Senate
1 October 1957

22nd Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuilin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 237

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN QUEENSLAND

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service been informed that, due to drought conditions and other causes, unemployment in Queensland is increasing beyond the usual level for this time of the year? Will the Minister for Labour and National Service arrange for one of his officers to confer with the Commonwealth departments in Queensland to ascertain whether any of the works that are referred to in the civil works programme could be commenced at an early date to relieve the situation?

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

– I am quite certain that my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, is closely in touch with all trends and that, if anything needs to be done, he is already doing it.

page 237

QUESTION

IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. I am sure we all are pleased to note that steps have been taken to appoint an authority with something like advisory powers to be a trade panel to study the impact of Japanese exports upon Australian industries. 1 should like the Minister to indicate the particular way in which Mr. McCarthy has been appointed to discharge these functions. I should like to know in particular what are the constating documents which give him that authority or whether he is just acting as the nominee of the Minister. If Mr. McCarthy is acting as a nominee, I ask the Minister whether he will make a statement to the Senate explaining the likely effect of these additional duties upon the independent character of the duties of Mr. McCarthy as the chairman of the Tariff Board.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am sorry to say that I have no information to offer in reply to the honorable senator’s question. In the circumstances, I ask him’ to place the question on the notice-paper. I shall have a talk with my colleague, the Minister for Trade, with a view to having the question answered as soon as is practicable.

page 237

QUESTION

BOOK CENSORSHIP

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 ask the Minister for Customs and Excise the following questions: Is it a fact that T. D. Salinger’s book, “ The Catcher in the Rye “, has been banned? Is it a fact that the Dean of Melbourne, Dr. Barton Babbage, described the ban as incredible ineptitude? Did the Minister himself ban the book? If he did not, who did? Will he kindly give to the Senate an explanation of the methods that are adopted by the Department of Customs and Excise in the banning of books?

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

– The book to which the honorable senator has referred is now being studied by the Literature Censorship Board. The board will inform me of its recommendations, and the matter will be placed before me for a final decision. According to the press, the other questions that have been asked by the honorable senator are quite factual and call for no other answer.

page 237

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Territories inform the Senate whether it is a fact that a direct tax is to be imposed in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea upon the incomes of all Europeans and native males over eighteen years of age? In view of the difficulty in attracting capital and suitable labour to the Territory, will the Minister assure the Senate that the situation will not be considerably aggravated by such a decision?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I have read in the press that some form df income tax is to be imposed in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, but I have not the full details at this moment. I shall obtain the information requested by the honorable senator from the Minister for Territories.

page 237

QUESTION

POTATOES

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I preface a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by stating that Tasmania is experiencing good rainfall at present and has prospects for a very good season. However, there has been a slump in the price of potatoes which has impoverished many Tasmanian potato-growers. As a result, they are not planting the normal acreage of potatoes for the coming season because of financial difficulties. At the same time, the rest of Australia is experiencing a dry pinch which could develop into a severe drought. Will the Leader of the Government consult his colleagues in the Cabinet with a view to approaching this matter on a national basis? Will the Government consider financing the planting of the maximum area available in Tasmania with potatoes? Will it consider a guarantee of the cost of production at least to potato-growers and ensure national benefit from Tasmania’s good fortune in having regular rainfall and capacity to produce foodstuffs, stock fodder, cereals and grain which could be of immense value to Australia?

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

– I shall be happy to discuss the matters that have been raised by the honorable senator with the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 238

QUESTION

DIESEL FUEL TAX

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

– In connexion with the recent impost of ls. a gallon on diesel type oils, will the Minister for Customs and Excise explain the method by which a rebate is to be obtained in the case of such fuel which is used in ships and/or boats?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The regulation to which the honorable senator has referred has not yet been finally drafted. The impost will not apply to diesel oil used in ships or boats; it will affect only road-users.

page 238

QUESTION

REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL, HEIDELBERG

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Repatriation inform the Senate whether it is a fact that five wards at the Heidelberg Repatriation General Hospital are closed at present? If that is so, are those wards closed because of a shortage of staff? I have been assured that there is a shortage of staff, and that it is due entirely to the withdrawal by the Government of the bus service to the Heidelberg hospital, and that the ordinary transport services are not suitable for employees at the hospital. Will the Government take immediate action to have all wards at the Heidelberg hospital opened so that totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen and other ex-service personnel may obtain the hospital treatment they so desperately need but cannot obtain at present?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– Sufficient wards are open at Heidelberg hospital to cater for those who are entitled to be admitted to it. The provision of a bus service is brought forward from time to time, but I can assure the honorable senator that the discontinuance of the bus service has had no effect on the numbers of nursing sisters, wardsmen and other employees at the hospital. At present, I think, there are 23 wards open. That is equal to the number which has been open for quite a number of years. I think there is now one more ward open than was the case when the bus service was running.

Senator Sandford:

– Are there any closed?

Senator COOPER:

– A certain number, but there must always be some wards closed. Wards have to be painted, and other maintenance work has to be done. There are wards closed in every hospital in Australia at times, and at Heidelberg there are no more wards closed, in proportion to capacity, than there are at the Concord hospital in Sydney.

page 238

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I address a question to the Minister for National Development. Is it a fact that at present the Tooma River contributes approximately 400,000 acre feet of water to the Murray River, but, when the diversion scheme at present in course of construction is completed, that water will then be added to the flow of the Murrumbidgee instead of the Murray? Is it also a fact that there will then be an interim period of approximately six or seven years before the next diversion scheme, that diverting water from the Snowy River to the Murray, will be completed? Is there any guarantee under the Snowy Mountains agreement recently signed by the representatives of the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian governments, that in the event of a drought South Australia will not receive less water from the river Murray than she receives at present? Will South Australia receive any more water than at present when the entire scheme is completed?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Snowy Mountains agreement provides that the waters of the Tooma River, which is a tributary of the Murray River, will be diverted into the Murrumbidgee River. The amount of water to be diverted from the Tooma to the Murrumbidgee will be some 280,000 acre feet a year. The’ diversion will be done strictly within the terms of the River Murray Waters Act. That act dennes the relationship between the governments which share the waters of the river Murray. It says that any State can divert the waters of a tributary of the Murray above Albury provided that if it does so the amount so diverted, or the amount it takes out of the waters of the Murray, shall be deducted from that share of the waters of the Murray to which the State is entitled at Albury. The South Australian position is completely protected under the arrangement. If I may put the matter in colloquial terms, the States of New South Wales and Victoria say to South Australia, in effect, “ We are doing something that is for the common good, and we are doing it completely within the four corners of the River Murray Waters Act. We are doing something that we are entitled to do, something that legislation gives us the right to do “. There are no circumstances where under South Australia can lose. It is true that the waters of the Murray are reduced by the amount of the diversion, but the States that suffer the reduction are New South Wales and Victoria, which have guaranteed to South Australia that the amount diverted will be taken out of their share.

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development a question in relation to the Snowy Mountains agreement. I preface it by stating that I listened very attentively to the Minister’s reply to a previous question on this subject, asked by a Government senator. Whilst he may have satisfied the honorable senator who asked the question, it is perfectly obvious that he has not satisfied the Premier of South Australia as to the true position.

Senator Buttfield:

– He is hard to satisfy.

Senator TOOHEY:

– He may be. It appears that Government supporters are very dissatisfied with the Liberal Premier of South Australia.

Senator Spooner:

– I take a point of order. Has the honorable senator a question to ask or not?

The PRESIDENT:

– He must come to the question now.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I must confess I got slightly off the rails, but I think you will agree with me, Mr. President, that the interjection was the cause of it.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will get on to the rails now.

Senator TOOHEY:

– We hear all sorts of assurances and statements-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator will ask his question.

Senator TOOHEY:

– In view of the fears that South Australia’s interests are gravely threatened by the Snowy Mountains agreement, will the Minister table the agreement in the Senate forthwith?

Senator SPOONER:

– The fears of South Australia are completely and utterly unjustified. I hope in the very near future to have the great honour of bringing the agreement before the Senate and asking the Senate to approve of it by legislation.

page 239

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION STUDIOS, PERTH

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Is it a fact that in 1945 the building of the long-promised new premises for the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Perth was abandoned? Is it also a fact that the employees of the Australian Broadcasting Commission there are working under intolerable conditions, which daily contravene the health acts of Western Australia? Is it also a fact that the Commonwealth Public Works Committee, after personal investigation, made the following recommendation: -

There is an urgent necessity for this building to relieve the present intolerable conditions, to comply with the agreement under the Town Hall Act, and to take advantage of the present favorable conditions for building. Special priority should be given to this urgent matter.

Will the Postmaster-General review the matter and do his utmost to see that this long-promised building is placed high on the priority list of public works?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I assure the honorable senator that I shall bring her question under the notice of my colleague, the PostmasterGeneral, and ask him to let me have a reply as soon as possible.

page 240

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Can the Minister do anything to prevent the exorbitant increase from £9 15s. to £14 10s. of the charge per inch for advertisements in the pink pages of the South Australian telephone directory, for which blocks are supplied by the advertisers?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I am not able immediately to do anything to prevent that from happening, but I assure the honorable senator that I shall bring his question to the notice of the Postmaster-General and ask him to look into the matter and furnish a reply.

page 240

QUESTION

CIVIL DEFENCE

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The question that I wish to direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate relates to the urgent necessity to implement immediately a civil defence plan for the protection and guidance of the people living in, or adjacent to, our capital cities, should an atomic attack occur. In view of the announced perfection of inter-continental guided missiles, and the danger of attack by longrange submarines equipped with devices to discharge atomic rockets, will the Minister inform me whether he is considering an overall plan of civil defence?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Without going into detail, I assure the honorable senator that the subject-matter of his question has received full consideration by the responsible Ministers.

page 240

QUESTION

CONFERENCE OF COMMONWEALTH FINANCE MINISTERS

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– Some time ago, I suggested to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that consideration be given to the holding in Australia of future conferences of Commonwealth finance Ministers and other Ministers. I now point out that, at the recent conference of Commonwealth finance Ministers held at Quebec, Canada, most of the time was occupied in considering a proposal by the Canadian Minister to convene a fullscale -economic conference. If Commonwealth countries decide to hold such a conference, will the Minister see that Cabinet considers the practicability of it. being held in Australia?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I shall be very happy to refer the subject-matter of the honorable senator’s question to my colleagues.

page 240

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I direct the following questions to the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Treasurer: What was the total amount of income tax and company tax collected by the Commonwealth from Tasmanians during the financial year 1956-57, and what percentage was that amount of the total Commonwealth collections of those taxes? What was the total amount of company tax. collected by the Commonwealth from Tasmanians during the same period, and what percentage was that amount of the total Commonwealth collections of company tax?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The honorable senator was good enough to write to me a few weeks ago indicating that he proposed to ask these questions. Consequently, I am able to supply him with accurate information from the Treasury. The total amount of income tax and social services contribution - individuals and companies - collected during the financial year 1956-57 on assessments issued from the Tasmanian taxation office, and the tax instalments on. employees’ earnings paid to that office, was- £13,271,922. This was equal to 2.14 per cent, of Commonwealth collections of income tax and social services contribution, which amounted to £620,298,070. The total amount of income tax and social services contribution collected during the financial year 1956-57 on assessments issued to companies from the Tasmanian taxation office was £3,091,085. This was equal to 1.43 per cent, of Commonwealth collections, of company tax and contribution, which amounted to £216,571,064.

The amounts stated in relation to the Tasmanian taxation office do not include tax and contribution on income derived fromTasmanian sources by interstate taxpayerslodging returns at the central taxation office in Melbourne. It is not practicable toallocate the tax and contribution collected at the latter office to the income derived from sources in any particular State.

page 241

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AT NEWCASTLE

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Some weeks ago a Sabre jet fighter went down in the sea just off Newcastle Heads. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Air whether a report is yet to hand, and whether he can inform the Senate as to the probable causes of the disaster.

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

– I will refer the question to my colleague, and ask whether the report can be made available.

page 241

QUESTION

HOUSING IN QUEENSLAND

Senator BENN:

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that at least 5,000 people in Brisbane, Ipswich and Toowoomba will have to leave their homes which, having been constructed of European timber imported under the terms of an agreement between the Queenland Government and the Department of National Development, must be fumigated, so that borers imported in the timber can be destroyed. Will the Minister say whether the department is to blame for the use of borer-infested timber in these houses? If it is culpable, will he agree to recompense the 5,000 persons concerned for the inconvenience and loss that they will suffer?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– This is indeed a case of a Daniel come to judgment. The honorable senator must surely be referring to the Zillmere housing project. My colleague in another place, the honorable member for Lilley, found it necessary to attack most strongly the administration of the Queensland Housing Commission in connexion with that contract at the time of the Labour Government’s regime in that State. In the face of that, how the honorable senator could attempt to attach any blame to this Government is beyond my comprehension. The Queensland Labour Government’s supervision of the Zillmere housing contract was the most inefficient of any public contract that I have ever heard of.

page 241

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY

Senator SCOTT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I understand that certain sections of the Trans-Australian railway are in such poor condition that trains passing over them must slow down. Could the Minister say what action is being taken to improve the track?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– A most vigorous ballasting programme is to be undertaken on the Trans-Australian railway line this year. Certain sections have not been re-ballasted since they were laid down in 1914, but now that other more pressing work ‘has been concluded it is expected that a good deal will be done to remedy the position this year.

page 241

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS

Senator TOOHEY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. This matter has been dealt with previously and, with your concurrence, Mr. President, I should like to preface my question by saying that earlier in this sessional period my colleague, Senator Sandford, asked how many persons at immigrant-holding centres throughout Australia were unemployed. The Minister did not answer specifically the question asked by Senator Sandford, and upon my asking subsequently whether he refused to give the information, he stated that he had considered the question to be frivolous and had therefore given a frivolous answer. As I feel that the Senate is entitled to know the facts of the matter, I now ask the Minister whether he will advise the Senate of the number of unemployed at immigrant-holding centres throughout Australia.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– 1 ask the honorable senator to place his question on the noticepaper so that my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, can give him an answer. I say, in anticipation of the answer that my colleague will give, that the figures are well known. They are regularly under survey by the Minister for Labour and National Service, and represent a very small proportion of the total number of thos? receiving the unemployment relief benefit.

page 241

QUESTION

DIESEL FUEL TAX

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport tell me whether any decision has yet been made as to how the money collected from customs and excise duties on dieseline will be distributed among the various States?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The matter is now receiving consideration by the Government. It will shortly be decided and legislation will be introduced.

page 242

QUESTION

REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL, HEIDELBERG

Senator SANDFORD:

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation a further question, following his reply to my previous question in which he stated that sufficient wards were open at Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital to cater for ex-servicemen needing hospital treatment. Does the Minister know that, in Victoria, there are approximately 4,000 totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen pensioners, only 200 of whom receive hospital treatment at Heidelberg, and that many of the others are urgently in need of hospital treatment? Does he know, also, that many thousands of other types of pensioners cannot obtain hospital treatment?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– 1 still assure the honorable senator that acute cases that need hospital treatment get hospital treatment. When a case is not acute, there sometimes may be a period of waiting. It may be because a bed is not available, or because the specialist in charge of the case is not prepared to operate or to go on with the treatment of the case at the moment; he may want to wait for a month or six weeks. However, those in acute need of a bed or of treatment are admitted.

page 242

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport relates to the shipbuilding industry in Australia, particularly in South Australia. Has the Minister anything to report in regard to the future shipbuilding programme at Whyalla, in South Australia, particularly in regard to the building of tankers?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The building of tanker tonnage at Whyalla was the subject of a conference, earlier this year, between myself and the Premier of South Australia. Subsequently, the Premier interviewed the Acting Prime Minister, during the absence of the Prime Minister. The matter is to be pursued further when the principals of certain firms interested in tanker tonnage take the matter up again - quite shortly, I understand - with the Premier of South Australia. Other shipbuilding activities at Whyalla which will be of importance and of interest, particularly to South Australian senators, include the early commencement of the first of two 19,000 ton ships, which will be the largest ships constructed in Australia. Another development of interest is the establishment, at Birkenhead, in Port Adelaide, of a new yard which will build ships of the tug type and other small ships of that kind. It is expected that it will go into production in about twelve months’ time.

page 242

QUESTION

DESTRUCTION OF KANGAROOS

Senator BENN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply. Will the Minister ask his colleague to make supplies of .303 ammunition available at a reasonable price to traders in Queensland, who usually stock this class of article, in order that mobs of kangaroos may be reduced in numbers at an economic cost?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I shall have pleasure in referring the question asked by the honorable senator to my colleague, the Minister for Supply.

page 242

QUESTION

TARIFF REVIEW

Senator WRIGHT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade the following question, notice of which I gave on 10th April last: -

  1. Has any consideration been given to an independent review of the impact of the tariff on our economy?
  2. Will the Minister consider setting up a committee, similar to that of 1928-29 consisting of Professors Copland, Brigden and Giblin and Mr. Dyason, to make an independent report assessing the effect of the present tariff on our economy?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The honorable senator has asked his question at a time when the matter he raises is being actively considered by the Government, and that consideration has not yet been concluded. The reply of the Minister for Trade is as follows: -

Tariff policy is under consideration by the Government. At present there is no decision to conduct the inquiry envisaged in the honorable senator’s question.

page 242

QUESTION

PEARLING

Senator SCOTT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry the following question, notice of which I have given: -

  1. Is it a fact that the Japanese pearling fleet was allowed to fish for pearl shell within three miles of the north-west coast?
  2. If so, for what tonnage of shell were the Japanese allowed to fish, and what was the actual tonnage of shell taken?

