and (3.) and inserting in their stead the following sub-sections: - “ (1.) The Bureau shall consist of -

  1. six members representative of Australian woolgrowers; and
  2. one other member. “ (3.) Three of the members representative of Australian woolgrowers shall be appointed upon the nomination of the organization known as the Australian Woolgrowers’ Council, and three of those members shall be appointed upon the nomination of the organization known as the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation.”

I move -

That in proposed sub-section (3.) all words after the word “ Council “ be left out and the following words inserted: - “ two of those members shall be appointed upon the nomination of the organization known as the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation and one member shall be appointed upon the nomination of the organization known as the Australian Primary Producers’ Union.”.

This amendment was not moved in another place as was the amendment to which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) referred during the debate on the preceding measures. In that instance, a somewhat similar amendment to the Wool Research Bill was proposed. I am sure that the organization concerned would have preferred a like amendment to have been incorporated in this measure. Ordinarily, much of the sting is taken out of the argument that can be presented in support of an amendment because its fate is known from the beginning. In this instance, I hope that honorable senators on the Government side, particularly those who, in the main, represent rural electors, will persuade the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) to listen sympathetically to my case.

I quite agree with the provision in proposed new sub-section (3.) that the Australian Wool Growers Council should be represented on the Australian Wool Bureau because it represents an important section of the community. I do not suggest that the proposed representation on that council should be increased. The Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation represents several branches of production associated with the wool industry, and should have representation, but I believe it is equally important that the Australian Primary Producers Union should be represented on the bureau. Senator Wardlaw informed the Senate this morning, in the course of a question, that the A.P.P.U. has 25,000 members. They deserve representation on the bureau.

Senator Wade:

– Are all those 25,000 members wool-growers?

Senator COLE:

– Let me cite the case of Tasmania. Members of the Tasmanian Farmers Federation, which is affiliated with the A.P.P.U., produce all sorts of primary products. They are mixed farmers, and grow potatoes, peas and other crops, but every farm carries a few fat lambs.

Senator Maher:

– This bill is directed specifically to wool promotion.

Senator COLE:

– It will be concerned also in some ways with fat lambs.

Senator Maher:

– It refers to the wool industry.

Senator COLE:

– Lamb skins are used for textile manufactures and other products, but it is a case of “ Sheepskins for Russia”. I believe that the A.P.P.U. should be represented on the Australian Wool Bureau. There will be three representatives of the straight-out wool-growers, like Senator Maher, and there will be two representatives of those who produce wool and are also interested in sheepskins and meat. I am asking for the appointment of one representative of the A.P.P.U., because its members are widely concerned in the production of wool. The members of its affiliated body in Tasmania are specially interested. Many of the bigger sheep-growers in Tasmania are associated with the A.P.P.U.

Senator McCallum:

– They could join the wool-growers’ organizations.

Senator COLE:

– That is true, but they have not done so. They are associated with an affiliate of the A.P.P.U., and they want representation on this bureau. Representations in that connexion have been made to me and I believe we should accede to the request because the organization concerned is strong numerically. If it were granted representation, no other body would be deprived of a place on the bureau. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment carefully and will change his mind. A good Minister can always do so.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I rise to speak only briefly to the amendment, because I indicated during the secondreading stage that the Government was not prepared to accept it. I hasten to assure Senator Cole that I did not tell him so at that stage out of any spirit of discourtesy or because of any disinclination to hear any argument he might put forward. I took advantage of that opportunity so to inform him because in my second-reading speech I specifically referred to the fact that consideration had been given to representations that had been made and that the Government had decided that they could not be acceded to.

Senator Cole:

– But the Minister did not give any reasons.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I shall try to be a little more persuasive now. I say at once that the basis of the agreement between the Government and the wool-growers’ organizations was that they shall be represented on the Australian Wool Bureau in the manner prescribed in the bill, that is, three representatives from the Australian Wool Growers Council and three from the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation. To accept the amendment would require at this stage a re-opening of the negotiations between the Government and these organizations.

I suggest to Senator Cole that, if the Australian Primary Producers Union feels as strongly as apparently it does about the question of its having representation on this body, a very realistic approach to the problem would be for the union to approach the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, put its case to that body, and ask it to make way for one representative from the Australian Primary Producers Union.

A powerful argument why the A.P.P.U. should not have representation on a body that is concerned exclusively with wool is that the union does not represent concentrated interests to nearly the same extent as do the two organizations that will be represented. The A.P.P.U. embraces such primary producers as people interested in fisheries, bee-keepers, orchardists, poultry-farmers, market gardeners, nurserymen, horticulturists, cane-farmers and banana-growers. I suggest that it would be completely inappropriate for an organization which covered such multifarious activities to have representation on a body that was concerned exclusively with wool.

For all those reasons, the Government rejects the amendment.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Questionso resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported withoutamendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 978

DAIRYINGINDUSTRYBILL 1957

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

SecondReading.

SenatorPALTRIDGE (Western AustraliaMinister for “Shipping andTransport and Minister for ‘Civil Aviation) . [4.1 5]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Shortly after theGovernment came into office in December,1949,it put into effect the first phase of a promisemadewhen in Opposition thatsubject to the approval ofthedairy industry and oftheState governments, they would assure stabilization to the dairy industry for a period of at least ten years. The arrangement which existed undertheChifley Government was extended and greater benefits to the dairy-farmer generally were agreedto.

In1952afive-year stabilization scheme for this industry wasintroduced. As history has ‘shown it has given a considerable degree ofsecurity and prosperity ‘to the industry. Over the period of seven and a half years since this Government ‘took office the dairy industry subsidy has totalled £112,000,000. A considerable portion of this benefited ‘the taxpayer in theformof a consumersubsidy.

The present stabilization scheme, ‘and the Dairying Industry Act of 1952 which gave legal effect ‘to the -scheme, are duetoterminate on 30thJune next. Thetimehas come to introduce to Parliament the necessary legislation to implement a new stabilization scheme for the five-year period commencing1 stJuly this year. That isthe purpose : ofthis bill.

The Senate knows the important place the dairying industry occupies in the Australian economy.Ihave bef ore mesome very interesting figures which showhow firmly establishedthe industry really is.For example, total investment in the industry is estimated at between £600,000,000 and £750,000,000. Exports of milk products are valued each year at about £40,000,000. The average value, including the Commonwealth subsidy, of the production of whole milk for all purposes for each of the last three years was £157,000, 000 and the value of the “5,000,000 dairy cattle in this countrywould be nolessthan £125,000,000.

Commercial dairy farms number 66,000, employingjust over 110,000 persons. A further 10,000 people are employed in factories manufacturing butter and other milk products, and 150,000 milking machine stands valued at about £7,500,000 are installed in dairy farms. In addition, there are many thousands of Australians living in cities and towns in dairying areas who are indirectly dependentfortheir livelihood on the well-being ofthe industry. Thereis no wonder (thereforethat this Governmentis anxious to maintain stability in the dairying community.

The newscheme hasbeen thoroughly discussedwith the dairyindustry leaders, and the State governments have agreed to continue the arrangement which has been operating forthepast fiveyears whereby the ‘Commonwealth determines the exfactory prices for butter and cheese consumed in Australia.In this, as in the case of wheatstabilization, or any other similar plan which might be devised, the cooperation of the Stategovernments is essential.

The 1952 stabilization scheme is now drawing to a successful close and I can state without hestitation that during the periodofthe scheme the dairy industry has had a period of considerableprosperity. During the firstfouryears ofthe scheme dairy farmers incomesfrombutter sales showed an increase of17 per cent, on a Commonwealth basis from £71,000,000 in 1952-53 to £83,000,000 in 195556.Factory butterproduction increased from 163,500 tons to 205,800 tonsin1955-56 - alift of26 per cent. -and production this season whichhas beenretarded by adverse weather conditions willstill be in the vicinity of 190,000tons. Efficiency inthe industry itself hasshown a marked improvement particularly on the farms.

It is only natural thenthat any new scheme devisedfor thenext five years should not depart materiallyfrom that which has proved .successful i over the .’previous .period. -It can be: said therefore ‘that .the. scheme .is very similar ;and .continues all the ‘best features .of the present arrangement.

These ‘principles include, ‘first, a Commonwealth price guarantee for butter ‘and cheese ‘for five years ‘from ‘1st ‘J lily, “1957; secondly, the guarantee to cover all butter and ‘cheese consumed :in Australia, -plus 20 per ‘cent, of that amount; and ‘thirdly, the method df determining the:level df returns “to dairy-farmers for butter and cheese con.sumed locally, plus ‘20 per cent, of that quantity.

There -is an important reason why the Commonwealth should not be committed to -.guarantee a return’ based upon costs on. a tonnage, unlimited. It would be contrary to sound principles df public finance to commit the Treasury to guarantee, without limit, !.that rone industry be assured :a ; profitable :return son an unlimited volume of production :regardless of ‘.the .circumstances ‘o’f rail other industries.

It will :be noted that the -Government guarantee does -not necessarily assure that -all ‘butter and cheese exported will be covered 1 by the guarantee. This year, for example, if butter production amounts to 1-90,000’tons and local -sales to’120-OOO tons the guaranteed quantity would be 144,000 tons, or about 75 per cent, of total production.

In the .case of wheat, we have always stated a limit to the Commonwealth’s guarantee and we continue to state a limit now .for .butter and .cheese as -we did in the 1952 scheme.

The subsidy for 1957-58 will be’the same as -.that for 1956-57, -namely :£13,500;000. This subsidy when, passed i on to ‘the farmer by the factory is rat ‘least 6d. >per lb. commercial .butter basis on total production, and represents 14 per cent, to .15. per .cent, of the -dairy-farmer’s actual, pay cheque.

The new features of ‘this scheme are as follows: On “the recommendation of the Australian :Dairy ‘Produce Board and dairy industry representatives, -the ‘Government has -included a clause in this bill which will enable the ‘board to use the Dairy Industry Stabilization Fund for such ‘purposes as research .and sales promotion as are approved by -the “Minister. The board will still.be able to use the fund for > the ‘purpose originally .intended, namely for increasing returns .on exports not ‘covered by :the guarantee. At the suggestion of the < dairy industry Headers the Government has agreed that any :subsidy < made available under the new >scheme ‘would be on the basis of a fixed ; amount in any .dairying year. This -will be .determined by ‘the Government before the commencement of each year.

This important decision means that deferred bounty. payments can be made almost immediately after the season’s close - probably ‘in September or ‘October - when actual :production .of butter and cheese for the season iis known. .Under the previous arrangement :the precise ‘subsidy commit.ment was not known until up to six or eight months Hater. .My .colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry -‘(Mr. McMahon) has -also informed ‘the industry that there will be no hard-and-fast rule ‘that the subsidy must be reduced each»year. When ‘dealing with -this question, the ‘Government -will (take i into consideration :all ‘the circumstances.

The industry also ‘requested -that in the costing formula of the new scheme a standard.’of production -be ‘fixed -for ‘the period -of .the scheme instead of an annually adjusted figure equal to the average production for the previous ‘five years. “The indus- : try argued ‘that under the old arrangement the full ‘benefits Of increased efficiency from increased production went to the - consumer and that the proposed method would enable a sharing (df the benefits between the :pro.ducer and the consumer. The Government is sympathetic ‘to this request but considers :that the recommending of :such -a standard “should ;be ‘left ‘to the independent ‘costing authority. The ©airy Industry Investigation -Committee has been -requested ‘therefore :to -submit -a recommendation ‘on ‘this -matter -to the Government. “ I ‘ think . it .is . important .to distinguish . the essentials df a stabilization. scheme .such. as the duration, ..guaranteed price and ..level .of returns, .from other matters which ,can .be discussed annually. With the present financial help from -the Government -the -return from, -and the ‘production -of ‘butter in :i955-56 constituted an all-time record. The unit -return -:to ‘the average dairyfarmer ‘o’f 46.6d. per lb. commercial butter in -l:95’4-55 <was:also an -all-time record. Estimated income ‘from 1956-5.7 ;production, which ‘is only about 4i per cent, below the 1954-55 income cannot be regarded as a compelling reason for a major reversal in subsidy policy. Some areas are facing difficulties mainly because of adverse weather and the Government is very sympathetic to dairyfarmers in these areas. However, it will be appreciated that unseasonable conditions in isolated areas and reduced incomes cannot be overcome under stabilization alone because the basic fundamentals of a stabilization scheme are equalization of factories’ returns and uniform bounty rates.