I point out that the words “ within three miles “ in the first part of the question should have read “ in area 3 “.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has furnished the following information in answer to the question as asked: -

  1. The conditions under which the Japanese pearling fleet operated off the north-west coast restricted its operations to areas not less than ten nautical miles from the coast or inhabited islands. During its period off this coast the fleet was under continuous close surveillance and no instance of any infringement of the conditions is known.
  2. The take of pearl shell by the Japanese pearling fleet from the area in which it was permitted to operate off the north-west coast was 98.35 tons.

page 243

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. What was the number of outstanding applications for telephone services in South Australia as at 30th June, 1957?
  2. What was the corresponding number as at 30th June, 1955, and 30th June, 1956?
  3. How many of the applications outstanding at 30th June, 1957, were from the metropolitan area in South Australia, and how many from country areas?
  4. How many installations were completed in the last twelve months in the metropolitan area and country areas?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has furnished me with the following answers: -

  1. 7,662.
  2. As at 30th June, 1955, 6,626; as at 30th June, 1956, 7,462.
  3. Metropolitan area, 6,729. County areas, 933.
  4. 6,649 and 3,385.

page 243

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator PEARSON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. What negotiations have taken place regarding a further wheat stabilization plan?
  2. What amount of money stands to the credit of the wheat stabilization plan?
  3. Which pools contributed to this sum, and what was the amount contributed in each case?
  4. Have any amounts been withdrawn from the fund to meet the cost of production guarantee prior to the 1956-57 pool?
  5. What contribution, if any, will be required to be made from the fund for the same purpose with respect to the 1956-57 pool?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following information: -

  1. A special committee of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation conferred with the Minister for Primary Industry on 12th August, 1957, and presented proposals for a new wheat stabilization plan.
  2. £9,760,778 including interest to 30th June, 1957.
  3. No. 17 (1953-54) pool is the only contributor. The payment from that pool was £9,165,517.
  4. No, but present estimates are that payments will be necessary when winding up Nos. 18 and 19 pools (the 1954-55 and 1955-56 crops).
  5. 1956-57 wheat is only now going for export; and it is too early to estimate the final position in regard to the Commonwealth guarantee for export wheat from this pool.

page 243

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator McKenna) - by leave - agreed to -

That Senator Tangney be granted leave of absence for one month on account of ill health.

page 243

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1957

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

page 243

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported: -

Australian Wool Testing Authority Bill 1957.

Salaries (Statutory Offices) Adjustment Bill 1957.

Wine Grapes Charges Bill 1957.

National Service Bill (No. 2) 1957.

National Capital Development Commission Bill 1957.

page 243

DEATHS OF THE HONORABLE H. L. ANTHONY AND THE HONORABLE A. S. DRAKEFORD

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from Mrs. Anthony and family a letter of thanks for the resolution of sympathy passed by the Senate on the occasion of the death of the Honorable H. L. Anthony. I have also received an expression of thanks from Mrs. Drakeford and family for the resolution of sympathy passed by the Senate on the occasion of the death of the Honorable A. S. Drakeford.

page 244

JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT

Debate resumed from 5th September (vide page 233) on motion by Senator O’Flaherty-

That the following paper: -

Agreement on Commerce between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan, be printed.

Upon which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “ and the Senate expresses its disapproval of the Agreement on Commerce between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan “.

And upon the following amendment moved by Senator Cole to Senator McKenna’s proposed amendment -

Leave out all words after “ Senate “, insert: - “ request the Government, under the terms of the Agreement, immediately to restrict Japanese imports to goods the entry of which will not cause . unemployment in Australian industries “.

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND · CP

.- When the Senate adjourned on the night of Thursday, 5th September, honorable senators were good enough to grant me leave to continue my speech on this subject on the next day of sitting. On that occasion, I had submitted quite a number of good and valid reasons why I did not think that our woollen manufacturing industries would suffer from severe Japanese competition. I do not propose to go over those reasons again. Suffice it to say that the facts that I gave to the Senate repeat our post-war experience, and, indeed our very recent experiences in our trade relationships with Japan. Charges have been made that the Japanese would fail in their undertaking to impose restraints on exports. I dealt with that phase of the matter when I spoke in the Senate on 5th September, but to what I have said on the subject of restraints I should like to add that Japan gave a similar undertaking to Canada in her trade agreement with that country and that, over the past three years, Japan has honoured that undertaking. Official Canadian figures show that, during the three-year term of the treaty, despite Japanese competition, the Canadian woollen industry has expanded by 29 per cent., the Canadian rayon piece goods industry has expanded by 8 per cent., and the cotton piece goods industry has expanded by 14 per cent.

Senator Courtice:

– There has been general expansion, of course.

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

– That is the way in which the Canadian woollen, rayon piece goods and cotton piece goods industries have expanded in the face of Japanese competition. In the light of the Canadian experience, Australian manufacturers should not have any fears. I have no doubt that manufacturers in Australia can emulate all that has been done by Canadian manufacturers.

Only two conclusions are open to me on the Canadian experience with Japanese trade under a treaty that is similar to the new trade agreement between Australia and Japan. First, either Japanese merchandise is not dangerously competitive to Canadian industry, or, secondly, the Japanese are exercising restraint on exports in the terms of their agreement with Canada. I believe that the pattern they will follow will be similar to that adopted in the case of Canada.

It is possible and, indeed, probable that Japanese competition will be felt in some of our industries, but if it is fair competition, nobody should complain. There is an old saying - a good one and a true one - that competition is the life of trade. It has a healthy, stimulating effect on every one of us when we have to engage in any business activity involving competition. All my life, I have found competition to be a great driving power. It has been helpful to me because it has led me to cut down charges to the bare level of profit and to meet competition as it has arisen.

The Leader of the Opposition in another place (Dr. Evatt) gloomily forecast that the British textile industry was threatened with elimination from the Australian market because of the agreement with Japan. I remind the Senate that the British High Commissioner in Australia, Lord Carrington, had something to say on the effect of the Japanese trade agreement on United Kingdom exports to Australia when he was questioned in a television interview in Sydney last Sunday night. Lord Carrington gave a sensible answer. He said -

I think we must wait to see. We have faced competition before and we are certainly prepared in this case.

Those are the words of Lord Carrington when questioned publicly on television. Great Britain is not afraid. Mr. Claude Jacobs, a Brisbane clothing wholesaler who left for Japan about ten days ago, was reported in a Brisbane newspaper to have made this statement before he left -

Many Australian clothing men were becoming panicky about the proposed importation of Japanese goods. I think their fears may be groundless. From what I have seen of overseas goods, the Australian product is equal to, if not better than, anything in the world. Australian clothing, especially men’s wear, also compares favorably in price with American and continental goods.

Mr. Jacobs takes a robust and confident view of the outcome of the trade agreement between Australia and Japan. That is as it should be. I give my wholehearted support to this agreement. I believe it gives strength to our Australian manufacturing industries and stands to benefit them because of Japan’s great contribution to the economy of Australia. I should like to add that our Australian manufacturers have played a magnificent role and have contributed greatly to the overall prosperity of Australia in recent years. The growth of secondary industries in Australia during the past eighteen years has been almost incredible. The energetic and capable men who have been the inspiration and the driving power of this tremendous expansion deserve the goodwill and support of the whole nation. I wish to cite the figures because it is good to see such vitality in our industries.

The number of factories in Australia increased from 27,000 in 1939 to 53,000 in 1956. Employment in factories rose from 625,000 persons in 1939 to 1,019,000 in 1957. The value of production from those factories has increased from £661,000,000 in 1950, when the Menzies-Fadden Government came into office, to £1,500,000,000 in 1956, the last year for which figures are available. I am not clairvoyant. I cannot dip into the future “ far as human eye can see “ in these matters. I do not know what the future holds, but I do know that the safeguards provided under this agreement place all the great manufacturing industries in Australia in a very strong position.

Apart from the safeguards contained in the agreement itself, and to which I made reference when I spoke on an earlier occasion, the Commonwealth Government proposes to establish a special advisory authority to make recommendations to the Minister responsible for the protection of Australian industry. That authority will determine what constitutes and what is the interpretation of the words “ damaging competition” and in what circumstances the protective safeguards should be operated. It is a very important body which the Minister has agreed to set up, and it must give to the manufacturers who feel that they are faced with what is termed damaging competition a great opportunity to state their case.

I should like to set out the advantages gained by the Japanese under the agreement. First and foremost is the removal of discrimination against Japan. That is a big gain for the Japanese, and is one to which they are entitled. Further, in the licensing field, Japan will be entitled to the same treatment as other non-dollar countries. As to tariffs, Japan will now move up from its former isolated trading position to rank in what is termed the mostfavourednation column of the schedule. It means that Japan will enjoy trading conditions equal to those of almost every other foreign country except that she is subject to the safeguarding provisions of this agreement, and they, of course, do not apply to other foreign countries.

There are three columns in the schedule. The first relates to the British preferences. That remains untouched. Britain retains the preference she has been enjoying. The next is the most-favoured-nation column, to which, as I say, Japan now moves from the third column, which is the general tariffs column, the column that applied to Japanese imports before this agreement was signed. Those are the advantages which accrue to Japan.

Let us look now at the trading advantages available to Australia under the terms of the agreement. Wool, of course, is predominant. Japan has now become our second best customer for wool. She is now second only to the United Kingdom. T have here from the “ Courier-Mail “ of 27th September, an extract from the following telegram from Canberra: -

Japan took the biggest shipments of Australian wool- 28.972,000 lb. - during July and August this year.

Great Britain took the second biggest shipment - 20,832,000 lb. - during the same two months.

Japan’s consignments were valued at £11,327.000 and Great Britain’s at £8,187,000.

So in July and August of this year, Japan has purchased and shipped more wool than any other country, including Great Britain, which, for a life-time, has always taken the lead in respect of the value of wool purchased and the quantity of wool shipped from Australia. That helps us to understand the value of the Japanese competition for wool in our markets and how we have to meet Japan fairly in these trading matters. The Japanese have agreed that no import duty will be imposed upon wool during the term of the agreement. They have also agreed that in the allocation of exchange for the purchase of wool the Japanese Government will allot 90 per cent, of such exchange for the purchase of Australian wool.

Further, Japan has agreed that she will not restrict exchange for the purchase of wool unless the balance of payments affecting her world-wide trading operations creates any difficulties which force her to do so. This opens up, without doubt, a fine scope for strong Japanese competition at our wool sales. As a matter of fact, I have with me a clipping from a newspaper called the “ Muster “, which is published in the interests of the New South Wales Graziers Association. In last week’s issue, the following appeared: -

Japan has cast aside all restraint and is buying with the fervour of last season.

Continental buyers had to concede Japan’s price dictation but they pressed their limits to fill orders with a sense of urgency.

That helps to emphasize the point I have been making that we must deal justly with such an excellent customer which is making such a great financial contribution to the Australian economy and, therefore to the well-being of us all.

Now let us examine the wheat position. Japan imports annually about 80,000,000 bushels of wheat. Since the war, she has not bought any of our fair average quality wheat but has been in the market for high protein wheat. This is a hard wheat which is cultivated mostly in north-western New South Wales and southern Queensland. It should command a premium, and, in some markets, it does so. There are only limited quantities of high protein wheat, but Japan has been in the market strongly for that wheat in the past. Under this agreement, we can count on the purchase by Japan of at least 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 bushels of fair average quality wheat a year. In addition, Japan will absorb whatever quan tity of high protein wheat this country can offer. Since this agreement was signed, the Australian Wheat Board sold 2,250,000 bushels of fair average quality wheat to Japan, this being the first sale of this grade of wheat to Japan since the war ended.

Another matter of prime importance to my home state of Queensland relates to sugar. Just before this agreement was signed, the Japanese purchased 100,000 tons of Queensland sugar, worth £6,000,000 in hard cash to this country. Furthermore, the agreement gives us access, in competition with other sugar-exporting countries, to a market of about 500,000 tons of sugar a year. Japan has commitments to sugargrowing countries like Formosa and Cuba, but 40 per cent, of Japan’s total sugar importations is open to Australia in competition with other sugar-producing countries. Senator Courtice who is interjecting, knows quite well that we are bound to get a share of that substantial market. The agreement also gives Australia access to the Japanese market equal to that of other countries for tallow, hides, skim milk, butter, cheese, barley and dried vine fruits.

I shall conclude by quoting the wise words of the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), when dealing with this matter a few weeks ago in the Senate. He said -

We need all the export earnings we can get if we are to fight our way clear of import restrictions. If we do not have the overseas funds, we cannot finance all the imports we need for our industrialization, for our development, and the maintenance of our high standard of living.

These are all dependent on the volume of our exports and the amount of overseas funds that we have at credit in order to finance the purchase of the capital goods, equipment and plant which comprise from 70 per cent, to 78 per cent, of the requirements of secondary industry in this country. Without these funds, our manufacturing industries would suffer. That is a vital aspect of the agreement. I should like to see secondary industry playing a bigger part in the export trade of Australia. Anything that helps to create demand for the products of either primary or secondary industry is building up the strength and vitality of Australia. The earnings from our exports to Japan must greatly increase the purchasing power of the Australian people and create a highly profitable local Australian market for the products of our secondary industries. 1 am convinced that the Japanese Trade Agreement opens a new chapter in Australian-Japanese trade relations and creates a suitable climate for better understanding and mutually profitable trading relationships. I strongly oppose Senator McKenna’s amendment, and likewise the amendment submitted by Senator Cole. I have pleasure in supporting the terms of the agreement.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

.- It should be well known by now that whenever society is class-divided, that leads ultimately to a bitter and ruthless class war. The Japanese Trade Agreement has for its objectives, first, the exploiting of cheap slave labour in Japan, and, secondly, the reducing of the living standards of Australian workers. Those are the real objectives in view. Already the agreement has affected many hundreds of workers in Australia, by depriving them of their means of livelihood, but Government supporters are quite unperturbed, because that has happened in the past, and they believe that it should happen now and in the future. Quite a number of people actively and prominently connected with the textile industry have sent letters to members of Parliament. I have received quite a number, and I suppose many other honorable senators have, too. I shall just quote the remarks of a few prominent men in the business world. The comments of Mr. Daniel Scott, the president of the Melbourne Chamber of Manufactures, are reported in the Melbourne “ Sun “ of 3rd August as follows: -

Mr. Scott said that, in addition to the official unemployment figures, these points had to be taken into account: Many married women being put off from textile firms were returning to home duties. From Australia’s migrant intake of 100,000 each year, 2,000 joined Australia’s unemployed. At the end of this year, 60,000 boys and girls leaving school would have to find jobs. Many unemployed had not registered for relief as they had casual or part-time jobs.

That was a statement by one of Australia’s leading businessmen. He was supported subsequently by quite a number of others whom I do not intend to name at the moment. A press report of 10th August reads -

The Managing Director of Tasmanian Silk and Textile Printers Limited, Mr. C. Alcorso, has stated that 70 workers have been dismissed by his firm and that the working staff would probably be reduced from 400 to 300 by next month.

That is, by September. The report continues -

The dismissals were unavoidable, because customers were refusing to fulfil contracts as they claimed the markets would soon be flooded with cheap Japanese imports. Mr. Alcorso went on to say, “ I have seen one quotation in which a Japanese manufacturer offered a finished article at a price which just covered the cost of dyes and chemicals in Australia before labour costs were added “.

That was a statement by a gentleman who is prominently and actively engaged in the textile trade. Mr. A. R. Loft, the general secretary of the Australian Textile Workers Union, stated, amongst other things, in a letter -

As one of Japan’s greatest export industries is, and always has been, her textile industry, we cannot regard the Trade Agreement with anything but alarm, and anxiety on behalf of our many thousands of members, because Japanese textiles will flood our local market and our members will be out of their jobs.

Already the indirect adverse results of the Agreement are in evidence. Because of uncertainty of trading conditions in the immediate future firm orders have been cancelled, with the result that some hundreds of our members have lose their employment. This has occurred particularly in Tasmania and New South Wales, but in due course other States will certainly experience similar effects.

He concluded by making this observation, with which I agree - imports, in our view, should be confined to goods and raw materials which cannot be procured locally, and there is surely a sufficiently wide field here to satisfy even the rapaciousness of the importing community.

Those gentlemen are not mere neophytes or observers. They have spent years in the industry. Another statement that I wish to quote appears in to-day’s Melbourne “ Age “. It is as follows -

Australian fishermen and the fish canning industry will suffer a “ coup de Japan “ unless they are given immediate protection from the Japanese trade agreement.

The president of the Fish Canners’ Association (Mr. J. M. O’Donahoo) said this today in a plea for Government action to prevent “ the fish canning industry shutting its doors “.

Mr. O’Donahoo said although the Japanese trade pact was fundamentally designed to assist Australian primary industry, it threatened to obliterate the fishing industry.