Due to a drop in export butter prices during the past twelve months and adverse seasonal conditions in some dairying areas, combined with a necessarily conservative approach by the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee to the determination of interim equalization payments to factories, an impression might be created that equalization is not working as efficiently as it should and that returns are not being passed on quickly enough to producers.

The Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee, which determines the uniform equalization values to factories, plays a major part in stabilizing the industry. The level of payments to factories is decided entirely by this body. The important fact is that the producers must be paid for the milk and cream they supply to the factories months before the butter and cheese are sold. This can of course create misunderstandings as payments are made in advance of sales and by instalments which are influenced by overseas prices at the time the butter is sold. The committee determines the initial interim equalization values to operate from 1st July each year. These interim values are conservative because factories obviously must not pay out more to the farmers than they will eventually get back from sales. It has great responsibilities and by unsound decisions could present embarrassing problems to the factories and to farmers themselves and could greatly harm the whole industry.

The need for conservation in fixing the interim values has intensified over the past two years since the termination of the United Kingdom bulk purchase contract in 1955. While the contract existed the Equalization Committee was safe in authorizing interim payments based upon the export contract value. Consequently the interim payment was very close to the final equalization value and only small deferred payments were necessary. The position has now changed dramatically. The committee is faced with determining initial payments on estimates of production and sales and overseas prices. The result is that the pre-war pattern has returned and farmers can now expect conservative initial interim payments at the commencement of the season and substantial deferred payments when the season’s production has all been sold. For example in the 1954-55 season, which was the last year of the United Kingdom contract, the initial interim payment to cream producers was 46.3d. per lb. commercial butter basis and the deferred and final payment amounted to only a little over id. per lb.

In respect of the 1955-56 season, the initial payment of 41. 5d. per lb. was built up by two payments during the season to 44. 6d. and it has been estimated that the final rate for the season will be about 45. 5d. or a margin of 4d. per lb. over the initial rate. In view of the many problems associated with the question of payments to factories I must say that the Equalization Committee has performed a difficult task in a very efficient manner.

There are many problems in connexion with production and marketing - both on the home and on export markets - which I am glad to say the industry is examining. Since the termination of the United Kingdom bulk purchase contract for butter and cheese in 1955, the advent of free trading conditions has brought many problems. Increased production and consequently greater exports have put the industry on its mettle to obtain the best returns possible for the Australian dairy farmer. The Government is assisting wherever possible to expand sales of our dairy products. The highly successful publicity campaign in the United Kingdom conducted by the Government in collaboration with the various marketing boards and other exporters to this market is continuing. Our trade commissioners overseas are not wasting any opportunities. It is notable that the Australian Dairy Produce Board has sent a delegation to London to make an “ on the spot “ examination of our marketing system.

The permanent head of the department is also overseas and he will participate in this investigation.

The Minister for Primary Industry has taken steps to convene a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council which will be held as soon as possible after the return of the permanent head. It is proposed that this meeting will give particular attention to the present position of the dairying industry. The Australian Agricultural Council, including as it does the Ministers for Agriculture of the six States of the Commonwealth, is concerned with production as well as marketing issues affecting our primary industries. The States have constitutional responsibility for production. Important as is stabilization to the welfare of the dairying industry, it is also necessary that production be soundly based and that the most be made of scientific and technical advances, not only on the farm but in the factory processing the farmers’ products.

All these matters have direct or indirect bearing on the stabilization scheme which, when all is said and done, has the object of ensuring a reasonable return to the producer for his product. I believe the new scheme holds out a considerable measure of stability to this great industry and I commend the bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 981

EXPLOSIVES BILL 1957

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 981

NORFOLK ISLAND BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 961).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McCALLUM (New South

Wales) [4.33]. - I should like to ask one question. Clause 11 simply provides that the Norfolk Island Council shall be set up by ordinance, and does not tell us whether the members will be elected or nominated, or whether some will be elected and others will be nominated. Sub-clause (1.) reads -

There shall be a council for the Territory, to be known as the Norfolk Island Council.

There is nothing in the bill to say how that council is to be chosen, and I should like to know what the Government’s intention is.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I regret that I was not in the chamber to have an opportunity of making some comments at the second-reading stage, but as the bill is being taken as a whole I find ample opportunity to say now what I had intended to say earlier. I am delighted to see the particular provisions contained in this measure. Two or three years ago I became very interested in the set-up at Norfolk Island. I made representations to the Minister, urging that some measure of self-government should be given to the inhabitants of the island. At that stage, he was not prepared to grant it, for reasons which he set out at length. I am, therefore, delighted to see that he now favours a grant of some form of selfgovernment to them.

There are many interesting factors in connexion with this bill, some of which were developed by the Minister. I understand that no income tax is payable on income earned by residents of Norfolk Island from sources within the Territory. That makes Norfolk Island look like the haven of rest we have been seeking for many years. Even Senator Cameron might be willing to have Parliament House moved to Norfolk Island under those conditions.

Another interesting provision is that, under a works ordinance, it is provided that all persons over 21 and under 55 years of age, when called upon by the Administrator in any year, have to pay an amount not exceeding £10 and not less than £5, or - and it is the alternative that is so interesting - they can be required to perform, for not more than ten days or less than five days, such public work as is directed. That is something which has distinct possibilities for us in our recess. We could pay a substantial portion of our income tax if we took up navvying work at Norfolk Island during the recess. I should like the Minister to say whether those happy conditions still exist in relation to income tax, and whether anything is contemplated to disturb them if they do still exist.

SO, far as I can. see; the cost;, to the Commonwealth, of. administering! Norfolk’ Island. for the; yean ended. 30th; June? 1956; was £30,327, of which £30,248 was for general services, £51. for. interest, and £28 for sinking; fund. Those, appear to be comparatively small’ figures,, and I invite the Minister to say whether. I’ have stated them accurately. Of the amount of £30,248’ expended, last, year for general services, the sum of £26,600 was for expenses of administration, £499 for the provision of library facilities, and £3,149 for centenary celebrations. I invite the Minister to- say whether the sum of £30,327 represents the whole of the cost to the Commonwealth of the administra-lion of Norfolk Island in that year. The estimate for this year shows a slight increase to £36,080. I shall be grateful if the Minister will give us some information along the lines indicated.

On the- question of the powers of the council referred to in clause 11, L note that the Minister, in the course of his speech, said- that the new council, which it is proposed” to set up will’ be given’ by ordinance control over a defined field of government. I draw attention to the word “will” and to the provisions- of clause 11 (4’.). which provides- that’ by ordinance the council- may exercise powers’ and perform functions, carry on a business undertaking, and make by-laws having the force of law. That can be done for- and in relation to the matters specified in the schedule to the bill. If honorable senators will refer to the second schedule they will see a long list of activities set out. They indicate that, by ordinance, the council will have the right to act. in relation to any of those matters. The point I stress is that sub-clause (4.) authorizes the council to do those things “ in relation to all or any of the- matters specified in the second schedule . . .”. The council may do. those things, but it could be that it will not do any. of them. That is a matter which, at, the. moment, is completely within the discretion of the Government. There is no assurance in- the bill that any of these, powers will be entrusted, to the- council. They- still, as I have, said, remain within the. discretion, of. the Government.

I can- appreciate that, when- a. new- body is to be set up- consisting: of. men- with, relatively little experience, it would not be: desirable- to cast. upon-, it. the . responsibility for all. the long; list of matters set. out: in the second schedule. Under a proper adi ministration, activity, and power in those fields would,. I. suggest,, be committed bit by bit. If I- am. right in what I have said, I should, like to have, from the Minister an assurance that- it is the. intention of the Government to. commit some, of- those matters to the. council as early as practicable. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government has addressed its mind to determining in what order of priority some of these matters will’ be assigned to the control of the council,, and I should be glad if the Minister can give some information on that point. Is.it the Government’s intention to pass over authority to the council quickly, and if so, , in what order of priority are. these matters to be so entrusted to the council?

It is interesting to. see the Government embarking upon a prospective programme of. democratic. socialism under this measure. I. notice that Senator McCallum. seemed interested in this, development. I refer, again, to clause. 11 (4.), which provides that ordinances may be made to authorize the council to exercise, powers and perform, functions and carry on. a business undertaking. The power to carry, on a. business undertaking is certainly interesting, and I emphasize it. I see great possibilities in the granting of this power. A reference to the second, schedule gives some indication of the types of business that may be conducted by the council. It could,, for instance, engage in the- business of dealing ih livestock, it may. conduct places of public entertainment, and it may promote tourism. When I saw the word- “ tourism “ I wondered whether -it had been- invented) for the purpose, but on examination. I found it in an English dictionary.. The council may also act as proprietors of guest houses, and run a fleet of omnibuses and taxis. It may sell and distribute foodstuffs- and beverages, other than alcoholic beverages*. Itf may advertise on hoardings and: arrange for- street lighting, or conduct, stalls: in the< streets; I should- like” the. Minister to; indicate: whether, the” Government’ has- ato last seen- the- light, and regards ‘ this- virgin- field’ as. a. trial ground, for the’ worthy ideals- of democratic: socialism-. The Minister’ willnot deny that in the list of matters-‘ in relation’ to; which ordinances may. be made’ in .’accordance with -clause 11 : there are opportunities for .great-activity. We«.on this side /would :be cheered enormously if we felt that at last our approaches to: the Government in .this matter meant that .it proposed conducting an .experiment, mo matter how limited in scope, no matter how humble,, in order better to inform .the minds of its members .on the .principle .of .democratic ^socialism. A real .opportunity does present itself to the -.Government .in .this small .compact .community, of which. a very interesting description has been .given by the Minister. lt did come -rather ‘as a “shock to ‘me to find this provision ;in ‘the bill, ‘because I think it will be agreed that the record of the Government .throughout -its period of office has been rather to drive, government out of business enterprises and activities rather “than to put it in. “I hope that this is .indicative of a -change of heart on -the part of “the Government ‘and that we may look forward to a cessation of -the policy o’f destroying effective -business institutions under the aegis of the -Commonwealth Government.

If -the answer -is given .to me that this change of heart has taken place, or “is imminent, then I .am sure it will send the Opposition away from this sitting with very cheerful feelings and with, an optimistic outlook for the future, not ‘only of social democracy, but even of the mental welfare ot the Government itself. I do hope the Minister will take me seriously and tell me just what .underlies the .proposal that .the new council should be permitted to carry on business enterprises. What limitations upon those activities has the Government in mind?

Senator Kennelly:

– Nothing, until the council has made a success of them.

Senator McKENNA:

- Senator Kennelly reminds me that it may well be that the moment -the activities are successful they will be sold to private enterprise, as in the past. That. may well. happen.

The TEMPORARY ‘CHAIRMAN (Senator Anderson). - Order! Is not the honorable senator getting too far away from the bill?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am .dealing with the -clause which provides that this new -.council. may carry on-business undertakings.

I ‘have already indicated i by reference to the second schedule ;to ;the .bill .how wide the scope > of !its .activities’ can be, .and I am asking the Minister to indicate what is in the mind of the Government. I feel that the Government has some business activity in mind. Of course, I may be wrong in anticipating that it will undertake all the business activities mentioned in the second schedule. It may confine itself, for instance, to . cemeteries. I am inviting the Minister to say what is in the Government’s mind.

Senator Kendall; It may be whaling.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, I do not see mention of whaling in that schedule. It is one of the things not listed. Some things do not lend themselves to being called business activities, although I suppose the manufacture of some kind of pest killer might be regarded as a business undertaking under the heading “ Pests and Noxious Weeds “. Indeed, if I were called ;upon :to ‘stretch my imagination, I could find many more activities for business undertakings than the .ones I have outlined.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– I support the bill. I had the honour of being a member of the delegation” to which the Minister for ‘Repatriation (Senator -Cooper) referred in his second-reading speech. What he said then is true. The inhabitants of this island are wonderful people. They are most hospitable, and I should like to record my thanks to them for the very great hospitality ‘they showed to us during the whole time we were there.