Already two fish canneries in Tasmania had been forced to close. As imports continued to mount, others would follow. The industry would hold discussions with the Department of Trade on

Friday. It would tell the department that eight hundred fishermen and 300 cannery employees depended on the industry. Although Australian canned tuna was the world’s best, it could not possibly compete with Japanese prices. There was a £3,000,000 capital investment in the industry, plus a further £15,000,000 in tuna, barracouta and salmon boats.

The article continues -

In the salmon and barracouta field large stocks were held. Sales and orders in the last two months had been negligible. Tuna were now running, but the canneries were wary of accepting the catch for canning because of the uncertain future, “lt is essential that a danger point of imports of canned fish from Japan be reached quickly and adhered to strictly “, Mr. O’Donahoo added.

I have merely quoted the opinions of a few people who know what they are talking about, who have experienced the effects of this agreement and who have expressed themselves accordingly. I regard them as being able much better to judge the position than quite a number of people in this establishment who are merely observers or who are influenced by their own interests.

During the 1920’s and 1930’s this country was flooded with cheap goods from Japan, Germany and other places, with the result that when war came our engineering, textile and other industries were fully 60 years behind the times. We had to build workshops, install machinery and train the personnel, so that all the requirements would be complied with. In 1940, after the fall of Dunkirk, we were informed by people in England that we could no longer depend on English supplies. We had to improvise in order to build the Beaufort bomber. We had to install American machinery instead of English machinery at Mascot, in New South Wales. Upon the outbreak of war, as a result of the unchecked importation of goods produced with sweated labour, 500,000 Australians were employed on relief work - that is, they worked in return for the dole.

I came into this Parliament in 1938. At that time, my colleagues and I repeatedly directed the attention of the government of that day to this state of affairs, but not the slightest notice was taken of us. The position is somewhat similar to-day. The Government is treating the unemployment problem as though it did not matter. For example, the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has stated, as though it did not matter, that only 1£ per cent. of the population- some 50,000 or 60,000 persons - is unemployed. That is typical of the Government’s approach to such problems in a class-divided society. Wage workers are regarded as so much labour power, to be used in the same way as electric power is used - turned on when required, and turned off when not required. When war came, this labour force was found to be absolutely essential and the 500,000 persons hitherto unemployed were provided with food, clothing and medical attention for themselves, their wives and their families. This treatment became an economic possibility, whereas before the war it was regarded as uneconomic. Therefore, we have not had regard to experience. If we had benefited from experience, we would make this country as self-contained and self-supporting as possible, and we would not import the products of slave labour and thereby reduce the living standards in this country.

The only ones to benefit from this trade agreement will be the wealthy wool-growers, wheat-growers, and leading importing and shipping interests; the workers will not benefit. Indeed, unemployment will be increased as a result of the actions of this Government. I am reminded that the “ Financial Review “, of 8th August, published by the proprietors of the “ Sydney Morning Herald “, stated that the wages paid to the workers of Australia are too high and that it requires a heavy degree of unemployment as a corrective. Of course, this is not a new discovery. In countries other than Australia the realization is growing that it requires a very heavy degree of unemployment to take the pressure off wage increases. Actually, there has not been an increase of real wages. There has been only an apparent increase. But here is the ruthlessness of those who refer to our glorious democracy. They say it needs unemployment to reduce the workers to the lowest standard of living possible. They make no secret of the fact, yet they wonder why strikes occur and why there are in the country people whom they condemn as Communists.

A reasonably informed worker knows perfectly well that he is not regarded as a human being within the full meaning of the word. No respect is shown to him as. a human being. The worker is used not only in this country but in other countries to increase profits at the lowest possible cost. All our legislation is designed on that basis. Let us consider the aircraft industry. For example, the Melbourne “ Age “ to-day points out that employment in the industry is only at half-strength. The course referred to in the “ Financial Review “ - to increase unemployment and to reduce the pressure -on wages - is being given full effect by the Japanese Trade Agreement.

Senator Maher has referred to Australia’s wool and wheat industries as “ our wool and wheat industries “. Honorable senators opposite are very liberal in their use of collective pronouns. They freely use the term “ our “ but, in fact, the profits earned by the wool and wheat industries go, not to the nation as a whole, but to private individuals. This use of collective pronouns is deliberate, and is intended to create a false impression in the minds of workers and -Others who have never had a chance to acquire the art of critical analysis. Honorable senators opposite say, “ Our national income “, but it is not a national income at all. It is an aggregation of privately owned incomes. They refer to “ our national debt “, but it is really an aggregation of privately owned debts. These collective pronouns are used in order to convey the impression that we are “ all in it “.

In the meantime, unemployment increases. Approximately 60,000 persons are out of work, and 150,000 are denied adequate housing. Senator Vincent has spoken of our “ high standard of living “, and I can quite imagine his feeling that the unemployed ought to be quite satisfied with their lot - that the thousands of men, women and children who are condemned to live in rooms, or other inadequate premises, should have no complaint.

Ours is indeed a class-divided society, which honorable senators opposite are quite ruthless in their attempts to preserve. They are indifferent to the lot of the victims so long as they continue to tolerate it. However, when they will no longer do so, trouble will start. Then we shall have strikes and the strikers, and those who lead them, will be condemned. If this Government had had its way in 1951 the strikers would have been gaoled without hesitation. Some of the strikes that we have seen in this country have been successful. Others have not, but the strike weapon will have to be employed much more often in the near future if this Government will not recognize that workers are human beings, and entitled to the very best treatment possible, consistent with the resources at our command. Industrial dissatisfaction is rife, and disputes are increasing, in almost every country to-day. That must happen when governments are indifferent to human needs and will not change unless compelled to do so by pressure from below.

Senator Maher said that competition was a great driving force, but such competition as did exist in this country has been almost eliminated. We have at present private monopoly control of banking, finance, production and distribution. For all practical purposes those who control these institutions also direct government policy. In January of this year the Melbourne “ Argus “ was closed down and 900 employees were thrown on the streets, but the Government said not one word about it. These men had devoted the best part of their lives to their calling and had given good service to this newspaper, but they were treated as if they were of no account. In a similar fashion, mines have been shut down and miners thrown on the scrap heap. Recently the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board prohibited 1,000 men from working on the wharfs. No attempt was made to provide alternative employment.

When the Government treats men and women so callously, how can it expect them to accept ex cathedra what lt says about the Japanese trade treaty? If it does it is destined to be disillusioned - probably sooner than it expects. As private monopoly exerts greater and greater influence, class antagonisms become more and more acute, and men and women become willing to take action that honorable senators opposite would be quick to deprecate. Practical experience is a hard school, but apparently this Government is determined to learn in no other. If it takes the advice of the “ Financial Review “ and increases unemployment in order to reduce the present so-called high wages, it must expect trouble. If it forces agreements such as this on the workers, it cannot but expect greater unemployment.

In any event, one does not have to be a highly qualified mathematician to work out that, in fact, high wages are not being paid.

One need only consider the number of hours that must be worked in order to earn enough to obtain a given quantity of food and clothing, or accommodation, which in some cases absorbs 50 per cent, of the worker’s earnings. In 1900, when I was receiving £3 a week for 40 hours work as a tradesman, I could afford to buy a better suit than 1 have on to-day - plus a pair of pants. And what can be said of clothing can be said of other things, despite the fact that, with modern equipment, workers are now able to produce twice as much each day as they did in 1900.

Though Senator Vincent talks about our having a high standard of living, quite the reverse is the case. We apparently have a high standard of living, but we do not actually enjoy anything of the sort. If we did, there would be no unemployment, and there certainly would not be the great housing shortage to which I have directed attention.

The competition which Senator Maher describes as a great driving force is virtually non-existent; In its place we have widespread co-operation between major monopolies. This can only result in increased poverty and a greater danger of war - for similar conditions existed before both World War I. and World War II. Senator Maher said that he did not know what the future held for this country. That is surely a confession of ignorance. Quite plainly he does not understand the economic situation or the relationship between employer and employee, and between creditor and debtor. If he understood these relationships as they are to be understood and knew what was really happening, he would know that unless there is a change in policy, the future holds for Australia a state of affairs similar to that which existed in the 1930’s. The Japanese trade treaty is leading in that direction. Similar statements were made ad nauseam long before the 1914-18 war and after it.

Another factor that we have to take into consideration is that power production is replacing human production. Therefore, labour time is a diminishing factor. The wage is fixed on the cost of subsistence. The actual wage paid today - I do not mean the money wage, but the commodity wage - has never been lower, compared with wages before the two world wars. We cannot, accept at their own valuations these highly qualified legal men who take us into the mists of verbal obscurity and there lose us. 1 again strike a note of warning. In this country, and in others, society is becoming viciously class-divided, with owners of land and capital on one side and non-owners on the other side. The owners are a diminishing minority and the non-owners an increasing majority. Unless there is a change of policy and unless the economy of the nation is understood as it should be understood, chaos is inevitable. It is already appearing, but, for all practical purposes, the Government is not concerned about it in the slightest. If honorable senators opposite had the same respect for the workers they employ as they have for their own skins, the position would be very different, but they have no regard for the workers except to the extent to which they can be subordinated, exploited and impoverished. When the workers can no longer be exploited in that manner out they go to wither in a pauper’s hell on the pitiful pension that the Government pays to them.

I feel it incumbent on me to direct attention to the Japanese trade agreement, which is one of the many legal or political instruments which are being used, possibly more subtly and more successfully than in the past, to bring about the state of affairs to which I have referred. Its effects cannot be ignored. Already prominent businessmen and prominent trade unionists are telling members of the Government what is happening, but as the members of the Government are dead from the neck up they do not understand what is being said to them. All words are dead words to those who are uninformed. Honorable senators opposite may be well informed on law and other matters, but when it comes to what, for’ want of a better term, I shall call social science, they are just as ignorant now as they have been in the past.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– It is more difficult than usual to reconcile what Senator Cameron has been saying with the motion before the House. His soliloquy on class division and so forth has no relevance to the motion. We have heard a member of the Opposition supporting a proposal which is patently in the interests only of one very small capitalistic section of the community. By no meansdo I include the whole of the manufacturers: in that section. His contention that this- agreement is in the interests of nobody but the shippers, importers and so forth - even if their interests were less legitimate than those of others - is patently untrue. This agreement will be of outstanding benefit to everybody in Australia, particularly to the working people, or, shall 1 say, the people on small incomes. lt is the practice of the Opposition always to assume that a person on a small income can be benefited only by advancing his interests as a producer. One of the great difficulties in Australia to-day is that nearly all of our organizations look at everything from the producer’s angle, but it so happens that there is a person called the consumer and that person is, so to speak, all of us. Before I go through the detailed provisions of the agreement to show how they will benefit the people, let me say that it should be obvious that if the cost of clothing is reduced every person on a small income will benefit. One of the results of the agreement proclaimed by the Opposition, and which honorable senators opposite affect to fear, is that the cost of clothing will be reduced. That will benefit every family on an existing income.

Senator Kennelly:

– If a man loses his income, he will get no benefit from cheaper goods.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I will deal with that point later. There is nothing that the members of the Opposition, particularly the honorable senator who has just interjected, hate more than the development of an argument. If, as soon as a statement is made, you make a counter-statement which the unthinking will accept as a refutation, no argument is developed. I admit that if people have no income, they will not benefit if things are cheaper. That is so obvious that I would not think that any Opposition senator would waste time in asserting it. 1 am saying that, because there are people with low incomes, anything that will reduce prices, particularly the prices of clothing and other things admitted into this country under the agreement, will be of value to them.

Let me take one industry only. I do not think Australia would be harmed very much if the whole of the Australian toy industry were destroyed. I wonder why any one ever thought of going into it, except to produce certain highly specialized articles that might be of value to people who want them. In the main, they would be people on high incomes. To-day every worker’s family spends a large amount on toys. 1 shall give the Senate an example of the difference between what is to be done under this agreement and the sort of thing that has been done in the past. This can be authenticated in the Tariff Board report of 1929. Before the Tariff Board was established to regulate tariffs there, a man living in one of the suburbs of Sydney decided to open a little backyard industry with himself, a boy and a lathe - with one and a half people, one might say. Because this was called a great Australian industry that had to be protected, he obtained protection. The result was that the cost of the toys to every child in the Commonwealth was raised. Because of the number of children for whom I buy toys every Christmas and on birthdays, I know what the toy bill is. To-day’s child is not content with the kind of thing that was fobbed off on some of us - such things as replicas of Noah’s ark with the cow as big as the elephant. To-day’s child wants things that really look like aeroplanes and motor cars and which work. According to the exaggerated language of the Opposition, one of the categories of commodities that will flood this country is cheap toys, but every worker’s family in the Commonwealth will benefit as a result. Every worker’s family will benefit, moreover, from the reduction of the cost of clothing.

Now I shall deal with the assertion that that benefit will not be enjoyed if there is widespread unemployment and income ceases. That is admitted. But it is not possible for such a prodigious flood of imports to enter the country, for the simple reason that our import apparatus is complicated by all sorts of clogs and hinder.ances, quite apart from any safeguards that are contained in the treaty. It is necessary to obtain import licences, and to obtain import licences it is necessary to get credit. It has been estimated by competent authorities - not political authorities, but people who deal with this whole business - that only a percentage of the Australian market can go. Certain manufacturing industries, including the toy industry, are threatened. It would pay us to vote a sum of money to wipe those industries out of existence rather than continue to adopt the absurd policy of not allowing in imports of cheap toys.

I admit that there is a danger to certain parts of the textile industry, but the safeguards in the treaty are adequate. The treaty does not place Japan in a privileged position. 1 have read all the correspondence that has been sent to me by manufacturers and I have spoken to quite a number of them. The sensible ones admit that the case that is being presented publicly is greatly exaggerated.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Who are they?

Senator McCALLUM:

– Recently, Mr. Aboud, a company director who is concerned in this very thing, told his organization that there was danger of competition but that he thought it could be met. Every other manufacturer whom I have met has said the same.

Let us get back to a consideration of what is proposed in the treaty. We are proposing to treat Japan only as an ordinary customer. Goods are admitted in three categories. There is the preferential category, which includes goods from the United Kingdom and the other countries which constitute what we now know as the British Commonwealth; secondly, there is the most-favoured-nation category, which, in effect, is just the ordinary category; and, thirdly, there is another category in which’ as far as I know there is no nation of any importance. Japan was in that last category, but we have lifted her out of it. We are still able to increase the duties that are applicable to the United Kingdom and we can give greater preference if we want to do so. Of course, we have promised that we will first observe certain machinery provisions.

In the treaty is a disclaimer which at first sight I thought nullified many of the positive aspects of the treaty. If our balance of payments position demands it, if it is necessary in the interests of international trade generally, we can virtually abrogate the whole thing, and Japan has the same right. If, for any reason, there is a threat of grave unemployment or of the destruction of a particular industry, we have promised to negotiate. Negotiations can be conducted very quickly nowadays. We have telegraphic means of communication and only a few hours are required even for envoys to meet to discuss matters.

Then we have the promise by the Japanese that they will not attempt to intro duce an enormous number of goods, r think that promise will be honoured, because it will not be in Japan’s interest for her to get back to the bad situation that existed in the 1930’s. Japan desires continuing trade; she does not want a sudden revulsion of feeling which will sweep the treaty away. The Japanese know perfectly well that in Australia there is a very powerful nationalist feeling and that their country is not held in high regard by a great many people here. They know, too, the bitterness which resulted from the last war. They wish to get back to the position that they enjoyed some 25 years ago, and we run a very great risk if we do not grasp this opportunity to obtain some kind of reconciliation with them.

One thing to which I object is the singling out by the Opposition of the wool-growers and importers and the levelling against them of charges of voraciousness or greed. They are no more greedy than is any class in the community. Why should a manufacturer always be a pure-souled patriot except, of course, when he is a wicked capitalist crushing the workers? The Opposition’s attack sways most entertainingly between the importer and the wool-grower or any one less necessarily bad. Provided the trade is legitimate and good service is rendered, there is no reason to describe one class in the community as being more voracious than another.

I now wish to direct attention to some of the positive benefits, other than those 1 have already mentioned, which flow from the treaty. The first is the expectation of a peaceful Pacific in which all the Powers are reconciled. We know perfectly well that there was a trade diversion treaty in the 1930’s and that, although it did not entirely determine Japan’s policy, it was one of the factors that drove her towards militarism. There was a time when Japan was our ally. Those of us who served during the first world war know that our troops were escorted by Japanese cruisers for part of the way to France. Japan honoured her obligations during that conflict, although she was under very strong temptation to reverse them.

The change in Japan’s policy came after the first world war, when Great Britain terminated her treaty with Japan. Gradually the feeling grew up in Japan that there was only one source of hope, and that that was to support the militarist classes. In every other country with different viewpoints there are different pressures and different interests, and it was the policies of the other powers that strengthened the imperialist party in Japan. Its policy was completely unjustified and quite ruthless; it is one of the great evils of this century.- Liberal forces were in existence, but they were crushed, and so Japan went on her reckless course. Any nation is likely to do that if the action of people outside strengthens the dangerous forces within that country. That is one of the things that we must watch; we must watch it in Germany and in Japan.