Despite .that hospitality, /I ‘did sense .a feeling .of ‘frustration amongst ‘the people. They were mot .really satisfied with .the type .of government they had .there. They freely ..expressed a ‘wish to take a more active ‘part, in it. In t this (bill, ti see ; something ,that will .give a great [measure of satisfaction .to these i islanders, for -it .alters their constitution in three *ways. The ;first alteration is of tremendous importance. It provides for the “establishment of a Norfolk ‘Island ‘Council in place of the present i Addvisory “Council . ..Under the ; new proposal, more people ‘will .be able .to “take an ^active part rin .what we might i call their local .government. ,As .the .Minister has said, the powers; and if unctions of the new council will include the making of by-laws, the levying of rates and fees, and the control over its own expenditure.

The field over which it is to be given powers is contained in the second schedule in the bill. The new council may make ordinances relating to roads - and I can. assure the Senate that this power is certainly essential - drainage, sewerage and sanitation, disposal of garbage and trade waste, live-stock, pests and noxious weeds, electricity supply, water supply, guest houses, places of public entertainment, sale and distribution of foodstuffs, the repair or demolition of dangerous buildings, road traffic, the erection of new buildings and the alteration of buildings, and so on. I am confident that we shall find that the men and women of the island who have particular talents under any of those headings will appreciate the opportunity of taking an active part in that work.

The second alteration to be effected is that the Administrator is to be appointed in future by the Governor-General instead of by ordinance as at present. That will be much more satisfactory. The third important alteration relates to the Supreme Court.

This bill is an important start towards giving the people of Norfolk Island a feeling that at least the island does truly belong to them. I know they will greatly appreciate the opportunity to take a more active part in the government of its affairs.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Honorable senators have asked how the proposed change in government is to be made. It is proposed that the new council will take over gradually from the present Advisory Council. The change-over will not be effected overnight. There will be a transitional period, and when the time is thought opportune for the new council to take over, the Governor-General will appoint the proposed new body.

Senator McCallum:

– The council members will not be elected by the inhabitants?

Senator COOPER:

– That has not been decided yet. We shall see how it works as we go along. We do not want to commit ourselves to something we may have to alter at a later date. I take this opportunity also of assuring the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that the method of taxation for the future will be as at present. As to the allocation of funds, I understand that the £36,000 which has been mentioned is the total Commonwealth grant to Norfolk Island.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the business activities that may be undertaken by the proposed new council. As this body finds its feet and sees necessity for taking over those functions, or any of them, it can do so.

Senator McKenna:

– But it will be a matter for this Government to authorize it by ordinance, will it not?

Senator COOPER:

– That is so; but, on looking through the schedule, I do not see anything that is not being done by some local authority in some part of Australia. I know of many local governing bodies which run their own guest-houses and hotels. For example, it is being done at Mildura, Berry, Renmark and even in Winton in Queensland. It is not the intention of the Government to try to stifle private enterprise or the work of the council. The idea is to let them carry on with any job they want to do. Norfolk Island is only a small community, and it is intended that it shall carry on that work itself. I think that, by and large, this is a very good bill for the islanders. It gives them an opportunity to achieve a form of self-government and also to exhibit a greater interest in their island and their homes than they have been able to do up to the present.

Senator McKenna:

– I agree.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 984

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1956-57

First Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 912), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I desire to direct the attention of the Government to certain matters requiring attention. I shall refer, first, to the provision of health and medical services in the north of Western Australia. From time to time, honorable senators on this side of the chamber have moved the adjournment of the Senate in order to discuss the development of northern Australia and decentralization in that area. The Government has claimed repeatedly that it wants to encourage people to settle in the north and establish stable industries there. Due to the isolated nature of northern Australia, difficulty is experienced in persuading medicos to establish practices there, and hospitals are few and far between. Difficulty is experienced, also, in obtaining nursing services. Nurses go up there from the south, but return usually after a relatively short period.

In order to relieve the position, the Health Department in Western Australia has stationed a doctor at Wyndham, one at Derby, one at Broome and another at Port Hedland. Coming farther south there are government doctors at Meekatharra and at Roebourne. All those doctors are employed by the Western Australia Health Department. Persons who receive attention by these doctors pay the normal fees; there is no reduction because the treatment is provided by a government doctor. They also have to pay the normal hospital fees. The only reason why this state of affairs exists is the difficulty of getting doctors to stay in the north. Those people in the north who join approved medical and hospital benefit organizations cannot recover from the Commonwealth any part of their hospital and medical expenses. I raised this matter previously in the Senate on 20th March, and subsequently I received from the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron), a letter in the following terms: -

I refer to your question without notice in the Senate on 20th March, 1957, relating to the operation of the Medical Benefits Scheme in certain outlying districts of Western Australia where there are no medical practitioners other than those whose salary is paid by the Western Australian Government.

As the medical services rendered by the doctors in question are charged for by the Medical Department of Western Australia, they come within the scope of section 19 of the National Health Act. This section provides that Commonwealth benefit is not payable where the medical expenses in respect of a professional service are paid or payable to an authority conducting a public hospital. The act further provides that this restriction does not apply to pathological and radiological services and electroencephalograms.

You will appreciate that a provision of this nature must be uniformly applied throughout the Commonwealth. The act does not provide any discretionary power. Apart from the provision of Commonwealth benefit for pathological and radiological services and electroencephalograms rendered at a public hospital there is no way, at the moment, whereby approval could be given for the payment of benefits in respect of other medical services in the circumstances outlined by you.

I think it is admitted that there is a bad anomaly in this connexion. The Commonwealth medical authorities agree that the present arrangement is harsh and unfair. I do not think that those who framed section 19 of the National Health Act envisaged such a situation arising in areas where the only medical attention available is provided by a government doctor. As I have pointed out, the people who reside in the north, which is a vast area, pay the normal medical fees. I appeal to the Minister to use his influence with the Government to correct the present state of affairs. I have been informed by several friendly societies that some of their members reside in the area that I have mentioned. Although they subscribe to approved societies under the National Health Act, they cannot recover from the Commonwealth even a proportion of their medical and hospital expenses. I hope that the Minister will give this matter his consideration and that, before we return to Canberra for the next sessional period, arrangements will be made whereby the people who live in isolated outback areas of Australia will be provided with better hospital and medical facilities than are now available to them and that the anomaly in connexion with the rebate of medical and hospital expenses to which I have referred will be removed.

I urge the Government to consider extensive development of the north-west of Western Australia. From time to time, various commissions and committees have been appointed to inquire into the development of the north and the north-west. In this chamber, motions to adjourn the Senate in order to discuss this subject have been proposed, but after relatively short debates the motions have been withdrawn. It seems to be a hopeless situation. It can be likened to white mice performing on a wheel. When the string tied to their tails is pulled, they jump off the wheel and the show, is over.. That is- how we have treated the subject of the development of northern Australia. r should’ like the Minister to. inform. me whether he. is prepared to release, the comprehensive report that: was. furnished, by the Northern Australia DevelopmentCommittee for 1946-47, which went into, every phase of the development of. north. Australia. I think it is imperative for. any one who is trying to push the development of north- Australia to read this- report.

Recently, I. raised the question of taxation concessions- for residents of the. isolated, areas in. the north and” north,west of Australia; The Minister for National Development. (Senator: Spooner) stated, that as my question related to Government policy, and raised, a budgetary, matter, he was: not prepared to disclose the Government’s inrtentions. I do. not ask- the. Minister.- to disclose the Government’s, intentions at this stage, but I should like to receive his assur?ance that this matter will receive, considera-tion, when the next budget is being framed. From time to time, we have moved for the adjournment of the Senate to discuss this subject, in the hope of getting something done. During budget debates it is raised frequently, but by then,, of course, it is a dead letter. I. should be glad, if the Minister would bring this- matter before the: notice of the Cabinet when the next’ budget is being shaped and see whether- steps can be taken to/ grant concessions. 1 direct’ attention now to the plight’ of the* totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. I know that the Minister for - Repatriation- (Senator Cooper) is very sympathetic and’ that He has often told honorable senators how well Australian ex-servicemen are-treated; I agree that that is true in many directions, but there- is one. bad i mark, against the Government. That, concerns the onus of. proof when an ex:serviceman . claims- repatriation benefits. Successive Ministers . and governments have promised to clean up this problem, but it has never been done satisfactorily.

Senator Critchley:

– They have cleaned up- the boys instead:

Senator COOKE:

– Yes, . I suppose that the problem will solve itself, as these men die out, but. that. is. not the- right way to approach, this problem. L. haver a’ submis-sion from the Commonwealth Council, of the; Totally and; Permanently Disabled1 Soldiers Association of Australia. The’ council has stated^ -

In presenting . our case for a. new. deal for. totally and permanently, incapacitated, ex-service personnel,’ we submit evidence showing the merit of our- claim on the following’ five points and seek- your understanding.- and assistance in their: attainment:

Rationalization- and’ fusion- of- pensions payable: to T.P-.I. people; by various departments.-‘

Hospitalization and medical benefits .for wives of’ T.P.I, men:

Increase in repatriation funeral grant.

Recognition- of. the T.P.L Association, of’ Australia as a voluntary organisation eligible for a-i Federal Government grant. 5: Restoration of clothing allowance to limbless men: who are. subsequently classified as T.P.I.

Since 1951; the special rate of pension- paid to -a T-.P.I. man has remained at £9’15s. per week. If. he- is married, his. wife receives- a. pension- of.’ £1 15s.. 6d. per week. .

THose rates have not been adjusted for a long; time. We- might be satisfied with our selves and ‘make long-winded speeches about what we have- done and what others have done, but we cannot’ ignore the need for liberal adjustment of the rates of pension for- totally and permanently incapacitated men and’ their families. What can the wife of a burnt-out pensioner do on a pension of £1- r5s: 6d. a week-?’ We- should be absolutely ashamed of such a provision. Many of these men need medical attention and they cannot work. The burden upon their, wives is. far heavier than that borne by a_ woman who is married to a- healthy man. That- applies also to the wives of invalid pensioners. They live in sheer misery. They cannot get clothes and have to beg for them; It is. shameful to see some of these women surreptitiously collecting a few cast-off clothes at soldiers’ clubs. It is a miserable business. 1 have had a submission from East Perth about burnt-out diggers. Many, of them are over 50 years of age and yet they are not eligible for a pension- and they cannot sustain, themselves. How- can a woman, the wife of a. burnt-out pensioner, aged: between 50> and 60- years, get any kind of work and, at the same time, look after a sick husband? The case submitted by. the: Commonwealth Council of the. Totally, and Permanently, Disabled . Soldiers Association also i states^ -

Subject! to eligibility and* the means test; they, may. each receive an- additional, pension, of £1. 14s. 9d. per week under either the Social Service, or War Service Pension Acts. Thus, their total pension- mav amount to £15 per- week. This- sounds- alii very well until we look at. the.’ answers, to a questionnaire recently submitted, to all members. . It- reveals that, only 53 per cent, of married members of our association are in receipt’ of £15 per week pension.

The means test has excluded all married T.P-I! men and wives’ who. happen to. have an. income, of- £3- 9 6s: per week or more from superannuation or. other savings.- Although their disabilities, have, a common assessment,, their prudence is used’ against them’. In the case of single members, irrespective of.’ means, their- total pension’ isi£9’15s; This means that widowers are- in the unenviable position where they, can no longer maintain their homes.

I was- amused recently when. I was. referring-, to pensioners over 60 years., ofage.who are burnt-out. Many of them have: wives aged 5-5 years- but some are. older than. 60 years. The argument that was., advanced, in reply to me was that, these, women could! get. so much by way of child endowment if. they had five, or six children under sixteen years. Just imagine it! The case of the Totally, and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association continues -

The iniquitous. principle- of compensating T-.P.I: men. on factors not in any way. associated with their common assessment was first introduced in 1556 by granting- them financial relief in addition to the Special Rate War- Pension instead of a straight out increase in the said rate. The fact ofl 53 -per, cent: being eligible for pension ‘benefits under other Acts- is, in our opinion, conclusive, proof of the inadequacy- of the Special Rate Pension.