There are other countries which apparently we cannot influence. There does not seem to be any way in which we can influence what is going on behind the iron curtain in Russia. I wish I could find some way in which we could influence that country. I am not one who has given up all hope about there being a change in Russia, but I do not see any sign of it yet. I see only struggles for power and the continued belief in having a ruthless authority at the top. That is not so in Japan. The mercantile classes are not militarist by nature. They submit to the militarists when they think the militarists will serve their purpose, as they did in the late 1930’s and the 1940’s and almost up to the present time. For the time being, the militarist is out of favour and Japan’s policy is to consult other countries. Unless we allow the Japanese a measure of our trade - we are giving them only a measure of it - and allow their goods into Australia, there will be no hope of reconciliation with them. If we drive Japan into the arms of the other camp, we shall be building up one of the greatest dangers that could possibly threaten Australia.

Senator Grant:

– Why does not the honorable senator apply some reasoning to his argument?

Senator McCALLUM:

– Why does not Senator Grant do that? He never applies any reasoning to anything.

Senator Grant:

– You are most offensive.

Senator McCALLUM:

– It is impossible to be offensive to a person who interjects. The honorable senator has been mumbling throughout my speech.

Senator Grant:

– You were all right when you were in the Labour party.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I think we might as well let Senator Grant take over.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Byrne). - Order! The honorable senator must be allowed to continue his speech without interruption.

Senator McCALLUM:

– A completely hollow case has been put up by the Opposition. In the case of the last speaker, it was merely an attempt to pretend that thisagreement had something to do with the class struggle and with the alleged exploitation of the workers by other people. His speech had nothing whatever to do with this proposal. Not one honorable senator on the Opposition side has advanced a real argument against the agreement. Opposition senators know perfectly well that the case we have heard put forward by various bodies purporting to speak for the manufacturers does not represent the views of the whole body of manufacturing opinion in Australia. The genuine manufacturer wishes to have his industry built on a safe basis, and on the basis of an economy which is not likely to be overturned when any sudden crisis arises.

During the years that this Government has been in office, its major purpose has been to build up our export trade. Without that we cannot survive. Senator Cameron talked about making Australia a selfcontained country. That is a will-o’-the-wisp.. You cannot have a completely selfcontained country. Something close to that could have been possible back in the days of fairly primitive manufactures, and under the mercantile system that operated up to the eighteenth century. In those days, a country could produce most of the goods it wanted. After all, the people of those times had only a few metals which they smelted and made into a comparatively few articles. To-day, with an almost infinite number of types of steel, and every kind of manufacture becoming more complicated, the process of manufacture itself demands more in the way of imports than we would have if we had a simpler economy without manufactures.

That proves the complete fallacy of the argument that we could build up a completely self-contained country. That was. always a militarist ideal. It began with people who wanted to build up a country mainly for military purposes, but the interconnexion of all industries in all countries. is so great now that all countries have to depend on being able to produce enough to buy the things they need. We must regard export income as the major part of our economic policy. Australia has failed to build up more than one or two staple commodities in that connexion. We must have more of them, not only in primary industry, but also among our manufacturers. The only way is to deal fairly with our customers. We must trade, and since all countries have tariffs and import quotas, we must use this method of trade treaty to encourage others to buy our goods and to give ourselves stable markets.

If honorable senators take the trouble to go through this trade agreement, they will find that we can build up a much better market in wheat through it. Moreover, we can build it up with a vital type of wheat - hard wheat. That is something that we have failed signally to exploit so far. We can build up our trade in sugar and, gradually, in some of our manufactures, too. Therefore, I find nothing at all in the Opposition’s case except a desire to oppose and a desire to appeal to those who are frightened and who want a monopoly.

It is a good treaty. It promises better international relations. It promises to reduce our own cost level. It promises to make the earnings of the average man, and particularly the man on a small income, go a little further. It promises particularly to the families and to the comparatively poor a far better use for their money. Therefore, it is a good treaty. I support it fully and I hope the Senate will approve the agreement.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– I rise to oppose the proposition that has been outlined by the Government for a trade agreement with Japan. I think it is possibly one of the greatest errors that this Government has ever made and that, unfortunately, it will be proved to be an error in the very near future. Honorable senators on the Opposition side have had bundles of correspondence from all classes of manufacturers who are looking for the support of the Australian Labour party to protect their manufacturing industries. We are concerned, to a degree, with the manufacturers, but I remind the Senate that the Australian Labour party, of which I am a member, is not too sympathetic towards those who control the manufactures of Australia. We have not supported them at any time in their exploitation of the situation in which the workers find themselves to-day. We are concerned with those who obtain their livelihood in the factories and who have made profits for the manufacturers over the years. They will be affected by this agreement.

Senator McCallum made an alarming statement. Evidently, he is out of touch with the work of the ex-servicemen of the two world wars. He said we could wipe out the toy industry. I do not know about New South Wales, but in Victoria many ex-servicemen from both world wars have set themselves up in the toy industry because of ailments they have suffered as a result of war service. They depend on that industry for their living.

Senator McCallum:

– Let us get this matter straight. I did not say what Senator Hendrickson has attributed to me.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

Senator McCallum said - and I use his own words - that the toy-making industry could be abolished. He said we could do without it and get cheap toys from overseas. I can only interpret his words, and those of other supporters of the Government, to mean that they are prepared to sacrifice the livelihood of the men who fought for us in two world wars. They would do that in the interests of Japan, which proved to be one of the worst enemies in Australia’s history. Senator McCallum should answer to those ex-servicemen in Victoria who went overseas to try to defend Australia.

Senator McCallum said that the Japanese had made promises. Of course they have done so. Of course they were with us in World War I. I was one of those whom they helped to transport overseas. The Russians - the “ Corns “ - were with us also in World War II., but that does not mean that we agree with conditions in Russia any more than we agree with conditions in Japan. It does not mean, either, that we are going to sacrifice our way of life to appease the Japanese so that we can use them as a bulwark against some enemy in the near future. I agree with Senator McCallum that all people are greedy, including everybody in the Senate chamber. The only action to take is to police those who are greedy. We must all be policed. Senator

McCallum said that the manufacturers had made colossal profits. That is true. So have the wool producers, the wheat producers and the beef producers of this country. I remember the Moratorium Act, which was introduced when Australia was passing through a crucial time in 1931 and 1932. Under that act, £20,000,000 was made available to the primary producers of Victoria to save them from insolvency. If it is right that we should help the primary producers in critical times, it is equally right that the primary producer should come to the assistance of the nation in good times.

The wool-grower is not responsible for the high price of wool to-day; that price has been brought about by the cold war. It has been the fear of war, with consequent stock-piling of wool, that has created these high prices. My party argues that the Australian primary producers, whether they be engaged in wool, wheat or beef production, should have their profits controlled in the same way as the profits of manufacturers should be controlled. It is admitted that some manufacturers are making excess profits, and their signatures are . amongst those affixed to the correspondence I have received.

My concern is not the same as that of Senator McCallum. I am concerned about the industrial future of the employees of these industries. I remind Senator McCallum also that it is not only Opposition senators who are alarmed at this agreement. The people of England are very upset about it. A certain reaction is evident there. We hear much about the British way of life. I emphasize that if it had not been for the people of England we might not be here to-day; we could easily have been left at the mercy of those people whom the Government now says should be given the same preference as the workers of England are given.

Senator McCallum:

– No. They are not given the same preference.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Yes, they are.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– They are not.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– They are. It has been said that the importation of Japanese goods can be controlled under a licensing system.

Senator Henty:

– The duties on Japanese goods are much higher than the British preferential tariffs.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– They are very little higher. For example, a shirt made in Australia by Australian employees who are in receipt of award rates of pay cannot be sold for less than two guineas, whereas the equivalent Japanese product will sell at 17s. In view of that, where is the duty effective? It is said that the importation of goods from Japan can be regulated by a system of tariffs and import licensing. Why does the Government experience this fear? It has the same fear as we on this side express. The Government, like us, fear that these imports will lead to unemployment. The Government endeavours to lull the fears of the Australian people by saying that the agreement provides for certain safeguards whereas Senator McCallum has told us that we have not these safeguards and that all we have are promises made by the Japanese. If that be so, then the economic future and destiny of the people of Australia depend solely upon the promises of the Japanese!

Senator Grant:

– They are not worth much.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– In my opinion, they are not worth much. What we want to know is why there was so much secrecy about the signing of this agreement. Why were not the representatives of commerce in Australia consulted? Why was not this Parliament consulted? This agreement affects the destiny of the nation. That being so, why was not the Parliament consulted before it was signed by the Minister for Trade? Again, why is the agreement being debated here? Why was the time of the House of Representatives wasted a week or two ago and why is the time of the Senate being wasted now in debating this agreement which will become operative irrespective of our decision? Where would the Government be if those members of the Liberal party, the Australian Country party and the Australian Labour party who disagree with the agreement voted against its acceptance? What would be the Government’s position then? I know that many honorable senators on the Government side speak with their tongues in their cheeks, and that at heart they are opposed to the agreement.

Why was this agreement made with -Japan? Was it because of pressure brought -to bear upon the Australian Government by the United States of America to force us to sacrifice our workers in the interests of big manufacturers in America and others who have invested capital in Japan and want substantial profits? I do not know the -answer, but I should like honorable senators -on the Government side to tell me whether -that is the reason.

What goods are covered by the agreement? We know what Japan is buying from us, and we know what she has agreed to take. Japan will take from Australia only those things which she needs. To -expect her to take anything else would be as foolish as to argue that we should ask Japan to accept from us textiles made here when, she makes them in abundance herself. We know what the Japanese are going to buy. They are going to buy-

Senator Scott:

– Wool.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Our wool.

Senator Scott:

– Wheat.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Our wheat.

Senator Henty:

– Barley.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Our barley.

Senator Gorton:

– Sugar.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– And our -sugar. Japan is to buy all these things while the Government of Australia proposes to starve the workers of Australia in order to allow the Japanese to carry on.

What industries in Australia will be affected by this agreement? Responsible -trade union leaders, men who represent the trade unionist in the Commonwealth of Australia, have told us that they have members suffering already in the textile industry, in the boot and shoe manufacturing industry, in the pottery-making industry, in the shirtmanufacturing industry and many other industries. I remind the Senate that when “World War II. broke out we had none of these industries functioning in Australia to meet the needs of this country-

Senator Gorton:

– We had.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– We had not. We may have had some, but we did not have enough to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth in those years. That is why -.the Japanese and other Asiatic countries were exploiting the Australian market and also the English market prior to World War II. We on this side argue that many of those industries will fail if the importation of these goods from Japan is allowed. Of what use is it our accepting from Japan an agreement under which she will buy a little more of our wheat if it means that our workers are to become unemployed? What does the Government propose to do to find employment for those workers who will be displaced from the textile industry? I do not know, but I should like honorable senators on the Government side to tell me where those workers who will become unemployed when this agreement begins to operate - it is not in operation yet - are to be found employment in the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt) admits that to-day our unemployed number 60,000. Honorable senators opposite know as well as I do that the true figure is possibly 100,000 unemployed. Whatever the reason may be, the fact is that these people are unemployed and if the Government persists with its proposal to allow the importation of goods made by slave labour in other countries to compete with goods made by Australian workers who are paid decent award rates, it will soon find that we shall have many more unemployed in Australia.

I have heard it said by honorable members in another place and by honorable senators here that we of the Australian Labour party are not running true to our policy, and that while we advocate trade with China we oppose trade with Japan. That statement is quite incorrect. We say that there must be international trade. We say that, irrespective of war or whatever the Government may have with which to fool the people, there must be international trade. We say that we will trade with Japan but that we will take from Japan only those things that we believe are necessary to the development of the economy of Australia. And that is all we will take from China or any other country! I emphasize that that is all the Japanese intend to take from Australia. They will take only those things which are beneficial, not to the the welfare of the workers of Japan, but to those people who are exploiting slave labour in Japan to-day.

The Minister says that there are safeguards in the agreement. There may be safeguards in the agreement, but how are they to be operated? We are told that, when any serious unemployment occurs, we can use some of the safeguards to which the Minister referred. But who will determine when the unemployment situation has become serious? Who will be the judge of when restrictions should be placed on imports? It will be very difficult to operate these restrictions. Some of the primary producers who believe in free trade should remember that although we export a lot of wheat, wool and other commodities, we also consume a lot here, and we shall not be able to pay good prices for their products if wc have unemployment.

We are told by the Minister that this is an agreement to keep the workers of Japan employed, because if they become unemployed they will tend to be pro-Communist. Have not we on the Opposition side told the Senate over and over again that we never find communism where we find full employment? But if we prevent Japan from joining the Communist bloc by keeping its workers employed, what will we do with the Australian unemployed? There is no one to blame for this agreement except the members of the Government who have fooled the people for the last eight or nine years, who won the treasury bench with promises that they would put value back into the £1 and stabilize our economy. They have allowed inflation to gallop ahead until to-day we find that the £1 is down to a very low value. This agreement provides no cure for the position in which we find ourselves. It will only worsen that position. If unemployment becomes rampant as it v?2s in the ‘thirties - it is no good for honorable senators to try to kid themselves that we cannot have recessions - communism will be bred in Australia. That is only natural. If honorable senators on the Government side were working in industry and were thrown out of employment because of this agreement, what would their political philosophy be? If they had wives and children at home, their philosophy would T>e the same as that of the “ Corns “, who believe that under communism they can get -something which they cannot get under our British way of living. We say that they are wrong, but you cannot tell that to a man who is hungry and whose wife and children are hungry. He will grab at any straw. If the Government proceeds with, this agreement and allows Japanese goods to come in and cause unemployment, the effect might be to prevent the Japanese from entering the Communist bloc, but it will create here a great army of people who will be in sympathy with some “ ism “, whatever “ ism “ it may be.

The Minister says that this agreement contains safeguards. I am reminded of the man who owns an umbrella but leaves it at home. It rains while he is downtown, and by the time he returns home to get his safeguard from the rain he is wet through. It will be the same with this treaty. By the time that the Government puts into operation the safeguards that are alleged to exist, the damage will have been done. I want to give these words of warning to honorable senators opposite. Unless they take heed of what we on this side say, they will create in this country such unemployment as cannot be overcome in the near future. They want a secondary industry here to compete with a secondary industry in Japan which uses slave labour, which employs 80 per cent, women and 20 per cent, men, and which uses labour for which no payment is made. That is the labour that will be used to produce the textiles and other manufactured goods which will be imported from Japan. If the primary producers, who believe in free trade as long as they are getting a high price for what they produce, approve of this agreement, the deathknell will sound for the conditions which they have enjoyed during the last few years.

I venture to say that if the Government were to take a plebiscite of the people of Australia, the majority would oppose the making of the agreement. But the Government will not do that. We shall operate on the agreement. The Government will not fight the next election on the issue whether this treaty is good or bad. It will fight on some other issue, raising some other bogy. The political wool will be drawn over the eyes of the people. The Australian people, whether they are in the country or in industrial areas, say that they are totally opposed to the agreement and believe that there should be no imports that will jeopardize the livelihood and social security of people in employment. The Government admits that 60,000 are unemployed. The other day, the Minister asked, “ What are 60,000 unemployed in a population of 9,000,000 or 10,000,000?” The Minister is not one of the unemployed. That 60,000 unemployed may become 160,000 by this time next year. All that is needed to bring that about is for the great Creator to be a little against us and not send rain to the Mallee and other dry parts of the country. What will then be the position in relation to imports from Japan? Japan will keep buying our goods only as long as it wants them. The Minister says that if imports from Japan cause unemployment here, safeguards may be used to prevent further imports. What will Japan then do? It will say, “ You have this agreement with us to take our imports. You say that you will not take them as they interfere with your employment. Your wool, wheat and meat are interfering with our employment “. What will the Minister do then?

There is no thought in the minds of members of the Government that they will use any safeguards to prevent goods produced in Japan by sweated or slave labour from coming to this country to lower the standard of living of the workers here, who have fought for the last 80 or 90 years to get the conditions that they have to-day. There is no such thought in the minds of members of the Government. I do not refer to the ordinary rank and file senators who sit as puppets supporting the Government; they have nothing to do with it. I mean the Ministers, the big men who crack the whip while the little dogs dance. I mean the people who control this Government and this Parliament. Irrespective of what conditions imports from Japan bring to the Australian workers, these people have no intention of using safeguards to defend the social and economic security of those workers. I therefore oppose the agreement.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– 1 rise to support the agreement. I must say that I am amazed at the attitude that has been adopted, not only by the previous speaker, but by all other Opposition speakers, in opposing it. It would appear from their statements in the Senate that the adoption of this agreement with Japan will inflict on Australia the .hardship of large-scale unemployment. It is my serious belief that this agreement, when implemented to the fullest extent, will not create unemployment but will bring about a state of full employment in Australia. I say that after due consideration and studying the agreement, because 1 believe that if we do not get a satisfactory price overseas for our products, particularly primary products, unemployment in Australia will increase. Only a couple of years ago, wool prices receded by more than 33i per cent, within a period of a few months. That brought about a recession, during which the unemployment figures were almost the same as during 1947 and 1949, when Labour was in office. This agreement is designed to bring about higher prices for our wool. Under it, the Japanese are permitted to purchase from Australia 90 per cent, of their wool imports.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Provided we take their exports.