From State Compensation Acts we find- that’ civilians when’ classified’ as totally and ‘ temporarily incapacitated’ are.’ paid £13: per week compensation plus additional amounts for dependants. Do you think totally and permanently incapacitated, ex-service folk are unreasonable in. requesting a Repatriation Rate of compensation comparable to. that1 paid civilians. . . .

Reference has- also been made to the: undesir-ability of taking, into -consideration the* basic, wagein determining war pensions., In reply,, we. refer to. the early history of. repatriation, when the public were informed that war pensions were Based’ on- the- extent that a man’s’ injuries would affect his’ earning capacity if he were a n-_ unskilled:, worker. We submit in the absence of. a. thorough, investigation of the problems peculiar, to. the T:P.T. people that the basic wage is the only, basis* on’ which the special rate pension’ can bearrived! at. There’ wass a. time’ when the. T.P..I. pension was £1 above- the- basic wager. There. wast the. clear, principle that a T.E.I, man was entitled to more than the. basic wage. This principle’ remained! even- during the- years ofl economic’ depression:. In the? face; of: a steadily, increasing, cost of- livings- the., principle has been, slowly, and subtly, disposed of..

To overcome the anomalies- created by the’ existing- maximum rate* of £15r per- week’- DUAl- pensions beings, paid*, under - different; Acts’, we: askthat only one pension be paid - viz… “ The. Special. Rate “, by increasing it to £13 per week- for all TiP.I: people? and; that” of wives; ofl T.P.I. men to: £2.

  1. have said enough,- I- believe; to - convince: the Minister; that despite, all. we. have been told; totally, and permanently incapacitated mem and. their: wives: and’ families. are* notgetting; a fair- deal. They, are’ suffering also, because- of inflation. It is: idle - for. the. Go?vernment to, claim that, inflation, is. not, a. cheater:

The Government steals from the- people: generally the . value of the: money they, receive through either its: failure to- halt inflation or the pegging of- wages: Money is losing’ its value, and the pensioners will become poorer. The practice whereby the’ pension can be increased only by act of Parliament is totally wrong. I strongly appeal to the Government to do something:for. the. totally and permanently incapacitated’ ex-service-men- and1 their wives.

There- are many other things’ that could be* said, but if I have an assurance that- the matters raised by me will be considered’ by. the Government and’- some adjustment will’be made-when the next-budget is being prepared, T shall have done a good half hour’s ‘ work.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– I: refer, to the- proposed: appropriation for- the. Department,of Immigration, and (particularly to. the- money- that, has- been expended: to bring men; .women and children; from. Hungary to- this, country: L do so for. two reasons* First, I think- the. Government deserves the. warmest congratulations- of all sections of the community upon the speed and. efficiency with which it has sought, to bring, out to Australia these, victims of red aggression. . It. has chartered’ aircraft and one ship, , and’ is continuing to assist these people.

The second i reason- why- I refer to. if on this.- occasion’ is- that:in this chamber, a- little whiles ago./ there- was-, made what I regard’ as: being.-, an . unfair, or perhaps.- inaccurate,, attack, upon- the: Governments- of. Great

Britain and France in as much as they were blamed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and other honorable senators opposite, not with complicity in the rape of Hungary, but with actually being responsible for it. I shall quote passages from “ Hansard “ to show how the charge was supported.

As the allegation presents the Government of Great Britain in a most unfavorable light, I think that perhaps it would be worth while to spend a few moments in referring to the original charge. The Leader of the Opposition is reported at page 297’ of “Hansard” of 3rd April as having said that the British attack on Suez and the developments in Hungary were “ inseparably linked in two ways “. He added -

First, they are significantly connected in point of time, and, secondly, by reason of the different treatment accorded to them by the United Nations organization.

They were the two grounds upon which this indictment was laid at the door of the British Government.

If we attempt to reduce the argument to syllogistic form, we find that it cannot be done. Any student of logic will admit that there should be two premises and a conclusion; but in this case we have one premise, no second premise, but a conclusion. First, the Leader of the Opposition said that the two events were significantly connected in point of time. There is no second premise, but the conclusion is that they are inseparably linked. Of course, that is nonsense. If the Parliament happened to go into recess to-day and the soil erosion authorities in Southern ‘Patagonia decided to-day upon a different method of treating soil, on the reasoning of the Leader of the Opposition those two events would be inseparably linked simply because they took place at the same time.

The second reason given for charging the British Government in this way is even more remarkable and, if possible is a greater non sequitur than is the first. It was that events in Suez and those in Hungary received different treatment by the United Nations. To treat the matter by logic, we note that the first premise was that events in Suez and those in Hungary received different treatment By the United Nations. There is no middle term, but the conclusion is that those two events are inseparably linked. It is not necessary to refute an argument like that; it refutes itself. I do not think that honorable senators opposite really believe in it themselves. There is not a shadow of a case for the reasoning that has been advanced or even, if I may quote the Australian Broadcasting Commission, even a cardboard replica of a case.

To go back to the question of timing, I point out that the Hungarian revolt flared up on 23rd October. It was common knowledge that Britain and France had been massing strength in the Mediterranean for months prior to that date. The simple truth of the matter is that the Russians were surprised by the vigour and courage with which the Hungarians defended themselves. The troops who were in occupation were friendly troops; they came from the Ukraine. They had been quartered in Hungary for some years and were unwilling to butcher the civilian population amongst whom they had been quartered. They were not equipped with the most modern weapons; their tanks were obsolescent. Hence, on 29th October, six days after the rebellion broke out, those troops were withdrawn.

To suggest that they were withdrawn because the British landed in Suez on 1st November is grossly unfair. They were withdrawn simply because the Russian High Command had to go to Mongolia and bring in trained, regular Mongol troops equipped with modern T34 and T54 tanks and heavy artillery to quell the patriotic revolt by the Hungarians. The Mongols carried out their job with ruthless efficiency. It is difficult to get an exact estimate of the number killed, but it was 75,000 or 80,000. Innumerable people were wounded, and thousands of buildings were destroyed. I think it is grossly unfair to equate, as Senator McKenna did, the British action in Suez with the Russian action in Hungary. The British landed on 1st November and captured Port Said. Enemy casualties were approximately 400. To equate that with what the Russians did is a gross hyperbole.

The Opposition has said that the action of the British at Suez was an excuse for the Russians to butcher the Hungarians. If the Russians did not need that excuse for butchering the workers at Posnan in Poland, I do not see why they would need it to butcher the Hungarians.

To follow the Opposition’s line of reasoning, I remind the Senate that Senator McKenna is reported at page 299 of “Hansard” as saying that there could be some truth in the suggestion that Britain and France betrayed the Hungarian movement for independence and freedom by attacking Suez, because it thought the Russians’ hands were tied. I am unable to follow that reasoning. If we were to admit the honorable senator’s premise - I do not - surely the most logical effect of an attack upon Egypt as an ally of Russia must have been to lighten the pressure on the Hungarians. If anything, it was a diversionary move; it was the kind of second front that the Russians appealed for during World War II.

There is one further line in the Opposition’s argument which I should mention. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the following statement by President Eisenhower -

There can, of course, be no equating of a nation like Israel with that of the Soviet Union. The peoples of Israel, like those of the United States, are imbued with a religious faith and a sense of moral values. We are entitled to expect, and do expect, from such peoples of the free world a contribution to world order which, unhappily, we cannot expect from a nation controlled by atheistic despots.

That was a very fine statement, and I agree with what was said in it. My complaint is that, whilst the Opposition would not equate Israel with Russia - I would not, either - it is prepared to equate the Christian democracies of Britain and France with Russia, which is ruled under a system of atheistic communism.

I think that we can sum this matter up by saying that the massacre in Hungary on 4th November was not directly or indirectly connected with the Suez landing on 1st November, and no blame should be attributed to Britain or France for it. The Russians came back into Hungary for the two reasons that I have given, namely, that the friendly Ukrainian troops were not prepared to butcher their neighbours, among whom they had been living for so many years, and it took the Russian High Command four or five days to re-organize the Mongols who were prepared to do it. The Russians had to come back to suppress Hungary, because a Hungarian victory would have encouraged every other European satellite of Russia to revolt and throw off the Russian yoke.

One or two other lines of thought were thrown out by Senator Grant during his contribution to the debate, but as no one takes any notice of him, I shall not advert to them.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

.- I take advantage of the debate on the Appropriation Bill to bring under the notice of the Senate a matter to which the Government should give favorable consideration in the very near future, I have received a number of letters from hospitals in my own district - possibly other honorable senators have received similar letters - but I know also from my own general knowledge the very unsatisfactory position in which country hospitals find themselves at present. I know too that not only country hospitals but hospitals generally throughout the Commonwealth, are in this very parlous position.

An agreement exists between the Commonwealth and State governments for the partial financing of hospitals. I understand that that agreement is about to expire, and I hope that the Government will take appropriate action at a very early date and not delay consideration until the budget session begins. I am also aware that a deputation from Victorian country hospitals will wait upon the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Townley), who is acting for the Minister for Health, to state their case.

In order to deal with this question in all its facets, one would have to spend more time than one is allotted under the Standing Orders. I feel quite sure that the Senate will agree that hospital accommodation and treatment for the people merits first consideration. There is a tendency to suggest that the maintenance of hospitals is a State matter but that is not a satisfactory answer, because every State is doing all that it possibly can to meet the requirements of its hospitals from the finances available.

At present, of course, State finances are governed to a great extent - possibly primarily - by the amount that is allotted each year by the Federal Government as a result of the arrangement that exists under the uniform taxation system. Out of the money allotted to them, State governments have to meet all their various commitments. I suggest that they do allocate a considerable amount of money to the authorities which control their hospitals.

We in “Victoria thought a few wears ago that some of the disabilities >of hospitals would be eliminated when a :certain ‘ wellknown consultation removed itself ‘from Tasmania to Victoria, but unfortunately, although some millions of pounds have been raised as a result; o’f -the. activities of that .organization, the hospitals are just going from bad to worse. -Senator Wade. - The position ;is worse to-day.

Senator SHEEHAN__ ‘It ‘has worsened since that consultation ; began -its operations in ‘Victoria. That is -not to say, of ‘course, that ‘it has worsened ‘because of ‘those operations. ‘If that organization had not come to Victoria, I do -not know ‘what ‘the position of the hospitals would have been now. Chaos would have overtaken them and the ‘Commonwealth would -have ;,had to do something i more ‘to assist the ;State.

After all, the .well-being- of the. people is the i responsibility -of this .-Parliament. Rightly or wrongly- I say. rightly, ‘but some say -wrongly - -the ‘Commonwealth has rin.troduced a health scheme, and we -have a -very -efficient health ^organization -under the administration .of the .Commonwealth. It has i been very -helpful in various ways. -We had hopes in 1945 ‘that- the i Commonwealth would have been able to accept responsibility for the total cost of hospital ‘ accommodation and -.treatment. We talked Of -free medicine and free .hospitals. As a matter of fact, the Chifley Government did ‘introduce measures which were designed to achieve that very desirable end. “The attitude has been altered from time to time, but hospitals are paid only ‘8s. a day for each patient, which is the .same as they were paid in 1945, despite increases in the cost of all of those commodities and services which are required .for the efficient management of hospitals.

I wish to refer directly ‘to “two or -three hospitals in my own district. The first is the Bendigo (Northern j District Base ‘Hospital. This serves quite. a considerable ‘portion of the t northern .district of Victoria. Its .committee of .management’ directs attention to -the state .of the finances of -.the institution and tto the -fact that tits activities have been seriously ‘.curtailed :because ot lack - of .finance -.or grants from local .government sources. The people of .Bendigo and : district have contributed -very generously towards :the -maintenance of the institution, -but “unfortunately ‘their charit<able ^efforts have not enabled -a bridging of ‘the gap ‘between amounts received and costs ‘incurred. ‘It is -pointed out that maintenance - of -the ^hospital resulted in :a deficit, -df <£5,9.02 for the twelve months ended ;30th ‘June, 1956, and that a loss,01 £903 –was incurred in the mine -months ended ‘-31-st March, ‘1:957. At that ‘time ‘the maintenance ‘bank overdraft amounted to £2223-5, -and a sum of £12,93’3 was due to -creditors.

Another community that has done a very goo’d-job is to be found in my own town, Castlemaine. lOver the years the residents of that town have. contributed most generously to the annual appeal and supported enthusiastically the -hospital ball and -have been active -on auxiliary committees which work-year in-and year out to provide amenities :for the hospital. ‘Even with all their work the hospital’s maintenance account incurred a deficit of £754 for the twelve months ended 30th . June last year, and a loss of .£3,134 -has already been incurred :f or .the mine months of this ^financial year ended 31st March. The maintenance account in the bank stands at £9,035. The committee, naturally, is .disturbed at the continued drift of the .hospital’s financial position.

Another small .centre ,8 or 9. miles from Castlemaine. is Maldon. ‘If any community in the Commonwealth deserves credit for its civic .activity and the aid it has .given to the hospital it is , the , people -of Maldon. This was formerly a fine mining town, but now exists mainly to serve the pastoral needs Of those who ‘live in the vicinity. Here again is .one of the finest. bodies .df men and women you would find anywhere. The people work continually for the maintenance of their hospital, but the committee is showing a loss amounting to £1,056 for the nine .months ended ’31st March, 1957. Its bank overdraft is in the vicinity of £2,000. These people despite their activities, have no possible chance of bridging the gap bet-ween solvency and insolvency.

I mention also the Kyneton District Hospital. (The people .of Kyneton, <like the rest of those I : have .mentioned, are .faced with financial problems. .One- could not find a (more -excellent .body of citizens. They work year in and ‘year out to try to -bridge the gap between -receipts :and expenditure.

The hospital at Leongatha is in the same position. No matter where one goes, or whether or not the district is prosperous, it seems impossible for the people to carry on the work which has fallen to their lot. I hope that as the result of representations made to the Government some steps will be taken to see that a greater amount is made available to the respective State governments to enable them to help these people. I am speaking now as a Victorian on behalf of Victoria. I hope that a greater amount of money will be made available so that this chaos will end.

I know I have raised a big question, but it is one with which this Government must grapple sooner or later. I shall leave the (matter there. As I have said, I trust that the representations that will be made will be sufficient to move the Government to accept its responsibility. I should have Hiked to speak on other matters during this debate. I should have liked to make reference to the fact that the Government has not responded to the entreaties made by the Australian Labour party on social ser.vices, particularly pensions. However, I ido hope that between now and the budget session the Government will see to it that pensions are increased and that pensioners receive a better deal in the future.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- Mr. Acting Deputy President, I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 991

QUESTION

INDONESIA

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is the Prime Minister aware that Marshal Voroshilov is at present visiting Indonesia, Australia’s nearest neighbour, and is assuring its people of Russia’s peaceful intentions towards Indonesia?
  2. Will the Prime Minister or the Minister for External Affairs include Indonesia in his next tour of the Asian Pacific countries and give assurances of peaceful relations and non-aggression to (he Indonesian people, and thus confirm our friendly feelings towards them?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers: -

  1. The visit of Marshal Voroshilov to Indonesia reciprocates the visit made by President Soekarno to the :Soviet Union last year. I understand the

Indonesian Government has also invited President Eisenhower to visit Indonesia in reciprocation of President Soekarno’s visit to the United States.

  1. The Australian Government has, on many occasions, affirmed its friendly feelings towards Indonesia and demonstrated in a practical manner its desire to assist in the development of that country. The good relations which so happily exist between our two countries are firmly based on many common interests which can be maintained and strengthened. It will certainly be the aim of the Australian Government to extend the contacts which ‘have been established in diplomatic, commercial and cultural fields in as many fields as possible of the national life of both countries. In this context the value of personal contact between the leaders of both countries is apparent, and the honorable senator’s suggestion will be borne .in mind at the appropriate time.

page 991

QUESTION

AMERICAN OVERSEAS AIR BASES

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Can the Prime Minister give information to the Senate concerning the number of United States military air bases in Europe and the countries in which they are situated?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer: -

This .matter does not touch upon any activity of the Australian Government, and I am, therefore, unable to give the honorable senator the information he seeks.

page 991

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator McKENNA:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

On what dates, and in what amounts, do Commonwealth loans bearing what- rates of interest fall due in each of the years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer: -

Particulars of Commonwealth loans maturing in Australia during .the next three financial years are as follows: -

page 992

QUESTION

PHILIPPINES

Senator ROBERTSON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Prime Minister seen the cabled news of a fire disaster in the Philippine Islands, which is reported to have rendered 40,000 people homeless?
  2. Will the Prime Minister consider sending some immediate assistance to the people of the Philippines in the nature of (a) a money gift, (b) foodstuffs and medical supplies?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I have received the following answers: -

  1. I have seen newspaper reports of the fire at Catbalogan on Samar Island in the Philippines. This was also the subject of a report by the Australian Embassy in Manila.
  2. The Australian Government has been informed that the Philippines authorities and public have given generous assistance to the persons who suffered losses in this fire and does not consider that a relief contribution from Australia would be appropriate in this case.

page 992

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Senator HENTY:
LP

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

Alkali, chlorine and chlorine products.

Alternating current machines.

Buckles, clasps and slides.

Chain and chains.

Cotton piece goods (drills, denims, &c).

Electric motors for domestic type sewing machines; speed controls and needlelights.

Internal combustion engines.

Piece goods similar to “ Ingola “.

Polishing bobs or wheels.

Screwdrivers

Taximeters

Voltage regulators.

Wool tops, woollen yarns, woollen piece goods, blankets and rugs.

Sitting suspended from 5.42 to 8 p.m.

page 992

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1956-57

First Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 991).

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I shall not detain the Senate for long this evening, and I may, therefore, be excused if, in what I have to say, I resurrect a case which it might have been thought had been temporarily laid aside by a statement made earlier in the day. If Senator Wood had proceeded with his motion, I had intended to make some remarks in regard to import licensing, and I desire now, very briefly, to say what I intended to say then.

We hear to-day that some agreement has been reached between the Government and those who desire to move in regard to import licensing, and that the Government is entitled to an opportunity to put its proposal into effect in order to see to what degree it will work out successfully. I do not know whether I was the only one who came to the conclusion, on hearing the very diplomatically worded letter from the Minister, that whether the proposal will be a success or not will depend upon what is decided by the Government as its policy in this matter. Obviously, matters which can be the subject of appeal will depend upon what the Government and its advisers determine is policy. I hope that the Government will not decide that policy will be the kind of decision that many members like myself have received in recent weeks when we have made representations in regard to these licences. We have been told that it is not intended to grant many new licences, but that the proposal in regard to the loosening of the restrictions is that those persons who are traditional importers will receive increases of their quotas. The term impressed me because the Government claims to be opposed to controls. When I heard that we had reached the stage that we had traditional importers, I wondered whether we were settling down under the system to such a degree that we were justified in saying that it had established traditions.

The second thing that I wished to know was how a person became a traditional importer, particularly if licences were to be restricted to those who already had quotas. My third thought was that the possession of quotas had been very valuable to those who had them, and that their possession would become even more valuable because the cream was not to be shared in the future. Those who are already receiving a good allowance of the cream are apparently to receive an oversupply of it. However, the Government has made a proposal which it thinks will provide a solution of some of the problems associated with import restrictions, and we are entitled to give it an opportunity to show how the new system will work. Most people in this country are not so much interested in how import restrictions will be applied as they are in knowing the date when it will be possible to get rid of restrictions altogether. I am confident that the Government has no desire to keep these restrictions in force one day longer than is necessary. Obviously, restrictions are embarrassing and difficult to carry into effect, and any government would want to get rid of them, and can only regard them as an incubus, even if they are necessary.

The obvious conclusion we must reach is that there is not much prospect of getting rid of the import licensing system unless we do something about the factors that are causing the Government and its advisers to believe that the system is necessary. We come, therefore, to one of the most potent factors associated with import licensing, namely, freight costs on our overseas marketing. When we consider that in 1956-57 Australia will pay approximately £110,000,000 in sterling and in foreign currency to carry our exports to other countries and to bring in imports, we can only conclude that that sum is out of proportion altogether to our imports, which represent goods to the value of about £720,000,000 a year. So long as we pay out those vast sums - and they do not include amounts paid for passenger fares - we shall obviously be in difficulties in getting rid of these undesirable restrictions.

I think I know something of the difficulties of establishing our own overseas shipping line. Recently, an official of the British Seamen’s Union placed before me some amazing facts in regard to the difficulties of establishing a shipping line. I believe that he is honest in his attitude and was not trying to deceive me. Amazing and considerable as those difficulties may be in connexion with the setting up of our own overseas shipping line, I think that the difficulties involved in connexion with import licensing justify the Government in making some experiments in this direction. I shall not go into other matters, such as the defence aspect, which could be said to make it desirable to experiment in establishing our own shipping line. However, realizing the serious position confronting the Government in endeavouring to do the right thing in regard to our overseas balances, there should be some con centration of ways and means with a view to righting the situation so that we can get rid of the import licensing system altogether, and, perhaps, have less concentration on the mechanics of working the system as it exists at present.

I should like to see the Government stop all sales of import licences. Honorable senators can see these licences advertised in the press almost every day. Their sale seems to me to be entirely wrong. When so many people desire to obtain licences, it seems to me to be wrong that certain people can obtain them and use them for purposes for which they are not intended, but purely to make money. I realize that the possession of a licence provides an opportunity to make money, but there are ways of making money that we regard as being legitimate, and there are other ways that we regard as not being legitimate.

I think the Government should have a look at certain of the effects of import licensing on the cost of living. I had an instance brought to my notice recently. My office in Melbourne is in an area where there are large numbers of immigrants. A few days ago some of these people interviewed me, and placed before me facts and figures, which they claimed could be verified, as to the way in which certain interests engaged in the importation of certain foods which newcomers to this country regard as essential, as for instance, olive oil, are treating the public. They said that the possession of a licence to import such foods enables the importers to make profits far above those that are reasonable. I hope that it will be possible for such cases to be investigated, and I think that olive oil would be a good item with which to commence. For example, this could happen: A obtains an import licence. B is an importer who wants it. He therefore goes to A and arranges, for a consideration, to be able to import for himself the goods that are concerned in the licence. At the present time, when a reasonable markup for that should be 3 per cent., it is anything from 33 per cent, to 50 per cent. That is merely for selling or transferring the right to the licence. B now has the goods which cost him 133i per cent. Normally, in the old times, these goods would have been sold direct to the retailers, but some of these foods are not sold to the retailers to-day because B, who has purchased them at 133i per cent., finds it is more profitable to unload large parcels of them on to semiwholesalers who have sprung up as a result of the import-licensing system. He can get more profit by doing that than by selling direct to the retailer.

From here on, the semi-wholesaler sells at varying rates of profit, and by the time the public obtains the goods the price has become almost prohibitive. The following figures which I quote in relation to olive oil to support my assertion have been verified. The initial cost to the man with the licence is 38s. a tin. He sells to the importer who wants to take the goods from him at 48s. a tin. The importer then sells to the semi-wholesaler at 54s. a tin. The semi-wholesaler sells to the retailer at 59s. a tin, and when it gets to the public, this article, which originally cost 38s., is sold at 68s. a tin. With the type of bean which is used in the popular soup known as Minestrone, a somewhat similar position obtains. The beans are being purchased from the original importers at from ls. to ls. 4d. per lb., and they are sold to the public for 3s., and more, per lb. That is a very serious situation. It is entirely wrong that such a situation should be allowed to obtain, and I hope that the Government will investigate the effect of the importlicensing system on certain foods and take drastic action to correct such positions as those to which I have referred.

I know the Government is opposed to prices control, but I point out that it is also opposed to import controls. If it says that import controls are necessary and then finds those import controls are giving rise to racketeering in prices, the Government should give serious consideration to imposing price controls at least on those foodstuffs which are subject to import licensing.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– Very briefly, I have one request to make to the Government and one suggestion to offer as to how the necessary money to carry out that request can be saved. I make the request now because this is the last occasion we shall have of speaking before the presentation of the budget. I appeal again to the Government to go into the matter of obtaining a fisheries survey vessel. I do not mean a small row-boat; I mean

page 994

J

a vessel costing about £250,000, thoroughly fitted out for scientific investigation, as is the practice in every other country in the World. Having obtained the vessel, the Government should allow it to be used in conducting research into what wealth we have in our seas, in our northern seas, and in the Coral Sea in particular. From what I know, I can assure the Government that it will repay Australia one hundredfold if it will go into that matter thoroughly.