Senator SCOTT:

– I shall deal with that aspect of the matter in a minute or two. Let us first finish with the subject of wool. Due to currency restrictions, and a shortage of money, the Japanese have been out of the wool market for some time. It is interesting to note that, over the last twelve months, Japan’s available sterling exchange dropped by more than 50 per cent. I understand that, in 1955-56, Japan had £122,000,000 in Australian currency available for sterling purchases. By 31st May this year - only twelve months later - she had available for this purpose only £58,000,000. Obviously, Japan has lost so much of her overseas currencies that she has had to restrict her imports of wool and other commodities. In the last month, since the wool sales have been conducted, due to the fact that the Japanese had not been in the market for wool to the extent that they were previously - although they now want the wool as badly as before - the price of wool receded by 10 per cent, or 1.5 per cent. Last year, Australia’s wool income was quite buoyant. It reached about £500,000,000. If the figure were to drop to £350,000,000 or £400,000,000, the result could be a set of circumstances which could bring about additional unemployment here. Therefore, it is urgently necessary for us to have a trade agreement with Japan, to ensure that the Japanese will buy from us commodities such as wool, wheat, barley and sugar. If we did not have an agreement with Japan, what would prevent that country from buying its requirements from countries such as Russia, and from entering into a trade agreement with that country?

Senator Hendrickson:

– But Russia is already buying wool from Australia.

Senator SCOTT:

– If Senator Hendrickson had followed the position closely, he would know that the number of sheep in Russia has increased so considerably that it is now approaching the Australian figure. In fact, the number of sheep in Russia is increasing more rapidly than in every other country except Australia.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Does Russia export wool?

Senator SCOTT:

– She does not export much wool-

Senator Hendrickson:

– How, then, can Japan buy wool from Russia?

Senator SCOTT:

– Her production is going ahead by leaps and bounds. If Russia entered into a trade agreement with Japan, under which Japan could buy wool from Russia and if Senator Hendrickson supported the Leader of the Labour party, Dr. Evatt, in advocating the conclusion of a trade agreement with red China to enable Australia to send wool to that country, the result would be, figuratively, a triangle: Japan would buy wool from Russia, and Russia would buy wool from Australia. But everything being equal, only the same amount of wool would be exported from Australia. When Dr. Evatt was in England recently, he supported a proposal that Australia should enter into an agreement with red China, to enable us to have trade relations with that country.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator SCOTT:

– I prefer to have an agreement with the Japanese, because red China is affiliated with Russia and Russia is the danger to-day. Dr. Evatt is reported in the “ Age “ of 5th June, 1957, to have stated, when addressing a conference of the representatives of Labour parties that was held at Dorking, Surrey -

A joint action on some major issues is now demanded. The majority of Commonwealth nations want to extend their trade with China and to recognize fully its international status. Yet we see Mr. Dulles and the China lobby in the United States consistently moving to veto proposals designed to give China and ourselves the benefit of full trade and full recognition.

Apparently it is all right, in the opinion of the Labour party in Australia, for this country to enter into an agreement with red China, but not with Japan.

Senator Hendrickson:

Dr. Evatt did not say that.

Senator SCOTT:

– I refer the honorable senator to the report in the Melbourne “ Age “ of 5th June, which Dr. Evatt has not contradicted. Evidently, in his opinion, it is all right for Australia to enter into a trade agreement with red China, which has a low standard of living - a nation in which, as Senator Hendrickson has mentioned, slave labour is used - but it is completely wrong for this Government to enter into relationships with Japan.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Not at all.

Senator SCOTT:

Senator Hendrickson should know that the labour conditions in red China are as low as those in Japan.

Senator Hendrickson:

– We agree with that contention.

Senator SCOTT:

– But your leader says that although we could have a trade agreement with red China, we should not have anything to do with Japan. In the “Sun Herald” of 9th June, 1957, under the heading, “ Australia desperate for trade “, the following appeared -

Australia desperately needed her primary products to be consumed by Asian peoples, Dr. H. V. Evatt said.

This was a report of a British Broadcasting Corporation interview. Dr. Evatt, commenting on Britain’s decision to put her trade with red China on the same basis as her trade with Russia, said, further, that often Australia was unable to dispose of her primary products. It is quite obvious that if the Leader of the Australian Labour party had his way, we should have a trade agreement with red China to-morrow.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Hear, hear!

Senator SCOTT:

– Honorable senators opposite would be very much in favour of that.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What would be wrong with it?

Senator SCOTT:

– Nothing. What would be wrong with our having a similar agreement with Japan? If we are successful in keeping Japan out of the Communist bloc it cannot fail to contribute to our defence and to the security of the free peoples of the world.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It would help provide you with your skin divers.

Senator SCOTT:

– Whenever I rise to speak honorable senators opposite refer to my association with the pearling industry. I am a pearler, and in that industry we employ Japanese. I suppose that that is why it happens. I would point out that the Japanese did a lot to preserve the pearl fishing industry. The Australian Labour party was in government in Queensland for 25 years, but it allowed the pearl fishing industry of that State to deteriorate. It persistently refused the industry permission to bring Japanese specialists down to fish for Queensland shell.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Your Government allowed them to go to Western Australia.

Senator SCOTT:

– The Labour Government of Western Australia allowed the Japanese into the pearling industry at Broome - and I employed them. The Federal Government supported the application by Mr. Hawke, the Premier of Western Australia, that such entry should be permitted. As honorable senators are so fond of bringing this matter forward, it might be as well if I cleared it up once and for all. When Japanese labour was brought into the Western Australian pearling industry - with the support of the Federal Government - specialists were brought from Japan and production increased from 300 tons a year to 860 tons last year, and an estimated 900 tons this year.

By contrast, what has happened in Queensland under a Labour government? The industry there has got into such a parlous state that the owners of many boats have transferred their activities to trochus fishing. The islanders employed in the industry could not fish in deep water so, last year, the pre-war production figure of 1 ,000 tons dropped to between 200 and 300 tons.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What has this to do with the treaty?

Senator SCOTT:

– 1 am merely endeavouring to answer the interjections of Senator Harris. Maximum pearl shell production must be achieved if the industry is to continue to operate efficiently. Only then can manufacturers be assured of adequate supplies to enable them to compete with plastics. The greatest danger to the pearling, industry has always been underproductionManufacturers of buttons throughout the world have, from time to time, had to goout of production because they could not get sufficient pearl shell. The former’ Labour Government of Queensland wasresponsible for the fact that insufficient, quantities of shell were available to keepbutton manufacturers in full production. Only under full production could motherofpearl compete with plastics, and many manufacturers have had to transfer their activities to the making of plastic buttons. I hope that what I have said will put an end to the interjections of honorablesenators opposite on this matter.

Under the treaty, 90 per cent, of the money that is made available for the purchase of wool will be spent by the Japanese-

Senator Kennelly:

– Will the honorablesenator read such a provision to us fromthe agreement?

Senator SCOTT:

– The Minister assured! us of that fact in his second-reading speech. I will find the exact reference for the honorable senator and read it to him after the suspension for dinner. Ninety per cent, of the amount made available for the purchaseof wool will be spent by the Japanese in Australia for the purchase of Australian wool. Therefore, under the agreement, theJapanese will be able to consolidate their financial position sufficiently to enable themto purchase our wool freely and the pricewill, as a consequence, rise.

Sheep numbers have increased from the 1949 figure of approximately 108,000,000- - when the Australian Labour party was in government - to 156,000,000 at 30th June. 1957. It is estimated that by the end of this financial year the figure will have risen to- 165.000,000. Record quantities of woof are being produced, and it is estimated that this year total production will reach almost 5,000,000 bales.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What is wrong with that? We are all happy about it.

Senator SCOTT:

– It is a very good thing, but it would be calamitous if we did not take advantage of an opportunity to make a trading agreement with a country such as

Japan, which has, in the last year, spent over £100,000,000 in purchasing our wool. As a result of the agreement, 90 per cent, of the money allocated by the Japanese Government for the purchase of wool will be spent in Australia. That, of itself, will keep Australia in a healthy economic position because it will ensure the continued buying of our wool. So long as we can keep Japan interested in buying it - at a fair price - not only the wool-producers but also the whole work force will enjoy prosperity, and we shall avoid the widespread unemployment that would occur if the price of wool fell drastically.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator SCOTT:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was discussing the importance of the Japanese Trade Agreement and how it could affect the wool industry in Australia. 1 was asked by Senator Kennelly to produce the agreement and read the clause which dealt with the 90 per cent, quota to which I referred.

Senator Gorton:

Senator Kennelly is not in the chamber. The honorable senator will have to wait until he comes in.

Senator SCOTT:

– I shall read the clause now as I intended. His leader is present. On page 7 of the agreement, the Agreed Minutes, Part A, provide -

  1. The Agreement provides under Articles I and

IT (hat Japan will extend most-favoured-nation and mon-discriminatory treatment to imports from Australia. However, in view of the Japanese import system, in order to translate these general provisions into specific undertakings or understandings, the Japanese delegation indicated the treatment that the Japanese Government intended to accord to certain of the more important imports from Australia.

  1. Accordingly, the Japanese Delegation stated that it was the intention of the Japanese Government:

    1. to accord to Australian wool the opportunity of competing in the global quota for wool for not less than 90 per cent, of the total foreign exchange allocation for wool each year and, subject to the provisions of Article II of the Agreement, not to restrict the total foreign exchange allocation for wool beyond the extent necessary to safeguard its external financial position and balance of payments.

We see by that that Australia will be able to compete in the market to supply about 90 per cent, of Japan’s wool needs. That is a big item. I think the passage I have read should satisfy Senator Kennelly that the figures I quoted were correct.

I also desire to rebut an accusation made by Senator Cameron. He said that in yesterday’s press there appeared a statement, purporting to come from the fish canning industry, to the effect that this agreement would create large-scale unemployment in the industry, that some canneries had closed down and that others were about to do so. 1 have made a few inquiries, but I have not been able to find any instance of a factory having closed down. We know that the fish canning industry has been in a precarious position for a few years, but the Japanese Trade Agreement will not increase the level of imports of canned fish from Japan. For three years, importers have been able to use their quotas to import fish from any non-dollar country. Japan is the principal supplier of canned salmon, and in the last three years has supplied approximately 52,5 per cent, of the total imports to Australia. Japan is now receiving the same treatment as that afforded mostfavourednations and the reduction of duty is only approximately Id. per lb. plus 10 per cent. Of course, honorable senators know there are safeguards in the agreement, which are quite considerable, and I intend to deal with them at a later stage.

In reply to Senator Cameron, I should like to refer to the Tariff Board’s report on Fish Preserved in Tins, dated 15th May, 1956. Senator Cameron has said that the low price of Japanese canned fish brought into Australia will upset the Australian fish canning industry to the extent that the fishermen supplying the industry in Australia will go out of business, but that does not accord with the findings of the Tariff Board. On page 6 of its report, the board said -

Duty paid landed costs of imported salmon per dozen tins, for the 19SS season, were given at the inquiry, and are compared with prices paid by wholesalers for Australian salmon. As before explained, imported salmon though not strictly comparable with Australian salmon has been named as its competitor.

Then follows a table showing that 4 oz. tins imported from Canada cost 26s. lid. per dozen tins. The same tins from Japan cost 24s. 8d., and the price paid by wholesalers for Australian salmon was 14s. Id. per dozen tins. So honorable senators can see that the Australian article is cheaper than that supplied by either Canada or Japan. The 8-oz. tins from Canada cost 46s. 8d. per dozen and those from Japan 41s. 4id. to 42s. 10 ½d. per dozen, whereas the price paid by wholesalers for Australian salmon was 20s. 8d. to 22s. Id. per dozen tins. It will be seen that the Australian article is very much cheaper and, therefore, that the canning people in Australia, and the fishing industry, should have little to fear from competition from Japan. The article from Japan is dearer when it is landed in Australia. Under the heading “Level of Duly “ the Tariff Board says -

The calculations submitted by the applicant in support of the request for duties of ls. 6d. per lb. on salmon and 2s. per lb. on tuna was based only on a comparison between the ex-factory cost of Australian tuna and the landed cost of Japanese tuna; no similar figures were presented in respect of imported and locally-canned salmon. As shown above the Australian product does not suffer any price disadvantage even in comparison with the lowest grade of imported salmon.

So we see in an unbiassed report of the Tariff Board that if the Australian fishing industry is suffering - and I believe it is - the blame cannot be laid at the door of this agreement with Japan.

Going back to the agreement itself, not only is wool affected, but Japan agrees to purchase large quantities of Australian wheat during the next three years. A report recently appeared in the press to the effect that already Japan has bought 57,500 tons of Australian wheat since the signing of the Japanese trade agreement last month. That was stated by Sir John Teasdale, the chairman of the Australian Wheat Board. The article stated -

By the end of next month, wheat sales to Japan since the agreement were expected to total 115,000 tons. “ If Japan keeps buying at that rate our sales in the first year of the agreement will reach 350,000 tons,” he said. “ This is better than we ever thought possible “.

Sir John said the 57,500 tons sold to date had brought “ a very favorable price.” . . . “ When we arranged the first wheat shipment to Japan we had no idea how much the Japanese would buy “ he said. “ We hoped the total might reach 200,000 tons in the first year and ultimately rise to 500,000 tons a year. “ But now it appears likely that sales will reach the 500,000-ton mark in the second year of the agreement. “ That is providing we are not subject to another attack by the U.S. give-away people, of course “.

Australian sales of soft wheat to Japan could be expected to rise as the Japanese got used to the Australian product, Sir John said.

It is interesting to note that prior to the negotiation of the agreement, there were no sales of Australian soft wheat to Japan, but I understand that since its negotiation, and following the visit of Sir John Teasdale to that country, approximately 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 bushels have been exported. In the first year of the operation of the agreement we can expect a total sale of between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 bushels of soft wheat to Japan.

Not only are we selling wheat to Japan, but also the agreement provides for the sales of large quantities of sugar. We can expect to be in the market for approximately 40 per cent, of Japan’s sugar requirements. That does not mean that we shall be supplying 40 per cent, of her requirements; we will be competing for 40 per cent, of her requirements of sugar. That could mean a return of approximately £18,000,000 a year.

During the last three years 30 per cent, of Japan’s barley imports have come from Australia, and we can expect that trade to continue during the next three years. We will be able to sell other commodities such as hides, tallow and dried fruits, and that encourages me to believe that the agreement is far more important to Australia than it is to Japan. I think the Government should be congratulated upon having negotiated it.

Opposition speakers have said that we will experience a lot of unemployment as a result of the import of Japanese goods, and that we have made no provision for preventing the Japanese from dumping their goods in Australia. I wish to refute that assertion. It is left largely to the integrity of the Japanese Government and the Japanese manufacturers to ensure that they do not manufacture goods in competition with Australian manufacturers. It is interesting to note that, following the negotiation of a trade agreement between Japan and Canada, there has been no report of the Canadian Government having had to apply severe import restrictions because the Japanese have flooded the Canadian market. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe that the Japanese will not flood the Australian market.

I know that we shall be allowing into Australia a large number of certain goods, and I support the statement of Senator McCallum to the effect that we shall be able to purchase some cheap toys from Japan for the children of Australian workers. Before last Christmas, I received representations from importers in Western Australia asking me to procure for them import licences to enable them to import toys from England and other countries. Because of import restrictions their applications were refused, with the result that a large number of children in Australia, particularly in Western Australia, had to do without Christmas toys.

Senator Courtice:

– That had nothing to do with this agreement. That was an import licensing matter.

Senator SCOTT:

-I think the honorable senator will agree that the agreement will enable Australian importers to bring in certain quantities of Japanese toys. ] know that members of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia are manufacturing toys, and we support them in doing so; but Australian manufacturers of toys cannot cope with the Australian demand, and it is necessary for us to import toys. Does any other country manufacture a better toy than that which is made in Japan? I have reason to believe, after having discussed the matter with importers, that some of the Japanese toys excell those that are made in other countries.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The British Meccano set is the best toy in the world.

Senator McCallum:

– It is too expensive.

Senator SCOTT:

-I understand that for £1 or £2 one can buy a Japanese toy submarine or boat which a child can operate by remote control. Opposition senators say they are opposed to the importation of Japanese toys, but I believe that this Christmas our children and the children of the workers will get the toys that they deserve. They deserve the best toys that can be imported.

Opposition speakers have gone to untold lengths to tell us how much unemployment will be caused by the agreement. If the Japanese want to flood Australia with cheap toys, the Minister for Customs and Excise has power to prevent those toys from coming in. Section 4 of the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1956, which was assented to on 15th November last, reads -

After section eleven of the Principal Actthe following section is inserted: - “11a. - (1.) If the Minister is satisfied that any goods produced or manufactured in a particular country are being imported into Australia under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury -

to producers in Australia of like or directly competitive goods; or

to producers in a third country of like or directly competitive goods which are dutiable at a rate applicable under the British Preferential Tariff or at a rate lower than the rate that would be applicable under that tariff, he may publish a notice in the Gazette specifying the goods as to which he is so satisfied. “ (2.) The Minister shall not publish a notice in pursuance of the last preceding sub-section unless he is satisfied that the publication of the notice is not inconsistent with the obligations of Australia to another country under an international agreement relating to tariffs or trade. “ (3.) Upon publication of a notice under this section, there shall be charged, collected and paid to the use of the Queen, for the purposes of the Commonwealth, on goods specified in the notice imported into Australia a special duty (in this section referred to as ‘ the emergency duty ‘). “ (4.) The amount of the emergency duty in each case shall be a sum equal to the amount, if any, by which the landed duty-paid cost of the goods is less than a reasonably competitive landed duty-paid cost ascertained as determined by the Minister.”

That is the protection that we have against the flooding of Australia with goods imported from Japan or any other country. There is adequate provision in this agreement to protect Australian industry.

The attitude that has been adopted by the Opposition during this debate has caused grave concern to many manufacturers. They have not been told of this particular section of the agreement. A certain amount of fear has been generated by the Opposition in telling its story to the Australian public and particularly to Australian manufacturers. They have become a little frightened of this agreement.

It is interesting to note that one company, after hearing the Australian Labour party’s side, went to considerable trouble to discover the truth. I refer to Holeproof Limited, which is engaged in the manufacture of textiles. After perusing the agreement and getting into touch with the heads of departments and the Minister concerned, the officers of that company wrote to the Sydney Stock Exchange and the Melbourne Stock Exchange stating that they were quite happy with the agreement and felt that they had no reason for concern. That is one manufacturing concern which has taken the trouble to understand the implications of the agreement. Having done so, it was satisfied that there were plenty of safeguards, and that the company would be able to compete with Japanese goods entering Australia.

Unless we are prepared to negotiate this trade agreement with Japan, we will lose an ally against Russia. Japan will go to the Communists. We should do everything we can to keep Japan away from Communist influence. I believe that this agreement will go a long way in that direction. It will have a big effect on our financial structure during its term of operation.

I do not believe the Australian Labour party story that unemployment will be caused by the agreement. I think it is more likely to permit the Government to maintain its policy of full employment in Australia for the next three years. I believe we shall be going a long way towards improving the Australian economy and I believe firmly that this agreement will help Australia to take another firm step forward in the large-scale development that has been apparent over the past decade.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I rise to address myself of necessity solely to the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour party (Senator Cole). The history of the motion and the amendment before the Senate is this: An Opposition senator moved -

That the following paper-

That is, the trade agreement between Australia and Japan - be printed.

The motion was made by an Opposition senator as the Government was not prepared to sponsor such a motion. Then, on behalf of the Opposition I moved by way of amendment -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “ and the Senate expresses its disapproval of the Agreement on Commerce between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan.”

To that amendment, Senator Cole has proposed this amendment -

Leave out all words after “ Senate “, insert: - “ requests the Government, under the terms of the Agreement, immediately, to restrict Japanese’ imports to goods the entry of which will not cause unemployment in Australian industries “.

The effect of Senator Cole’s proposed amendment to the Opposition’s amendment would be to delete that part of my amendment which expresses disapproval of the agreement. I should like to indicate straight away that the Opposition is in complete sympathy with the broad purpose aimed at by Senator Cole - that is, prevention of unemployment through the importation of Japanese goods, and the safeguarding of Australian industries. We are in complete accord with what is the fundamental idea aimed at by Senator Cole’s, amendment to our amendment, but I want to make clear, and to explain to somedegree what Senator Kennelly has already indicated, that the Opposition could not accept Senator Cole’s amendment in itspresent form.

Our reason is that the amendment refers to the present trade agreement. It proposes that there should be a request that the Government “ under the terms of the agreement “ - and they are the words towhich the Opposition takes exception - should take steps immediately to restrict Japanese imports to goods, the entry of which will not cause unemployment in Australian industries. I should like to point out that the idea aimed at by Senator Cole’s amendment could not be effected under the terms of the agreement. That that is so is quite clear on reference toArticle II. of the agreement. I refer to> paragraph 1 of Article II. which states -

No prohibitions or restrictions-

And it is the word “ restrictions “ which is selected in this amendment - whether made effective through quotas, import or export licences or other measures, shall be instituted or maintained by the Government of either country on the importation of any product of the other country or on the exportation or sale for export of any product destined for the other country unless such prohibitions or restrictions are applied to all third countries.

I direct the attention of the Senate to the fact that, under this article - in contradistinction to Article I which deals with preferential customs duties - no exception can be made in favour of the United Kingdom. Therefore, while that agreement stands and effect has to be given to it, no restriction can be imposed upon the importation of Japanese goods which is not made applicable also to the imports of all other countries, including Great Britain. That is the basis of the objection of the Opposition to the terms of Senator Cole’s amendment. We have no objection to accepting the words and the fundamental concept of it where it seeks to exclude those Japanese exports that will cause unemployment in Australian industries. I would be quite prepared to say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we would accept the words indicated in that amendment as an addendum to the amendment I have moved on behalf of the Opposition with the deletion only of the words “ under this agreement “.

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

– How would the amendment then read?

Senator McKENNA:

– If my proposal were acceptable to Senator Cole and his seconder, the motion then before the chamber by way of amendment would be -

Thatthe paper be printed, and the Senate expresses its disapproval of the Agreement on Commerce between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan, and requests the Government immediately to restrict Japanese imports to goods the entry of which will not cause unemployment in Australian industries.

That wording takes the substance of Senator Cole’s amendment and includes it in the Opposition’s amendment. The words deleted are “ under this agreement “. They are the words that make it impossible for the Opposition, in the view it takes of the matter, to support the amendment in full. Our view is that it is not possible to do under the agreement what Senator Cole’s amendment aims to do. Therefore, the Opposition cannot support Senator Cole’s amendment.

I should like to foreshadow just how I think the broad resolutions will be proposed to the Senate. Although there is an alternative, attention will first be directedto the Opposition’s amendment. There will immediately be proposed to the Senate a motion that the words proposed by Senator Cole to be left out be left out; in other words, that the Opposition’s words disapproving of the agreement be left out. It is quite certain, as Senator Cole and his supporter have indicated their approval of that proposition, that they will vote with the Government and that the words will be deleted.

The next proposal will be that words contained in Senator Cole’s amendment be inserted. I think he may find then that the Government will leave him on that particular point, as I indicated. Certainly the Opposition will, for the reason that I have given. What will be left of the original motion and the amendment will simply be these words -

That the following paper: - Agreement on Commerce between the Commonwealth of Australia and Japan - be printed, and the Senate . . .

That is what will be before the Senate at that stage. I understand that the last three words, then having no sense, will be deleted and the bare motion that the paper be printed will be submitted to the Senate. I indicate to the Senate that the Opposition accepts the spirit and intent of Senator Cole’s amendment, but we cannot accept its particular form.

Senator Cole:

– We do not disapprove of the agreement, but while those words are in there, we cannot do anything about it.

Senator McKENNA:

– I understand the honorable senator’s position. If he does not disapprove of the agreement, I quite understand that he cannot support the proposal that I am now putting. I took it that it was implicit in the fact that he wanted to restrict importations to those Japanese products that would not cause unemployment in Australia, and that that was his fundamental objection to the agreement. In thought, and even in words, he expresses disapproval of it. I point out that the honorable senator cannot effectuate his purpose while this agreement stands. At least the agreement would have to be varied to make it possible for him to do what he proposes to do.

I rise, without much hope of persuading anybody about the course of events - I think they are pretty well defined - but merely to make perfectly clear the attitude of the Opposition in relation to the amendment proposed by Senator Cole. The net effect of his amendment to the Opposition’s amendment will be to prevent a straight-out vote on the proposition that the Senate disapproves the agreement. That will be its effect from the Opposition’s viewpoint. We shall be defeated in an endeavour to have that question clearly resolved.

I need add no more. I have made the Opposition’s position very clear, and I conclude with expressing my great regret that I am confined to the one matter on this occasion.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– After giving great attention to the discussion that has taken place in this Senate on the trade agreement between Australia and Japan, I find it quite evident that the Government supporters and honorable senators opposite are agreed upon several points. The first point upon which they are in agreement is that the Chamber of Manufactures would oppose the entry into Australia of any increased quantity of manufactured goods. I think it is reasonable to put that to the Senate. The second point upon which they are in agreement is that certain trade unionists, those engaged in the textile industries in particular, fear that their jobs are in jeopardy. The third point of agreement is that the people of Australia have some misgivings about the desirability of this agreement because they still have memories of the last war. The last point of agreement is that in the past there has been a flood of cheap, lowquality goods from Japan into Australia.

Dealing first with opposition by the chambers of manufactures to the entry of greater quantities of Japanese goods into Australia, I feel that, wittingly or unwittingly, they have done a great disservice to their own case because they have undermined the confidence of the buying public and the trading public in respect of textiles. I point out here that the Government is fully aware of the four fundamental points on which I have stated we are in agreement.

But there are safeguards in the agreement to protect the Australian textile industries and those safeguards cover both master and man. The Australian Labour party opposes the agreement. It was implied by way of interjection, that the Government could be defeated at an election on it.

Senator Brown:

– That is so.

Senator MATTNER:

– The honorable senator who has interjected made that implication in the first place. Looking at, the Opposition, I see no great enthusiasm on their faces at the suggestion that the Government will be defeated on this question.

Senator Sandford:

– The honorable senator’s eyesight is not too good.

Senator MATTNER:

– Honorable senators who belong to the Australian Labour party do not show any great enthusiasm at the suggestion. I say that the Government has taken its political future in its hands by entering into this agreement.

Opposition senators. - Hear, Hear!

Senator MATTNER:

– Honorable senators opposite agree with that. The very fact that it has taken its political future in its hands in that way is the greatest unwritten guarantee one could have that the Government will not see Australia’s industries ruined. It is also a guarantee that the Government will protect each and every section of the Australian community. I can safely say that since 1949 this Government has created in Australia a set of conditions in which men and women with energy and initiative have been able to earn a good living and attain a higher standard of living. I certainly join issue with Senator Cameron who said to-day that the Australian standard of living is lower now than it has ever been before. He knows that is untrue.

Senator Cameron:

– What about the. unemployed?

Senator MATTNER:

– The standard of living is higher to-day than it has ever been before, and the honorable senator knows it. Are we going to jeopardize or abandon that higher standard of living merely in order to allow more Japanese textiles to come into this country? The answer is, “ never! “ The Labour Opposition knows that we shall never do that, and every honorable senator on the Government side is determined to see that it never happens.

Senator Hendrickson:

– You would not have a say in it. You have had no say in the agreement.

Senator MATTNER:

– Honorable senators must admit that even the meanest of motives, the desire to remain in office, is a strong spur to govern soundly. I repeat that the good work this Government has done for the people of Australia is evident in every walk of life, and it is only natural that we should want to go from strength to strength. Unemployment definitely would cause our downfall, and for that reason we shall take all steps possible to guard against it. That, in itself, should be sufficient answer to the tirade of nonsense indulged in by Senator Cameron this afternoon. The fact that we shall guard against unemployment is, in itself, one of the strongest safeguards against any flooding of Australia with Japanese imports.

Even though the Australian Labour party is opposed to the agreement, I expected that its members would offer or suggest further safeguards for Australia’s industries, but they have not advanced one suggestion. They have not a clue! Let me point out here also that in season and out of season the Australian Labour party has strongly advocated friendship and closer ties and relations with the people of Asia.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator MATTNER:

– -The honorable senator agrees with that.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Of course we do, and we agree with trade with Japan, too.

Senator MATTNER:

– Exactly.

Senator Hendrickson:

– But we do not agree wilh bringing into this country things that we do not want.

Senator MATTNER:

– Labour has advocated unrestricted trade with red China. If Labour’s assessment of China’s future potential is correct, then China will undercut Japan in textiles.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Who told you that?

Senator MATTNER:

– The honorable senator did, and he has been and still is one of the most ardent advocates of trade with red China that we have had in this chamber. Perhaps he will allow me to continue to deal with some of the remarks that have been made in this chamber. Opposition senators’ ardent advocacy of trade with red China implies that they would allow China to flood Australia with far cheaper textiles than even Japan could supply. What is Labour’s answer to that? What safeguards would it advocate? It dare not advocate any. Labour is quite prepared to flood Australia with cheap goods manufactured in red China. The red boys it traffics with are quite shrewd gentlemen. Labour has its unity tickets with them.

Honorable senators opposite cannot get away from that. Are they just being made cat’s-paws by the reds? Is this the pay-off for the unity ticket?

The leader of the Australian Labour party in the Commonwealth Parliament has for years advocated trade with red China, and so also have Labour senators. I well remember Senator Armstrong saying that we should shift our woollen mills to China, send our wool to be manufactured there, and have it returned in the form of manufactured articles.

Senator Sandford:

– Take that wool out of your eyes.

Senator MATTNER:

– I know that the honorable senator heard it, and I know what a flutter it caused in Labour’s dovecote. Since the Federal Labour executive has placed Dr. Evatt beyond any criticism by his followers in the chambers in Canberra or by Chambers in Adelaide, Labour senators cannot and dare not offer any comment on Dr. Evatt’s statements within or without Parliament, lest the totalitarian dictators expel them. Their leader, Dr. Evatt, is said to be a fighter for individual freedom, a champion of the oppressed, the architect of the United Nations Organization. He was an able advocate in the courts of Australia for those people directed by an outside power who sought to sabotage our war industries. In the name of British justice, he defended those whom he knew desired to destroy our way of life. Both he and Senator Kennelly advocate unrestricted trade with red China.

Senator Toohey:

– I rise to order. Is the honorable senator in order in referring to the matters that he has been referring to in the last three minutes? If so, would you, Mr. Acting Deputy President, tell me what relation they have to the Japanese Trade Agreement?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Anderson). - The honorable senator will have to link his remarks with the matter before the Senate. I shall watch him carefully.

Senator MATTNER:

- Senator Kennelly wept tears of sympathy for the British manufacturer. How true it is that the lion and the lamb shall lie side by side! Great Britain and France are two most valued buyers of Australian wool. Yet how often have we heard Opposition senators describing these nations as the greatest imperialistic nations in the world, and ruthless tyrants of the native peoples? Even in the recent Suez crisis, when France and Great Britain were literally fighting for their existence, Labour did not lift a finger in their aid.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! The honorable senator is getting away from the subject.

Senator MATTNER:

– The safety of France and Great Britain is essential to our great wool industry, because if Japan’s buying of wool in Australia is curtailed we must look to those two nations to become heavier buyers of our wool. Labour said that under the agreement Japan need not buy £1 worth of Australian goods. By the same token, Australia need not buy £1 worth of goods from Japan. If we are selling wool to Japan, we must be prepared to take some goods in return. Surely the Australian people should have some limited rights to buy goods, manufactured or otherwise, in the best markets. Can we deny them that right? Labour advocates the abolition of import controls. If Japan is such a threat to Australian industries, would not the abolition of import controls open the gates to a flood of Japanese textiles? Labour senators claim that the majority of Australians are unionists. Would the unionist give preference to the Australian article, in spite of the higher price? If honorable senators opposite are so true to their labour principles and to their fellow unionists, it is up to them to make their decision.

Labour claims that Japan can buy our wool at auction, transport it to Japan, manufacture it, and undersell every other country that buys our greasy wool. Australian wool is sold in Australia by auction, and we are told that of the quantity that japan buys 70 per cent, is for domestic use. Thirty per cent., approximately 185,000 bales, is manufactured and sold on the world’s markets. These are Senator Kennelly’s figures. It is this 30 per cent., or 185,000 bales that concerns Australia. Should Japan’s buying be restricted to only sufficient wool for her own domestic needs, or should she be allowed to buy that extra 185,000 bales? I want an answer from honorable senators opposite. Would they restrict her purchases of Australian wool to only her own domestic needs?

Senator Hendrickson:

– She can buy what she likes.

Senator MATTNER:

– I shall come to that. If Japan bought in Australia only sufficient wool for her own domestic use, what would become of the additional 30 per cent, of wool to which I have referred? Does the Opposition want the wool-grower to face this 30 per cent, loss of demand? And would the price of Australian wool fall? If it did, our overseas trade balances would run down, and that would have a detrimental effect on the Australian economy, which is based largely on wool. Be that as it may, the plain fact is that all the Australian clip would be sold, because our wool is sold by auction. If Japan wants to continue manufacturing textiles - and we cannot stop Japan from doing so, if she wishes - then she will buy the extra 30 per cent, of wool she wants for manufacturing, not from Australia, but from the wool speculators.

Senator Hendrickson:

– She will pay dearly for it.

Senator MATTNER:

– I well remember Senator Hendrickson referring to the quantity of wool that Russia bought, and the enormous sums of money that speculators were supposed to make from these transactions. If the honorable senator would refer to the statistics furnished by the Australian Wool Bureau, he would find, as I proved to him at the time, that he had been talking sheer, arrant nonsense, because the statistics show the source of every pound of wool imported by Russia: and on the honorable senator’s own figures, Russia would have had to pay almost £9 per lb. of raw greasy wool.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What rot!

Senator MATTNER:

– I am referring to the honorable senator’s poppycock figures. He made the nonsensical remarks to which I have referred. Having procured her wool requirements, Japan puts her textiles on to the world markets. Senator Kennelly quoted banking figures to prove that Japan has the necessary amount of foreign currency to obtain her requirements. The honorable senator was emphatic that Japan was not short of foreign exchange.

Senator Hendrickson:

– That is true.

Senator MATTNER:

– If Japan buys our wool for manufacturing purposes, where will she sell the manufactured goods? If we had no trade agreement such as this, and no import controls, we would have no way of stopping the flood of allegedly cheap textiles into this country. The only safeguards we have in existence to prevent a flood of cheap, or allegedly cheap, Japanese goods into this country are the trade agreement, import controls, and the Tariff Board. It is true that the Japanese Trade Agreement will necessitate a review of import controls which may be harsh or inequitable. I agree that that may be so. The Tariff Board has served Australia well and it has a good record, based on its experience. Its inquiries are conducted with impartiality, and the government of the day usually accepts its decisions. The Tariff Board is the trusted instrument to prevent a flood of imports from any country.