One suggestion I offer as to how some of this money possibly could be saved relates to auction sales of surplus government stores that take place all over the country from time to time. Some time ago, at Stafford, a suburb of Brisbane, 14 sextants were sold for £1 each. Those sextants would cost 50 guineas each in the shops to-day. They could not be bought for less. If they are surplus to government needs, if they are not wanted by the Navy, then surely there is a better method of disposing of them. They could be offered to the cadets at Jervis Bay, or used as prizes for the boys at Jervis Bay. Certainly they could be used with advantage instead of being sold by auction at the ridiculous price of £1 each to people who afterwards sell them at anything from £20 to £30 or £40 in second-hand shops.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I wish to speak on two matters. One deals with immigration and the other with health. I shall be brief. I regret that Senator Hannan attempted to imply that the Leader of this party (Senator McKenna), when speaking to the foreign affairs debate on 3rd April last, sympathized with Russia’s action in the Hungarian holocaust. To support his suggestion, he quoted the following passage from Senator McKenna’s speech: -

I want to refer at length to the affairs of the Middle East and to the developments in Hungary. In my opinion, these matters are inseparably linked in two ways. First, they are significantly connected in point of time, and secondly, by reason of the different treatment accorded to them by the United Nations Organization.

How any one could, without malice aforethought, link those words with support for Russia in the Hungarian trouble, I am at a loss to know.

Senator Hannan:

– That is not what I said.

Senator KENNELLY:

– That is the quotation that the honorable senator made. I have read the same words as he read from Senator McKenna’s speech.

Senator Hannan:

– I said the Leader of the Opposition blamed Britain.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The whole tenor of the honorable senator’s speech was to link the leader of this party with support of what Russia did in Hungary.

Senator Hannan:

– No.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I do not think there can be any doubt about that. Even at this late hour, if you, realizing the mistake that you made, say that is not what you intended, then the issue is closed so far as I am concerned. Seeing that even now you are silent-

Senator Hannan:

– 1 did not say you supported Russia, or that the Leader of the Opposition did.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I wanted to close the sitting on a decent note, but you have not taken the opportunity offered to you even at this late hour. If you were so keen on reading what Senator McKenna said-

Senator Hannan:

– You just stick to what I said.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Listen! I know you are a connoisseur in another field. You gave us an exhibition of that early in your life in this Senate. All I am saying is that if you had taken the trouble to read other parts of Senator McKenna’s speech you would have seen that you were wrong in making that implication.

Senator Gorton:

– I rise to order. Is it not correct that all speeches are supposed to be addressed to the Chair, Mr. President?

The PRESIDENT:
Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin

– Yes.

Senator Gorton:

– In that case, am I to take it that the remarks at present being made are addressed to you?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask Senator Kennelly to address his remarks to the Chair.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I will do so. I also say, with great respect to the occupant of the chair during, your absence, sir, that

I regret that you were not in the chair at the time Senator Hannan spoke. I know that, like me, you would have been at a loss to understand how any one could link Senator Hannan’s attack on Senator McKenna with the proposed vote for the Department of Immigration. I am confident that you would have disallowed such an attack, but, seeing that the occupant of the chair at the time allowed it to be done, I claim the right to state the facts.

In another part of his speech, Senator McKenna distinctly refers to the horror felt by the whole world at one of the worst carnages that have ever been known. Every honorable senator expressed his views about it.. I admit that it is competent for any one to disagree with the views expressed by other people. I believe that the matter was brought up- for one purpose, and for one purpose only. Senator Hannan must be the only member of this chamber who believes as: he does. I have quoted from the same speech as he did. I think it is extremely unwise and unfair to read into any one’s speech something that the speaker did not intend to. convey and that certainly was not in keeping with the tenor of the speech as a whole. I shall leave the matter there.

I wish to refer briefly to an aspect of the subject of health that was mentioned earlier by my colleague from Victoria, Senator Sheehan. I was informed last Sunday week by the Treasurer of the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission that the hospitals in Victoria are in debt to the extent of £4,000,000. I realize, of course, that hospitals are primarily a State responsibility, but, along with my colleagues, I appeal to the Government, when framing the next budget, to increase the subsidy of 8s. a day for each occupied bed. That was the amount given in 1946. I think it is reasonable to ask the Government to pay a subsidy which, in terms of purchasing power, will be at least equal to that paid in 1946. We know the method of allocating finance to the States. We know that the State Premiers will meet here to-morrow to bargain for as much as they can get from the Commonwealth. I realize that it would not be realistic to expect the Commonwealth to give Victoria an additional £4,000,000 to keep its hospitals, so to speak, on an even keel, but I urge the Government to increase the value of the subsidy at least to the 1946 level.

Senator Hannan:

– I rise to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable senator claim that he has been misrepresented?

Senator Hannan:

– Yes, I claim that Senator Kennelly misrepresented what 1 said in my speech. When I spoke, I did so for the purpose of clearing Great Britain and France from the charge that they had made possible the rape of Hungary. At no time, either expressly or by implication, did I suggest that the Opposition or the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) was favorably inclined to communism. There is no man on the Opposition side whom I would dissociate from any sympathy with communism more than the Leader of the Opposition, whose courtesy and reasoned argument have often impressed the Senate. The sole purpose of my address was to point out in what I thought were cold and reasoned terms that on that occasion he had read from a brief in which he did not believe, and that the blame for the rape of Hungary could not be laid on Great Britain and France because of their action in Suez.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill and of the associated Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill is to obtain parliamentary authority for certain expenditure for which provision was not made in the 1956-57 Estimates. The various items contained in the bill will be explained, when necessary, in detail, in committee. Major items include £3,600,000 for the redemption of savings certificates from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in accordance with the practice of recent years.

Some re-allocations of the defence appropriation have been made within the total budget provision of £190,000,000, with consequential increases and decreases in individual votes. In addition, a further £1,000,000 is being sought for expenditure this year on the St. Mary’s project. Increased post office staff to meet the expanding business calls for a further salary appropriation of £631,000 this financial year. Other new items of expenditure which could not be foreseen when the original estimates were prepared are an advance of £450,000 to the United Nations for the Suez Canal clearance, £300,000 contribution to the Olympic Games, £450,000 for migration of Hungarian refugees, and the Commonwealth contributions to the South Australian and Victorian flood relief programmes.

The 1956-57 budget intimated that the Government had decided to apply an amount estimated at £108,500,000 to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve to assist Australian Loan Council programmes or to meet other Commonwealth requirements for loan finance. An appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this purpose is provided in the bill. The precise amount to be paid to the reserve will be determined towards the close of the year. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 996

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1956-57

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 913), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill appropriates an additional amount of £2,139,000 out of revenue for additional works and services for the purposes of the current financial year. It is a good thing to find Supplementary Estimates being put before the Parliament before the expiration of the financial year to which they relate In the course of a month or two, we shall have an opportunity to observe the effect of the changes much better from the level of the budget that will be presented about that time. Therefore, I do not propose to address myself further to the bill. We offer no opposition to its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 997

SUPPLY BILL 1957-58

First Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 912), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

.- When a bill of this character is before the Senate, it should be viewed in the light of the Government’s policy to date and what is likely to happen in the immediate future. I view the position very seriously, particularly in the light of what has happened and is likely to happen. The present moneybased economy is becoming more and more unbalanced as a result of the implementation of this Government’s policy since 1949. In 1949, the Government promised to put value back into the £1, but quite the reverse has happened ever since. So far as I can judge, no effort is being made to bring about a restoration of the status quo ante. In those circumstances, we can expect that the position will go from bad to worse until a limit is reached.

The purchasing value of the £1 in terms of gold was never lower than it is to-day. The consequence is that the purchasing power of those on small fixed incomes and those who rely on superannuation payments has been reduced. Many superannuitants paid in pounds worth 20s. in terms of gold when they contributed for pension units, but now they are getting pounds that are valued at 4s. or 5s. Thousands of superannuitants find themselves in that position to-day, and that applies equally strongly to all those who rely on small fixed incomes. The purchasing power of wages has been reduced when assessed -in terms of commodities. I base my remarks on the value of the currency in gold.

The number of married women who have to work in industry as well as in their homes has increased. The document entitled “ 1957 and Beyond: An Economic Survey “, issued by the Government, shows that in 1947 only 8 per cent, of the workforce consisted of married women. By 1955, the proportion had grown to 14 per cent. The number of married women who have been forced into industry is increasing as a consequence of the Government’s policy. That means that married women are not able to care for their children as they should do. They cannot attend to the welfare of their children to the extent that they would do if they were not forced out to work in order to balance the family budget.

What does the Government propose to do? Honorable senators should read this economic survey from end to end as I have done. It is a mass of generalities. No attempt has been made in it to set out any policy to relieve the situation. Thus we have a Government which is condoning a state of affairs that has had a very damaging effect on family life. The result is an increase of teenage delinquency. Children are not being trained properly. Family life as it should be is becoming more and more impossible. The Government has ignored the situation and has done nothing about it.

The Arbitration Court fixes the money wage, but the bank inflationists and the production monopolies fix the purchasing power. Actually they fix the real wage. If the Arbitration Court fixes the basic wage even at £20 a week the bank inflationists and production monopolies fix the purchasing power of the wage at £20, and thus no benefit is gained by the workers. That is what is being done. Time and time again we are told that the Government is opposed to price control, but the price of labour and the workers’ services are strictly controlled. That is an established fact that the Government tries to ignore to the detriment of the wage-earners and particularly to the detriment of their wives and families.

A few days ago Senator Toohey directed attention to the effect of the decision of the Arbitration Court to discontinue quarterly adjustments of the basic wage. He estimated that that decision had cost the workers £100,000,000. I believe that is a conservative estimate. The Arbitration Court in discontinuing quarterly adjustments of the basic wage has, for all practical purposes, merely given effect to Government policy. As one who has criticized arbitration in the industrial sphere since it came into being, I am not surprised that it should have done so. The Arbitration

Court has given effect to the Government’s policy and has become more1 and more dictatorial.

Whether the Government likes it or not, that will lead to industrial strife. Then it will be said that the trouble has been fostered by Communists or some one else. The fact is that the pressure exercised through the medium of the Arbitration Court to reduce the standard of living will be responsible for whatever takes place in that sphere. The process has been, accelerated greatly since the withdrawal of gold from circulation. The present generation has no idea of the position. They have- the impression that the purchasing power of the £1 which they receive to-day is the same as the purchasing power of the £1 before gold was withdrawn from circulation. Let us take an example. Before gold was withdrawn from circulation, I received, as a tradesman, three sovereigns as payment for 48 hours’ work, and for £2 10s., which represented 40 hours work, I could buy a better suit than I can buy now. If I were working at my trade to-day and were receiving £20 a. week, I would have to work for 60 hours before I could purchase a suit. Wages, in terms of capacity to purchase houses and other essentials, have never been lower. Nothing that the Government has done indicates that any improvement is likely to be made. The position will’ go from bad to worse. The only difference between the exploitation and impoverishment of workers years ago and to-day is that to-day the process is much more subtle and’ much more ingenious, mainly because the Arbitration Court is controlled by people in influential positions who profess to be legislating for justice for all but who, through the medium of an act of Parliament, perpetrate injustice of the worst kind.

The. price of. gold is still a measure of the value of our currency. The price was pegged, in 1.933 at 35 dollars a fine ounce, mainly as a result of the activity of the banking interests in America. Thirty-five dollars is equal to approximately £15s. 8s. in our currency. We have the invidious position that gold which is paid for at £15 12s. 6d. a fine ounce at the Commonwealth Bank is sold to America for £15 8s., yet we are taxed £2 an ounce to keep the mining companies in operation. America will not accept our other products when she- does not need them, but demands payment’ in gold-.. If she were to accept Australian products, she- would be adding to her own surpluses. My information is that gold which is sold to America for £15 8s. an ounce is then, resold abroad at a suitably increased price.

If we were to sell gold on the free market, particularly in the East; we would probably get anything from £25’ to £30 an ounce. We are subsidizing the industry, mainly for the benefit of. the American bankers. I repeat that America demands gold in payment for our imports when she is not prepared to accept other Australian products; she hoards, gold rather than perishable products. I direct attention to that position, because to me it represents nothing but a colossal racket which, is being perpetrated at the expense of this country and more particularly at the expense of the wage workers. If the mining companies were to sell their gold on the free market, there would be no- need: for a subsidy and, in my opinion,, they would be in a much better position.

Senator Brown:

– Why do’ they not sell it on the free market?

Senator CAMERON:

– They are not allowed to do so.

Senator Brown:

– Why do they not sell gold on the free market? I should like, that information.

Senator CAMERON:

– First, the price of. gold is pegged for the same reason that wages are pegged - to increase profits. A free market would mean that the companies, would be free: to sell their gold to overseas buyers.

Senator Brown:

-. - Would not that helpthe gold producers of Western Australia?

Senator CAMERON:

– Of course, it would help them, and there would be no need for a. subsidy.

Senator Brown:

– Well, why not let them’ sell it on. the free market?

Senator CAMERON:

– The market is restricted or controlled for the purpose of increasing profits. The overall effect of all these factors is, first, that there hasbeen no increase whatever in the purchasing power of wages, small pensions and fixed incomes. Secondly, in the light of sustained technological development, there has been- & relatively substantial reduction of purchasing power, particularly as there’ are thousands of workers unemployed. Unemployment has increased, and the purchasing power of money is down to its lowest level.

Thirdly; in consequence,, there is, an, appalling shortage of housing accommodation for wage workers and: their dependants,. Housing costs are included in the costs of production. The better the workers are housed, the lower are the profits. Therefore, everything is done to reduce housing accommodation to a minimum,, even to the extent that thousands of people are crowded in condemned houses. It has been reported officially that in Victoria 32,000 people require homes, and in New South Wales 60,000 people. I repeat that housing accommodation is reduced to the minimum because it has the effect of raising profits to the maximum.

Workers are herded together like cattle. I often think that it would be a good thing if supporters, of the Government were herded together just to see how they would manage. Government supporters view the world as they are affected by it; they never try to put themselves in the other fellow’s place to see how he is affected. In Sydney and Melbourne unemployed people, particularly age pensioners,, are in need of housing accommodation. For 30s. a week, they get a bed in a room which contains a number of other beds. They are forced out at 7.30 a.m., the beds are re-made, and people who have worked on night shift then occupy them. We are getting back to the conditions of the nineteenth century. Senator Brown will remember the days when workers lived at the factories and as fast as one worker went out to work another came off the job and occupied his bed. That state of affairs is returning. Fourthly, there has been a colossal increase in banking and, monopoly profits which have been converted, wherever possible, into fixed capital of all kinds, including palatial buildings and unnecessary petrol distributing depots. When we see banks erecting branches that are unnecessary, and petrol stations being, erected’ next door to one another, we see evidence of profits being converted into fixed capital in order to escape income tax. In Sydney, Newcastle and other places, houses are being demolished to make way for unnecessary, superfluous petrol stations. That is affecting the social life of the people, but nothing is being done and nothing has been suggested. As far as I can see, as long as the Government is not challenged sufficiently,, this trend will go on ad infinitum.

Fifthly, there has been an acute neglect of essential public works. Roadways were never before in a worse state of disrepair than they are in to-day, but again nothing is done. Money is spent on petrol stations and skyscrapers, but nothing is done to unify railway gauges. As far back as 1912, when the late Lord Kitchener visited Australia, he directed attention to the unsatisfactory condition of the railways. He said that in the event of war we would pay the penalty. We have had two world wars since Lord Kitchener’s visit, but nothing has been done to unify railway gauges. Plans are ready, but the Government is doing nothing about them.

In all the years that I have addressed the workers - it is a considerable number of years - I have told them that they will get nothing by appealing to governments, except any amount of lip sympathy. They will get no practical relief. If they want to get anything worthwhile from a government, they wilt have to bring pressure to hear, because that is the only thing that a govern.understands. I tell them that all things yield to pressure, and where there is no pressure there are no results. That is the position which they face to-day, and I do not hesitate to tell them so whenever I get the opportunity to do so.

Finally, it should be obvious that the problem of production is solved, because we can produce more foodstuffs and secondaryproducts than can be consumed in this country. Technical developments make it possible to produce to-day more primaryand. secondary products than can be consumed in this country and other countries, so the problem that we face to-day is, the problem of distribution.

The Government’s idea for solving the problem of distribution is that the purchasing power of wages, and small fixed incomes shall be reduced to the lowest level’, but when, that has been done the problem of distribution becomes more and more acute. The overall effect is a shortage of housing, an increase in unemployment, an increase in the gaol population, an increase in the slum population and an increase in the mentally ill population - most of whom are casualties of the ignorance and indifference of the Government.

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

– More slums will have to be built soon to accommodate the slum population.

Senator CAMERON:

– That is what is being done. Flats, which are totally unfitted for the rearing of families, are being built. Large blocks of flats are being used to accommodate 200 or 300 persons. These are modern slums, and their effect may be worse than the effect of the slums of the past.

I am concerned about the internal economy, because if this nation is ever to be a nation worthy of the name, the national household must be organized on the basis of the ideal domestic or private household, where the young, the ailing and the aged receive first preference, but the Government is deliberately putting that process into reverse gear.

I read almost every document that the Government issues, but not one really constructive approach is revealed. To put it in technical terms, the approach is purely arithmetical. In the Auditor-General’s report we see the arithmetical approach, which deals with facts. There is no geometrical approach, which deals with causes as well as with facts. The arithmetical approach is based on the theory that the part is greater than the whole, that the Government is greater than the people. The geometrical approach is that the whole is greater than the part. Members of the Government are either very ignorant or are lacking the moral courage to do anything that is really worth while. They look very complacent and satisfied, because they are well fed, well housed and well paid, but they fail to see the thousands outside, with whom the reverse is the case. When they are told of the circumstances outside, they ignore them as far as they possibly can. As the position develops and serious industrial disputes arise, the Government will find itself frustrated in many ways. Let it then remember that it has played its part in bringing about that state of affairs. I feel it incumbent on me at this late hour to warn Government supporters of that.

Senator Sheehan:

– They will not take any notice of you.

Senator CAMERON:

– I know that. When we are addressing mental paupers, we cannot expect anything else. I want to be in a position to justify my existence in this place - to be able to tell the people whom I represent that I have told the Government of the position. I do not want Government supporters to be able to say that bills were passed without argument and, by implication, that the Opposition acquiesced. As far as I am concerned, there is no acquiescence and no compromise. It is fight to the bitter end.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to appropriate £184,212,000 .to carry on the necessary normal services of government, other than capital works and services, during the first four months of the financial year 1957-58. These are services approved by the Parliament in the Appropriation Acts 1956-57. The several amounts provided for ordinary services are -

Those amounts represent, with minor exceptions, approximately one-third of the 1956-57 appropriations. The amount of £63,059,000 for Defence Services provides for expenditure on the current defence programme and the amount of £25,871,000 for War and Repatriation Services provides for expenditure on war pensions and repatriation and rehabilitation services. Except in relation to defence, no amounts are included for new services.

However, an amount of £16,000,000 is sought for an advance to the Treasurer to enable the payment of the special grants to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania to be continued pending the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, to make advances which will be recovered during the financial year and also to meet unforseen and miscellaneous expenditure particulars of which will afterwards be presented to Parliament.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is the usual and necessary bill for the granting of supply for the first few months of a new financial year. For most of that period the Parliament will be in recess. The Opposition will have a complete opportunity to review this portion of the annual appropriation in its proper setting in the budget, and I do not want to duplicate the comments of the Opposition by making them now and then again in a few months’ time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1001

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1957-58

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 912), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill appropriates the amount required to continue into next financial year works of a capital nature that are current at the moment. The bill is a usual one, and obviously a necessary one. We will review the appropriation for the full year in the course of the budget debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1001

QUESTION

DAIRYING INDUSTRY BELL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 981).

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- The Opposition, and in fact all honorable senators, could raise a reasonable objection to the introduction of a bill of this nature at this time. There is no legitimate excuse for the Government’s action because it knew that the 1952 agreement would run its course and a new agreement would have to be made by 1st July of this year. It is no wonder that many people outside, and even some in this chamber, ask, “ What is the use of the Senate? “

Whether there were any differences between the Commonwealth and the States, and the Commonwealth had difficulty in getting the States into line, I do not know. Even if that were so, the Government had sufficient time to iron those matters out. Dairying is a vital industry. Whatever excuse the Government may have for bringing bills before the Senate in the dying hours of this sessional period, I do not think it has any legitimate excuse for presenting this bill. By doing so it is treating this chamber in a very carefree way. As I have already said, it is no wonder a great body of opinion considers that this chamber is a grand place for the people who happen to be in it, but serves little useful purpose in the government of the Commonwealth.

I do not wish to analyse the bill. There is a lot one could have said about it if time had not pressed. All I am concerned about is the drop in the consumption of butter in Australia since 1939. In an answer to a question asked in another place, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) stated, in effect, that butter consumption had fallen by 3.2 lb. per head per annum.. That is, in fact, a 10 per cent, per head drop in butter consumption at a time when the population of Australia has increased by nearly 30 per cent. It is a serious matter. The reason is to be found in the cost of production.

Senator Kendall:

– And margarine sales.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I do not agree. How did margarine ever come on to the market in this country or anywhere else? Because it is cheaper, that is all. The drop in the consumption of butter is due principally to the one factor of cost. I do not want to- harp on. it, but the plain facts are that when land values were unpegged, up they went. Of course the farmer is entitled to the cost of production and Opposition members desire him to have it.

The- cost of production figures for the dairying industry were compiled after an investigation had been carried out covering 126 farmers. I say that the farmers are entitled to that cost of production, but all that the Government is doing in this bill1- as it did in the last agreement - is to give a price guarantee to cover all butter and cheese consumed in Australia, plus an amount of 20 per cent. It is estimated that about 190,000 tons of butter will be produced this year. That means the Government is giving a guarantee, in round figures, in respect of 144,000 tons. The Minister for Primary Industry said that butter was selling for 4s. 6id. per lb. in this country and for 3s. 9d. per lb. in Great Britain. I understand the overseas price has risen very recently.

I do not desire to debate the bill at length at this hour, particularly as I desire to leave Canberra in an atmosphere of friendship and goodwill. Therefore, I do not propose to deliver the speech that I had prepared. I say, however, that if we wish the parliamentary institution to continue and our system of government to be what it ought to be, efforts should be made to bring in legislation in time to allow honorable senators an “ open go “. The Opposition will not oppose the bill. We know that this subsidy costs about £13,500,000 a year, but I see no reason why the whole cost of production should not be guaranteed’. In saying that, I. am not unmindful of the fact that the subsidy represents about 6d. per lb. and is a consumers’ subsidy. Nor am I unmindful, of the fact that the consumers’ subsidy has been reduced since this Government has been in. power. I conclude by repeating that I think it is unfair, and is bringing parliamentary government into ridicule, for a bill of such importance to be brought forward at this late stage of the: sessional period!

Senator WARDLAW:
Tasmania

– I rise to support strongly the Dairying Industry Bill now before the Senate, but before I discuss the measure itself I desire to. remark on some, of the. statements made by Senator Kennelly. Like him, I desire to part from my colleagues in this chamber in a friendly atmosphere. Indeed, I think all honorable senators have that desire.

As has already been stated in this debate, there has been a drop of 10 per cent, in butter consumption in Australia. The reason for that is hard to state, but no doubt the cost of butter has had something to do with it. Notwithstanding that reduced consumption, however, the fact still remains that the consumption of butter in Australia is high; it is about £31 per head of the population compared with about £13 in the United States, of America. I believe that the consumption of butter in Australia could be increased as the result of a better advertising and selling campaign. We have been at fault in that field. I think, too, that the costs of production can be reduced, and that that will happen. I hope that in considering the subsidy to be paid to this industry we shall not act unfairly towards other industries, particularly the wheat industry.