Some honorable senators have contended that the board is too slow in announcing its findings. I point out that the board’s findings are advisory in nature. Perhaps some of the findings have not been acted upon, but I can remember only a few instances in which this has occurred. In the past the board comprised a chairman and three members. In 1953, three additional members were appointed, but there was still only one board. Why should we not appoint another chairman and have two boards to deal with tariff matters? We should consider whether administrative procedures operate to prevent the board from acting swiftly. I think it would be advisable to have an additional board in order to expedite hearings and the announcement of findings.

Under this trade agreement, the Minister may invoke the interim tariff. He has set himself for the political axe if he fails to protect the Australian textile industry. The interim tariff could be imposed quickly and the matter then referred to the Tariff Board. That procedure would not in any way infringe the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade. Under Article XIX.- the saving clause - tariffs may be raised without consultation when imports threaten to cause serious injury to our own manufacturers or producers. We have that power, and it could be used. Perhaps other contracting parties will retaliate. With this weapon, together with import controls, a

S.-[ll] resolute government can protect Australian industries. A fearless government, supported by wide-awake supporters, will not allow our Australian Jiving standards to fall, nor will we even allow the threat of unemployment to raise its head. For these two powerful protective reasons, I support the agreement.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– I propose to discuss the agreement, but I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 269

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5th September (vide page 189), on motion by Senator O’sullivan-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVice President of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP

– in reply - I have had an opportunity to give a great deal of consideration to the remarks of honorable senators on this measure. The gravamen of their complaint seems to be that there is a tendency to take the matter of fixing the salaries of members of statutory bodies away from Parliament, and to vest it in the Executive. That is quite true. I have in front of me a list - by no means exhaustive - of very important statutory bodies, the remuneration of whose members is determined, not by the Parliament but by the Executive. To mention just a few - the Tariff Board, the Australian Shipping Board, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, the Snowy Mountains Commissioners and Associate Commissioners, the Australian Whaling Commission, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commissioners, the Courts Martial Appeals Tribunal, the High Commissioner in the United Kingdom, the National Capital Development Commissioner, the Literature Censorship Board, the Australian National Airlines Commission, the Australian Wool Realization Commission, and various repatriation and other departmental boards - all statutory.

I have also a list - by no means complete - of cases in which remuneration is determined by Parliament, for instance the Judiciary. The Constitution provides that the remuneration of judges of the High Court, and of a federal court, shall not be diminished during their tenure of office. Other salaries fixed by Parliament are those of the Conciliation Commissioners, the Auditor-General, the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, the members of the Public Service Board, the Public Service Arbitrator, the Commissioner and second Commissioner of Taxation, and so on. Mention has been made of the fact that the remuneration of members of these statutory bodies is determined by the Governor in Council. Earlier, an honorable senator pointed out that the Governor in Council usually consists of the Governor-General, at least two Ministers, and a secretary, but it is quite wrong to suppose that in these contexts any decisions are actually made by that body. As honorable senators who have been on the Executive Council are aware, the members merely confirm decisions that have been made elsewhere.

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

– In law, the decisions are made by the Executive Council.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Yes, but as the honorable senator knows, the Executive Council merely confirms something that has already been decided by the full Cabinet, or by a Minister exercising rights lawfully conferred on him in relation to, say, a proclamation resuming a piece of land or the gazettal of the promotion of a large number of officers of the Public Service. Such matters are formally approved of at an Executive Council meeting and gazetted, but it is not intended that the council should consider them all in detail. How, in the scheme of things, does the matter of an increase or a decrease in the remuneration of a member of a statutory body arise? Even in the case of judges, or of other persons whose salaries are determined from time to time by Parliament, no one stands up here, of his or her own volition, and says, “ I think it is time that so and so’s salary was increased “, or “ The salary of judges is too high and Parliament should do something about it “.

By the very nature of things, and by force of the times in which we live, these matters come forward after full and careful con sideration by those charged with the responsibility of preserving relativity in remuneration, and avoiding anomalies. It generally falls to the lot of the Minister concerned with the administration of a particular statutory body to observe the trend and movement of remuneration in other spheres of public office. He, in turn, is generally advised by his permanent head, or the senior officer in charge of the particular section concerned. Consideration is also given to the advice of the Public Service Board - always to preserve relativity and avoid anomalies. In due course, the matter goes before Cabinet. Honorable senators will see, therefore, that these things are not done in a haphazard way. The Minister responsible must always be able to give an account of the movement in the remuneration of the statutory boards or bodies under his control. The mere fact that Ministers must be able to explain and justify those movements is, of itself, sufficient to ensure that public money is not squandered, and that those who are performing public service are not grossly overpaid or underpaid.

Parliament has the means, but it is not its function, to go into the highways and byways of administration in order to ascertain whether the multitudinous members of these bodies are being ill-paid or overpaid. A national Parliament has much more responsible and onerous duties to perform. It has not the time to decide whether Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones or Mr. Johnston should get a salary increase of £100, £200 or £300 a year, or should suffer a reduction in pay. It would be very difficult for Parliament properly to inform itself of the duties performed by those members in relation to the duties performed by members of other bodies, for the purpose of ensuring that relativity was preserved, and that anomalies were prevented.

We cannot, I think, be completely unmoved by the fact that on no occasion - to my knowledge, at any rate - has the recommendation of the Executive in respect of remuneration fixed by Parliament not, in fact, been adopted by the Parliament. I do not deny that there is a deal of academic worth in the arguments adduced by those honorable senators who have opposed this bill, but having in mind the world in which we live and the way in which government is conducted, and is likely to be conducted, those arguments are a long way from reality. I do agree that none of the bodies to which I referred earlier, except perhaps the Tariff Board, performs quite the same function, or is saddled with quite the same semi-judicial responsibility, as the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I think they are more or less in a field of their own. I would not presume to say that there are other boards charged with responsibilities kindred to those with which this board is charged. It is quite possible that there is something to be said from the emotional point of view in favour of the argument that, as the chief responsibility of the Grants Commission is to look after the interests of the claimant or smaller States, the Senate, as the States’ house, has a special responsibility to see that the commission enjoys the most complete freedom and independence under the law. That argument has some emotional appeal, but I do not think there is anything of substance in it.

Is it suggested that these men will enjoy a greater degree of independence if their salaries, remuneration or whatever you care to call it is determined by the Parliament instead of by the Executive? What difference would that make so far as their independence was concerned? We must bear in mind that these men are appointed by the Executive and are removable by the Executive. The Parliament determines their salary, emoluments or rewards, but the Executive can dismiss them. That is the position under the act as it stands at the moment. They are removable by the Executive. Is it suggested that their independence would be ensured if their salary were determined by the Parliament? This is a matter of academic interest, not a matter of real substance.

I urge the Senate to accept the measure which has been placed before it. I see in it nothing which will undermine the independence of the members of the commission. The Executive, particularly in a time of changing values of money, can much more readily do justice to these people, who have so faithfully and honorably, and with such distinction and credit to themselves, performed the functions of this very important commission. Their independence would not be strengthened by having their remuneration determined by the Parliament, and it would not be undermined by having their remuneration determined by the Executive.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 38

NOES: 13

Majority . . 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.-I direct the attention of the committee to clause 3 (1.), which reads -

Section five of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ 5. The members of the Commission and deputies of members shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as the Governor-General determines.”.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’Sullivan), with his newfound colleagues, has obtained the agreement of the Senate to the motion for the second reading of the bill, but I trust that even that will not preclude a consideration of what I call, as a euphemism, an improvement of section 5 of the act from its present level.

I will be corrected by the AttorneyGeneral in due course if I am wrong in suggesting that the law does not require a determination of the Governor-General to be in written form or to be presented to either House of the Parliament. It is capable of review by either House only on a motion of censure or during debate of a money bill which gives effect to the appropriation of the amount determined. This is the second chamber of the Parliament, and only five of its members are members of the executive of 22, if that matters.

Senator O’Byrne:

– lt has only two in the “ first eleven “.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Passing that by, too, I move -

In sub-clause (1.) leave out the words “ the Governor-General determines “ and insert: - “ are prescribed “.

That amendment, if agreed to, will have the effect of requiring the executive decision on this important matter to take the form at least of a regulation. That will give to this chamber and the other chamber, if it is ever minded to turn its attention to subordinate legislation by regulation, the right to exercise some specific supervision over the Executive’s determination of these things.

Having regard to the academic considerations and humiliating circumstances such as the kind of world in which we live and the way in which government is conducted in this country - they are the factors which discount the academic value of the principle - I ask the committee to ensure at least that form of parliamentary supervision over the security and independence of this important commission which the Senate has a big responsibility to maintain, so that the determination of any alteration shall be done by regulation which must be presented to both Houses of the Parliament and as to the propriety of the contents of which either House may then express its opinion in a proper way.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- I support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Wright. I think it is of very great importance to honorable senators. I feel that this chamber should have as much control as possible over the disbursement of the people’s funds.

Proposed section 5 gives no such control to this chamber. As Senator Wright has pointed out, to provide that such remuneration and allowances shall be prescribed by regulation gives us an opportunity to take some action on the matter. Although many honorable senators do not agree that the Government should have the power to» fix remuneration and allowances by regulation, I feel that, as the motion for the second reading of the bill has been agreed, to, something should be done to rectify the situation. I, as chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, directed, attention, in the committee’s twelfth report, to the great proportion of the finances of the Commonwealth that are allocated in theform of salaries, and to which we are more or less obliged to agree. I propose toquote the report of the committee in relation to the regulation which makes it more or less mandatory for this chamber toagree to the Government’s allocation. It reads -

The Committee considered these regulations,, and heard evidence relating to them. In thecourse of its enquiries, it learned that the regulations, by increasing the salaries of public service - officers, makes provision for increasing the expenditure from Commonwealth revenue by an amount, of £9,500,000 per annum. The total amount involved in payments under the regulations is in> the vicinity of £120,000,000 per annum.

The report further stated -

In the circumstances, as explained to theCommittee, this appears unavoidable, but theCommittee expresses the view that control overtaxation and appropriation is a strict parliamentary function, and that the development of any tendency to lessen that control should be closely watched.

Proposed section 5, as it stands in the bill,, does not give honorable senators an opportunity to consider the fixing of the remuneration and allowances by way of regulation.

I cannot emphasize too strongly the fact that this and all other parliamentsshould be vigilant in the matter of expenditure, because we are spending thepeople’s money. If another chamberdecides to agree to these things without thoroughly investigating them, that is noreason why we should not be vigilant. Asthe Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan) said in his reply tothe second-reading debate, this matter affects the States, and for that reason it isdoubly important that we should be vigilant. There are certain principles in relation tothese matters that we should follow, and I feel that, if a number of us who are supporters of the Government do not voter against the clause as it stands, we will havesold one of those principles.

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

.- The amendment that has been moved by Senator Wright is a last and rather desperate attempt to keep within the bounds of this Parliament the opportunity for some scrutiny of a matter of considerable importance. This question should not be taken lightly, because there obviously has been a tradition that certain officers occupying certain positions and discharging certain functions shall not be subject to the Executive but to the Parliament. When a decision is made that that process shall be interrupted in any way, it is elementary that those who are elected to interrupt that tradition should have the responsibility of discharging the onus of establishing why it should be done in that particular case. I have not heard, in the debate on this bill or on the amendment moved by Senator Wright, any compelling reason why this particular statutory body should be selected for this treatment while other officers, constituted under statute, still retain the prerogative and the privilege of being responsible, in the final analysis, to Parliament and only to Parliament.

I look here at the schedule to the Salaries (Statutory Officers) Adjustment Act 1957 where reference is made to the AuditorGeneral, the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, the Chairman and members of the Public Service Board, the Public Service Arbitrator, the Commissioner of Taxation and the Second Commissioner of Taxation. I want to know what particular function they discharge, or in what particular relation they are to the Parliament or to the Executive, that they are still to retain that position whereas the members of the body we are considering are to be deprived of it. There is a tremendous responsibility on the Government to place its compulsions before the Senate and say why this is being done in this case.

I know that estimates of expenditure introduced in the State legislatures cover a whole series of State functionaries, all of whom are described as being covered by statute, and that the principles and traditions are observed there. When a similar tradition is being disturbed here, the Government and the Attorney-General should indicate to honorable senators why that is being done.

The Attorney-General indicated that the Parliament is not the appropriate body to discuss in detail the salaries that should accrue to particular officers. That is possibly correct. Nevertheless during the consideration of appropriation bills and estimates of expenditure, we have the right, if we choose to seize it, to discuss in the greatest detail the work and functions of any officer whose salary is sought to be appropriated thereunder.

Strangely enough, I presume that if a gesture amendment of an appropriation bill were being moved as a means of censuring the Government it would possibly relate to the first item. If it related to the Parliament, it would be an amendment to Division No. 1 - The Senate - “ Salaries and allowances “. In other words, whether the amendment was used as a gesture or debated substantively, the debate would revolve around the actual salaries paid to certain officers. Therefore, the Parliament and the Senate is entrusted, in a particular way, with a responsibility to consider salaries when such matters come before it.

I cannot accept the proposition submitted by the Attorney-General that because the Parliament is not properly equipped to do certain work, we should abandon the responsibility for doing it. We know that, in most cases, the salaries that are placed before us for ratification either by statute or by an appropriation of moneys to meet determinations by the Public Service Arbitrator or decisions of the Public Service Board, are accepted by the Parliament as a matter of course. No doubt if the salaries of the officers we are discussing came before the Parliament, we would accept them almost as a matter of course, presuming that the legislation had been introduced with the recommendation of the Executive after full consideration of the facts.

We are not discussing our capacity to exercise this function, but we are interested in preserving our right to do so. Senator Wright’s amendment endeavours to retain that right. It will give us an opportunity under the Standing Orders to disallow regulations if the salary is fixed by that method. It will at least retain to the Senate the right to exercise that method of control if it considers such action wise and proper.

For those reasons I appeal to all honorable senators to preserve to this Parliament the opportunity and the right to scrutinize these matters in the terms of the amendment suggested by Senator Wright. 1 ask them to do so even if they think that, as a matter of efficiency and good administration, the Executive Government should be allowed to determine these salaries rather than submit them to the Parliament by way of an enabling legislation. For that reason, I support the amendment. I trust that those honorable senators who voted for the second reading will still find it in their hearts to support the amendment.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Having addressed myself briefly on another occasion to the subject matter of this bill, I welcome the opportunity that the committee gives me to say a word or two and to put the Opposition’s viewpoint. I am sure honorable senators will bear with, me while 1 say, first, that my relative silence when this matter was at the second reading stage, did not justify the rebuke directed at me, as Leader of the Opposition, that I had failed to embark on a dissertation on the work and quality of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. . In the first place, this is a bill to deal with the salaries of the commissioners and in my view is not an appropriate vehicle for such a discussion. Secondly, a bill dealing with the work of the commission is to come before the Parliament in the immediate future. I suggest that that measure will provide the appropriate occasion to review the work and quality of the commissioners.

I doubt if anybody in this Senate in recent years has done as much as I personally have done to stimulate interest in and knowledge of Commonwealth and State financial relations. I think a good many of those who are present in this chamber will recall that, on many occasions particularly when the new members came in following the enlargement of the Parliament, I delivered quite objective discussions for an hour at a time with no other purpose in my mind than to interest honorable senators in this very vital issue. So I say to the honorable senator who implied a rebuke to me in that matter that I reject it entirely.

Coming to the subject matter of the bill immediately, I shall deal in particular with clause 5. It has always amazed me that men could be found in this community to do the work and accept the responsibility of the Commonwealth Grants Commission for the remuneration provided for them by act of Parliament. It was left at an awfully mean figure of £300 for the chairman and £200 for the other members from 1933 until 1951. It is true that they were given certain fees and travelling allowances, but it amazed me that men of the quality attracted to the task could be found for that remuneration. I think that it was a feeling that they were making a major contribution by way of community service that induced them to accept the work and the responsibility rather than a desire to earn a fee.

Since 1951, their emolument has not been varied. It has remained unchanged for six years. Throughout that time there has been raging inflation, and the salaries of all other statutory officers and heads of departments have advanced progressively from time to time. This particular body has been given no consideration at all. The Government now proposes, belatedly, that the remuneration of the members of the commission should be moved into line. It has taken what the Opposition considers to be a sensible view, as well as one that has been observed in practice during the last decade at least and, maybe, for a longer period, and has decided to leave the determination of these matters to the Executive in the first instance.

From time to time, salary changes have had to be made. The heads of departments find that the salaries of those underneath them are getting too close to their own salaries. Some adjustment must be made. The exigencies of public service demand that these things occur with a good deal of frequency, and I think it is an embarrassment to be bringing in bills all the time to change the remuneration payable to a whole series of statutory officers. Such procedure clutters up the statute-book, makes a lot of work, and unnecessarily takes up the time of this Senate, as I hope to show presently. In any event, under this measure, if it is passed as the Government proposes, this Senate does not lose control of the matter. This bill does not appropriate moneys. The proposal for the payment of the moneys must still come before this Senate, in an appropriation bill, at least once a year. The actual amount reserved to the commissioners is set out, as any one will find, year by year on a separate line in the Estimates.