I regard the Government’s guarantee as being reasonable. I have no hesitation in saying that no government in Australian history has done more for the dairying industry than the present Government has done. One of its first acts after coming into office in December, 1949, was to announce an extension of the guarantee to the industry which was due to terminate, at the then existing level, at the end of December, 1949. After that, there were discussions with respresentatives of the industry, and of State governments, and eventually an agreement was reached in connexion with a new five-year plan. That plan came into operation on 1st July, 1952, and provided for a subsidy of £15,000,000 per annum. The present Commonwealth guarantee represents a payment of £13,500,000 per annum, and guarantees the cost of production of all butter consumed in Australia, plus 20 per cent., the balance being subject to equalization after it is sold in the markets of the world. The Dairying Industry Stabilization Fund was placed at the disposal of the industry to meet losses on butter exported and not covered by the guarantee.

There are three main organizations controlling the dairying industry in Australia. The: principal one: of these is the Australian Dairy Produce Board which consists of twelve members, six representing cooperative factories; two representing private iactories, two representatives of producers and one of employees in the industry, with .Mr. D. Sheedy, the Commonwealth Government representative, as the chairman. That board controls all butter sold and shipped overseas. The Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Limited is a company consisting of 36 members with a paid-up capital of £36, representing £1 for each member. That committee controls subsidy payments to factories for distribution to producers and sales of butter within Australia. The remaining organization is the Dairy Industry Investigation Committee, which was set <up by the Commonwealth Government. It consists of three members - Sir Frank Richardson, who is chairman, Mr. Hedley Clark of Victoria, and Mr. Jasper Norton of Western Australia. They are all interested in the dairying industry and know it from A to Z. Their function is to advise the Government on matters affecting the dairying industry generally, and to ascertain the efficient cost of production figure for submission to the Minister for Primary Industry, on request.

There would be no stability in the dairying industry without equalization, and consequently it is important that equalization be maintained at all costs. That can be done only if there is full co-operation between the .States, the dairying organizations, the manufacturers, and the Commonwealth. The capital invested in the dairying industry has been estimated at different amounts, but in all its ramifications it probably amounts to £1,000,000,000. The employees engaged in the industry number 120,000 working in factories and on 66,000 dairy farms in Australia. Exports of dairy produce are valued at £40,000,000 per annum and, in addition, the whole milk produced represents a value of £50,000,000 a year. The important place occupied by the dairying industry in our economy is important and must be preserved at all costs. The proposed scheme, as set out in the Minister’s second-reading speech, is for a term of five years .from 1st July next, and covers all butter and cheese consumed in Australia, plus 20 per cent, of that amount. The working of the scheme is rather complicated, and agreement was reached only after full consultation between the three organizations mentioned, and producer interests as represented by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, the Queensland dairymen’s organization and the Victorian Dairymen’s Association; so primary producers are in full accord with the proposal; it is thoroughly understood by them.

As is set out, during the first four years of the existing scheme, the incomes of dairy-farmers from butter sales showed an increase of 17 per cent, on a Commonwealth basis, that increase being from £71,000,000 in 1952-53 to £83,000,000 in 1955-56. Factory butter production increased from 163,500 tons to 205,800 tons3 or by 26 per cent., in the same period. It is estimated that, owing to adverse conditions in New South Wales and Queensand, production will be down to 190,000 tons this year.

Efficiency in the industry itself has shown a marked improvement, particularly on the farms, but there is still room for increased efficiency with consequent lower costs. Here, I pay tribute to the Victorian dairying industry, and I propose to quote figures mentioned by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) when he addressed the Victorian Dairy Farmers Association so recently as Monday last. He said that production had increased steeply, that to-day Victoria produces 41 per cent, of the total Commonwealth output of milk, 44 per cent, of Australia’s butter, and 36 per cent, of her cheese. What is even more significant is the improvement the Victorian dairy-farmers have effected in production performances, and it is interesting to make a comparison here with the performances of other States, and with that of Queensland in particular. The present average annual production per cow is 25 per cent, above the pre-war output, but the average increase in Victoria is 29 per cent. There is also a notable change in Victorian dairy herds in that there has been a substantial (decrease in the number of small herds and an appreciable increase in the number of lange .herds. Production costs are much more favorable than in Queensland, where they are 20 per cent, higher, ‘for some season which I have never been able to understand. I certainly pay tribute to the Victorian dairymen for the high standard of ‘efficiency they have attained.

The proposed new scheme is, in nearly all respects, similar to that of previous years, containing as it does all the best features of the present arrangement, which has been tried out in a practical manner and which has worked in the best interests of the dairymen and of Australia in general.

Of the seven main points submitted to the Government, five were agreed upon and two were rejected. This, in itself, is a satisfactory achievement. I have always maintained that no primary industry is as well served by its representatives as is the dairying industry, and the present agreement is a tribute to the Minister for Primary Industry and his very able staff, to all official organizations, and to primary producer representatives at all levels.

I suggest that farmers are not only hard working, but also efficient producers. The fact that 14 per cent, of Australia’s population can produce 85 per cent, of her exports is sufficient evidence of that. Strikes and stop-work meetings are unknown in the industry.

Pressure of competition from an expanding world output is forcing prices of most products downwards. How long this situation will continue, it is impossible to say. At first glance, action to strengthen the economic position of farmers will not, in most cases, appear easy, but a careful examination of all those activities which, added together, spell production costs, is likely to disclose some surprising opportunities. I have already instanced the position of Victoria, an example which I think could well be followed in all the States of the Commonwealth, and I emphasize particularly that the term “ economic efficiency “ when applied to farming, refers to the management of the farm as a business enterprise and a commercial proposition rather than to the efficiency of the farmer-producer himself.

What, then, is the problem facing primary producers? For greater security in primary production, we must have three things; first, readily available finance with which to purchase up-to-date machinery, secondly, lowerpriced goods and services’, and thirdly, sound marketing and stream-lined distribution with consequent greater returns to farmers and lower prices to consumers. For the development of local markets, I suggest that a forceful selling campaign is essential. There must also be specialized overseas marketing, selling and distribution, greater production and increased turnover, together with improved quality and presentation of products, for these will mean greater security, more prosperity and sounder economic conditions for the man on the land. I support the bill.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– It is true that when this Government came to office in 1949 it set about honouring its promise to stabilize the dairying industry. It is also true that the previous government had done a great deal for this industry, and it was perhaps upon the foundation it left that the present Government built and progressed.

Some years ago, the dairying industry was looked upon as the Cinderella of primary industries. Thanks to the great good sense of all sections of the community, irrespective of political philosophy, the dairying industry to-day enjoys greater prosperity than it has experienced for many years. The effect of this prosperity is reflected throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth. Because he has enjoyed increased returns, the dairy-farmer has been enabled to build up not only the number but also the quality of his herds. Senator Wardlaw has just told us that the average production per cow throughout Australia has increased by 25 per cent., and I was pleased that he mentioned what has happened in Victoria, because I believe that is the ideal State for dairying. Production per cow there has increased by 29 per cent., and that is a tribute to the efficient management of the dairy-farmer.

To one travelling through the country the most pleasing sight, in my opinion, is not only the better herds but also the better milking sheds, modern machinery, improved pastures, water conservation projects, the subdivision of the farmers’ properties, and, above all, the better working conditions enjoyed by both the owner or operator and the employee. And they are justly entitled to these improvements! At one time work in the dairying industry was looked upon as drudgery. In those days, it was considered that a person engaged in it had not much chance of improving his status. Thanks to what governments have done over the years, the dairy-farmer is now reaping the benefit of his efforts.

The majority of the factories nowadays are run on the co-operative system. They are equipped with modern machinery and plant, which enables them to treat the produce that is brought to them in the best possible manner and, under hygienic conditions, to produce good butter and cheese. During the past seven and a half years, the Government has paid out as a subsidy an amount of approximately £112,000,000. I am not going to argue about whether the subsidy is a producers’ subsidy or a consumers’ subsidy. If any taxpayer feels disgruntled on this score, I can assure him that the money has been well and faithfully applied. What is more, it has given the industry an opportunity to reduce production costs.

This bill extends stabilization for five years. The Commonwealth subsidy to the dairying industry for the 1957-58 season will be £13,500,000. It is interesting to note that this subsidy will represent approximately Hd. per lb. for butter fat and will be equal to 14 per cent, or 15 per cent, of the dairy-farmers’ pay cheque. It is interesting to note also that the leaders of the dairying industry asked the Government - and the Government agreed to do so - to make available a fixed amount of subsidy in each dairying year. This means that deferred bounty payments can be made almost immediately after the close of a season - perhaps in December or October of each year - when the actual production of butter and cheese for the year is known. Under the existing arrangement, the dairy-farmers have had to wait for almost twelve months for their deferred payments.

I come now to the costing formula. The Dairy Industry Investigation Committee, which is an independent authority, determines the cost of efficient production. I should like to pay a tribute to the men who gather the relevant information from all over Australia. Before the beginning of each year, the committee takes evidence from the Division of Agricultural Economics and interested dairying industry organizations on factors affecting the cost of efficient production, and reports its findings to the Government, There are three things that the Government does. It reserves the right to determine the allowance in the costing formula for the owner or owner-operator of a dairy farm, it determines the interest on the farmer’s equity, and it takes into consideration land values. All other items in the formula are left to the Dairy Industry Investigation Committee. Prior to 1951, the allowance under the formula in respect of an owner or operator was £650, plus a managerial allowance of £65. In 1951 the allowance was increased’ to £800, and in 1953 it was further adjusted upwards to £953 8s. To-day the allowance is £978 8s.

To-night we have heard something about prices. There are four basic elements in the guaranteed price, namely, the level of local consumption, the local price, the average export value and the amount of subsidy available. We know the local price, and we know what the amount of subsidy will be, but the average export price is unknown. It is unpredictable, but it is a major factor in determining the final return to the producer.

I suggest that perhaps cheese offers the possibility of increasing the quantity of milk sold in Australia. To-day, our per capita consumption of cheese is 5.5 lb per annum. In 1953-54, it was 6.6 lb. A return to a per capita consumption of 6.6 lb. would represent increased consumption equal to 2,200 tons of bulk cheese per year. The production of fancy varieties of cheese compatible with the tastes of immigrants from Europe would result in a greatly increased per capita consumption.

I understand that there are markets in both Burma and Malaya for our butter. I was told only recently by a very responsible engineer who had returned from overseas that Australian butter is practically unknown in those countries. As English is spoken freely in Burma, due to the fact that there have been contacts with Great Britain for very many years, I think that a profitable market might await our butter in that country. The price of Australian butter in Great Britain has increased by approximately 8d. per lb. during the last few weeks, and it is expected that the London market will show increased activity. This is particularly pleasing to us, because there are about 32,000 tons of Australian butter still unsold in Great Britain.

I believe that our principal aim to-day should be to increase production on the existing properties. We know that dairying faces a competitive situation. Costs and prices will need to be watched closely. Margarine provides considerable competition for butter, but as dairying is such an important primary industry in Australia, I feel sure that common sense will prevail and that a fair compromise will be made between the dairying industry and the margarine interests. I have great pleasure in supporting this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1006

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Debate resumed from 15th May (vide page 737), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the following paper be printed: - 1957 and Beyond: An Economic Survey.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I think it quite inappropriate that I should address the Senate on this matter at this stage, and I expect no dissent from the proposition that 1 am about to put to honorable senators. I think it would be wise to have this matter discharged from the notice-paper. Otherwise, every honorable senator dealing with the budget would be embarrassed by not being able to refer to the economic statement that has been tabled. I suggest that, in the circumstances, it would be wise to discharge this matter from the notice-paper now so that honorable senators may be able to refer to the economic statement freely in the new sessional period. Accordingly, I shall not address myself to the statement at this stage.

SenatorO’SULLIVAN (QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney-General) [9.42]. - In view of the statement that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), I move -

That the order of the day be discharged.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1006

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) -by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 1006

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -

Thatthe Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

Senate adjourned at 9.42 p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 May 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1957/19570522_senate_22_s10/>.