I point out that even if the Senate has no power to amend an appropriation bill, it has the power to request an alteration or amendment, and to persist ad infinitum with that request. It is a terrific power. It goes to the extent where the Senate, if it felt strongly about the pay or remuneration provided in any particular instance, could reject the appropriation bill - the whole budget - and send the Government to the people. That is the power that is left to this Senate. I agree that it is not a power that would be lightly used. It would be exercised with a great sense of responsibility. The point I make now is that a colossal power is still left to the Senate. We do not dispose of this matter when this bill is passed and leave it arbitrarily to the Governor-General-in-Council. That does not happen at all. I have not refreshed my own mind about it recently, but I remind the committee of the only occasion upon which a salary item was questioned. It related to a situation when I, as Leader of the Opposition, questioned the provision that was being made for the then Clerk of the Senate, which was in disproportion to the provision that was being made for the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The matter had to be raised and debated here, and an assurance was immediately given by the Government that the matter would be adjusted. In other words, it was not necessary for the Senate to move in the matter.

I have heard many things alleged against governments, against executives and against Ministers, but I have yet to hear it even alleged that a member of a government, or a. government, was privy to an arrangement whereby some statutory officer was subverted by increasing his salary. I have never heard the suggestion. I doubt whether, in the whole period of federation, that matter has ever been raised in this Parliament. I agree entirely with what the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan) said a while ago. What kind of assurance of the independence of a statutory office is it when the executive government retains the power both to appoint and to dismiss? There is only one assurance of independence, and that is the kind of independence conferred upon the judges and, I say to Senator Byrne, that conferred upon the Auditor-General, which makes his case a distinctive one.

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

– What about the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am not familiar with that case. The honorable senator has introduced what is, to me, a new thought. 1 shall follow up that one. I considered the Auditor-General’s position while I was sitting at the table. It may be that there are particular circumstances connected with other officers, but I have not addressed my mind to them. I shall be happy to do so I did notice that the Auditor-General can be relieved of office only by resolution of the Houses of this Parliament. He is in a separate category, and must be dealt with, separately.

Let me come to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I do not accept the proposition that it is a judicial body or that it needs any particular safeguarding. What does it do? It has one main principle, and it also has certain methods. Its principle has never changed; its methods have. They are so accurate now that all those keen critics - State Treasurers and all the highly skilled men in the Treasuries - can predict almost to within £1 what the finding of the commission will be. It is reduced to an arithmetical calculation, apart from one factor, and this shows how non-judicial the work of this commission is. Its first approach to determining the grant to the applicant States is to make a broad judgment of what is required for the year then current.

Senator Vincent:

– It could change that approach.

Senator McKENNA:

– The broad judgment is its first approach. It is a very modern and very recent approach. It is not a judicial function in the slightest degree. Who would want to subvert this body, above all bodies on earth, and in what way would one want to subvert it? The commission deals with State governments, and with a federal government. It has a highly skilled staff that does all the necessary research and investigation. The commission directs their work overseas, and takes responsibility for the results. I do not see one judicial element in the matter at all. Tt is a matter of sheer competence, understanding State budgets, surmounting the difficulty of finding out what happens in the standard States, which it cannot crossexamine, and the rest. T see nothing at all in its work to justify its being called a judicial body.

I should like to refer to Senator Wood’s statement that this Senate had to be vigilant. I ask the honorable senator what he was doing, and what all his colleagues who are supporting him in his attitude were doing in the last seven and a half years. I ask that question because the most casual inspection of the statute-book throughout that period discloses some 23 acts, a good many more than the Attorney-General found, indicating the way in which this principle has been accepted by this Government. On not one occasion during that time did the honorable senator, who now rises like a knight in shining armour to defend this fundamental principle, as he calls it, introduce the question during the consideration of any one of those 23 bills. The first I call to mind was the bill dealing with the appointment of no less an important body than the Commonwealth Bank Board in 1951. Who will compare the importance of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, important as it is in that it allocates something like £20,000,000 a year, with the responsibility and importance of the Commonwealth Bank Board? That body controls, and directs the economy; it can let one side of industry run and constrict another side. That body could make a fortune, if it were dishonest. What can the Commonwealth Grants Commission make? There is no scope for bribery. What could it hope for? The Commonwealth Bank Board can move the digits of industry in any way it wishes; it can influence share prices; and it can influence almost every economic event in the community. Everybody in this Senate stood by and allowed that bill, which contained a provision that the salary of the members of the board shall be fixed by the GovernorGovernorinCouncil to become law.

The same thing happened more recently when the Government established the Commonwealth Trading Bank. The salary of the Governor of the new Commonwealth Trading Bank, a man who has the most important and far-reaching functions, was to be fixed by the GovernorGeneralinCouncil in the same way. Was this great principle raised when those two vital and fundamental matters were before the Senate?

I am not talking now of only those two instances. I have other instances in con nexion with the Australia Shipping Board and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, which was referred to by the Attorney-General. The Australian Stevedoring Industry Board received great attention from honorable senators. Where were they when the bills relating to those three bodies were under consideration? Where were they when all the great commodity boards, which handle far more money in a year than the Commonwealth Grants Commission ever does, were established? I refer to such bodies as the Australian Aluminium Industry Commission, the Tea Importation Board, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the Commonwealth “Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, and the Flax Production Commission.

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

– Were the salaries to be be determined by the executive government when they were established originally?

Senator McKENNA:

– Some of them were, anyhow. Consider the matter of the Commonwealth Bank. It was a case of enacting fresh provisions. I am referring now to the responsibility of this Government from 1950 onwards. They were entirely fresh enactments. Take the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Commissioner, who was appointed not very long ago, a man with a very important position who can grant favours with infinitely more ease than ever the Commonwealth Grants Commission could grant them. Everybody in this Senate agreed to his remuneration being determined by the Governor-General. Now we hear that there is a fundamental, shining principle for which the Senate should die at the stake as though it were powerless in this matter. Quite frankly, I am not impressed by the claim. I agree with the Minister’s earlier statement that this is a modern trend in legislation. It is a sensible trend, and the Senate does not lose control over it. It seems to me to be the right thing to do. I checked what the Labour Government did in our last year of office in 1949.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It is an interesting facet of this legislation that we have been treated to speeches by the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan) and now by his chief advocate on this occasion, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), defending the fixation of salaries by the Executive alone, partly upon the view that the members of this commission are appointed by the Executive and are removable by the Executive. The original act whereby this commission was constituted provided that a member of the commission should be appointed for such term, not exceeding three years, as should be stated in the instrument of appointment. Section 8 provided - (1.) The Governor-General may suspend any member from office for misbehaviour or incapacity. Not at will! - (2.) The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament, within seven sitting days of that House after the date of the suspension, a full statement of the grounds of the suspension. (3.) If within sixty days after a statement of the cause of suspension of a member has been laid before both Houses of the Parliament an address is presented to the Governor-General by both Houses of the Parliament praying for the restoration of that member to office, the member shall be restored accordingly; but if no such address is so presented the Governor-General may confirm the suspension and declare the office of that member to be vacant and the office shall thereupon become and be vacant.

It is, indeed, a pitiable commentary on the conduct of the affairs of this chamber that we should be treated with such little respect by the learned leaders from both sides that they should submit to us an argument of this kind, and base it partly upon the fact that the members of this commission are removable at the will of the Executive. They are not.

The late Mr. J. A. Lyons had a solicitude for the small States that every Tasmanian should rejoice to emulate. Every Tasmanian representative in this place - including the Leader of the Opposition, if he wants to be reminded of his responsibility to Tasmania - has a special responsibility to carry on the tradition established by Joseph Aloysius Lyons that the members of this body should not be removed from office by the Executive. Does it not occur to the leaders in this place that the insignificance of the emolument of the commissioners is no indication of the standing that is required of them, and of the respect in which they are held and the degree of responsibility which they bear? There are men in this community who rejoice in low emoluments if they discharge high responsibilities with great credit. True it is that in this instance the emoluments are small, but the responsibilities are great. The Prime Minister of 1935, being a Tasmanian and solicitous for the security of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which was charged with the responsibility of recommending adjustments designed to relate the financial inequalities of the smaller States to those of the larger States, saw to it that no government would have the untrammelled right to dismiss the members of the commission. If the government of the day wished to exercise its lesser right of suspension, it had to report to both Houses of Parliament in writing within seven sitting days, with a full statement of the grounds of the suspension.

So much for the leaders’ submission on that ground. Here we had an instance, not of Satan rebuking sin, but, indeed,of showing some enthusiasm for it. What pleasure do I get in standing here, after seven comparatively silent and acquiescent years’ experience of increasing humiliation in this Senate, to find that my colleagues on this side behind Senator O’Sullivan should be encouraged in this descent by the argument that Senator McKenna’s government set a precedent? Well do I remember my blood curdling when, in 1944, in the High Court of Australia Mr. Justice Rich - let us honour his name and the judicial independence he displayed - was hearing a case, and an important executive officer of Senator McKenna’s government got a telegram reminding him that evidence to the disadvantage of the government would not be appreciated. Mr. Justice Rich made appropriate comments. Then it is suggested by Nicodemus McKenna that we will have no undermining or attempts at subversion! It is said that the executive government that we superseded in 1949 never made any approaches to the people in judicial office. Oh, no! That is why we came into office, and that is why, even belatedly, we take our defence before the principle is completely destroyed.

The last thing I want to say is in regard to these executive officers. It is of importance. The Commonwealth Bank Board, the Australian Shipping Board, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, the Australian Aluminium Production Commission, and the Exports Payments Insurance Comporation.have been mentioned. Complete justice, I think, would have been better served by reminding us that we had something to say on some of them, and upon this clause when it was first introduced into the Arbitration Act, whereby the government of the day took the right to determine the travelling allowances of members of the industrial court - -a principle that is completely iniquitous and against which we raised our voices. Even if these provisions are correct, I remind the Senate that all the instances recited by Senator McKenna are purely executive offices. Any difference between the Treasurer and the board must be referred to the Parliament for decision. Not one word did the honorable senator say about the wisdom of having the Senate retain control under its power to disallow a regulation. It is the specific purpose of my amendment to rescue this situation so that, if need be, the Senate will have some control over the determination of these salaries. The purpose of the amendment is to require them to be expressed in a regulation. If this is not acceptable to the committee, then, Mr. Chairman, the attitude is explainable only by an enthusiasm for this particular principle of government which we on the Liberal side hitherto called prostitution, but for which, I agree, Senator McKenna’s government did display a considerable enthusiasm.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– 1 rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Wright. In my opinion, it is desirable that this question be dealt with by regulation. I have served for a considerable time on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, and I assure the chamber that if the amendment is carried, it will be possible for members of that committee - some of whom are appointed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), and the majority of whom are appointed by the Leader of the Government in this chamber (Senator O’sullivan) - to examine this important matter as it arises from time to time in a regulation. I feel that the Senate should in that way retain some control over this matter.

While 1 am on my feet, I shall direct several questions to the Leader of the Government, who is at the table. I refer, first, to clause 3, which relates to deputies of members of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Will the Minister inform me when it was necessary for deputies of members of the commission to be appointed?

Can he indicate whether any deputies are holding office at the present time? I also invite his attention to clause 4. Why is it necessary to delete the word “ salary “ and insert in its stead the word “ remuneration “? What is behind that amendment? I also ask the Leader of the Government to indicate the remuneration and other expenses that the chairman of the commission is to receive, and the salary or remuneration that the other members of the commission are to receive.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has indulged in quite a lot of sidetracking and window dressing. He referred to the job that the commissioners do. I do not think that anybody suggests that they do not do a good job. The honorable senator’s efforts to interest people in the Commonwealth Grants Commission, I submit, had no relation whatsoever to the principle for which we are standing on this occasion. It is not a matter of the quality of the work of the commission. The principle is another matter altogether; it is the right of this Senate to pass legislation dealing with the salaries of or payments to the members of the commission. That is the vital point. It has nothing to do with the type of work they perform.

The honorable senator stated that the commissioners are doing a job at a very reasonable cost in terms of salary. I remind him that many people do good work in civic affairs and in wider spheres, often in an honorary capacity. There are, thank goodness, still people in our midst who like to do things for the sheer joy of doing something for the welfare of the people, but that is entirely beside the point. I believe that Senator McKenna, in talking along those lines, diverted the minds of some honorable senators from the vital point. He mentioned that the Senate has the right to reject an appropriation bill, that is, to throw out a budget. Can anybody imagine a responsible Senate throwing out a budget of from £1,100,000,000 to £1,200,000,000 over a relatively small item like this? Of course not! The action of the Senate - if it had the power to do so - should be to amend the particular items in the appropriation bill. Senator McKenna knows as well as I do that this Senate has no power to amend a money bill. We can make a request. That is our only power in relation to such a bill.

Senator McKenna:

– What is the difference, in fact, between amending and making a request?

Senator WOOD:

– A request need not be accepted, but if we amended an item we could, if necessary, make an issue of the matter. I do not believe that that could be done in relation to a request. The Senate has limited powers in relation to money bills. It would be fantastic for the Senate, because of only one item, to throw out a budget representing the whole of the nation’s work for twelve months, and I am surprised at Senator McKenna advancing such a proposition.

The other matter that was mentioned by the honorable senator related to the appointment and termination of the services of the commissioners by the Executive. I do not think that that bears on this particular subject, because we are dealing with the salaries of the commissioners. As I said before, it is the duty of this Parliament and, indeed, the right of this Parliament to say how the money shall be expended. Those who have taken a stand on this matter are trying to get the Senate to do the job that it should be doing, and 1 am glad to know that those honorable senators believe that we are here to review things and to carry out our functions in a proper way. By so doing, we shall act in the best interests of Australia and we shall provide strong justification for the retention of this chamber.

I think that Senator McKenna more or less had a shot at me. He stated that a number of bills incorporating the principle I have expounded had been passed by the Senate, and he tried to ridicule the stand I have taken that the Senate should retain the right to scrutinize expenditure. I do not profess to be perfect in everything I do, either here or elsewhere. The realization that parliamentary practice is taking a certain trend sometimes comes too late. This dangerous trend - the taking away of Parliament’s powers - may continue until, very late in the day, one wakes up to what is going on. To suggest that it has been done so often in the past is, surely, not a reason for continuing to accept the existing state of affairs. Some of us are trying to be vigilant in this matter, and will not accept the argument that it has often been done before.

My work on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has made me particularly keen to watch these matters. If we do a job we should do it properly. I have expressed these views because I feel that when a principle is at stake - especially a principle for which the Liberal party stands - one’s conscience should rule one’s actions in this chamber. One should certainly not accept the principle embodied in the legislation which we have seen being pushed through the Parliament to-day. To me the Parliament is the focal point of democracy in this country. Every bill which eats away the powers of Parliament also eats away at democracy, which this Parliament - and the Senate in particular - is supposed to protect.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I wish to speak in support of Senator Wright’s amendment. I have endeavoured to assess the arguments put forward in this matter with an open mind, and I find myself unable to’ accept the assurance that it is comparatively unimportant. If it were, I cannot believe that ten Government supporters would cross the floor and vote against the Government on this issue. On the contrary, they have shown that they believe it to be of considerable importance, and to affect the right of Parliament to control the expenditure of public money as well as the time-honoured and original role of the Senate - the guardianship of State rights, and of small States in particular.

Those who have supported the amendment have made out a strong case for the acceptance of the view that the Senate has an important responsibility in this matter and should be prepared to undertake it. I am not impressed by the fact that a certain practice has been followed 23 times previously during the seven and a half years that this Government has been in office. I consider it very strange that an Opposition should be prepared to accept something as being correct merely because it has been done so often before by the Government which the Opposition stands to oppose. It could be that, thanks to Senator Wright, the Senate has, on this occasion, come to a realization of its responsibilities. Perhaps it did not realize them before. Whether that is so or not, I contend that a strong case has been made out for this committee undertaking its responsibilities in this matter. We should consider the case on its merits, and I have attempted to do so to-night.

It is very hard to argue against the principle that the Parliament should retain control of the expenditure of public money. I realize that, because of the everincreasing complexity of parliamentary life, there is a growing tendency to pass over many of our responsibilities to the Executive, and to the bureaucrats who are under its control. But that does not prove that the practice is right, or should be followed. We have been called upon to make a stand in defence of the principle that Parliament should control the expenditure of public moneys. The argument for retaining that control appears to me to be so strong that I believe we should support that stand,

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– The Senate is indebted to Senator Wright for having told us exactly what is in the legislation regarding the dismissal of the people concerned. It was my intention to speak at the second-reading stage, and suggest that it may be possible to review the bill for the purpose of inserting that very principle. It is embodied in certain Western Australian acts of which I have some knowledge. The amendment seeks to reserve to the Parliament the right to terminate the appointment of officers of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I believe that the work of such bodies is most important. Their duties put them on a plane above ordinary commissions or committees. The Commonwealth Grants Commission acts as an arbitrator between the Commonwealth and the three undeveloped States.

Senator Vincent:

– It is not responsible to any Minister.

Senator SEWARD:

– It should be responsible to the Parliament. Senator McKenna has said that an officer of the Public Service could estimate to the £1 what grants the commission would recommend. I suggest that if he reads the reports of the Public Accounts Committee - on the Supplementary Estimates especially - he will realize that certain officers cannot estimate annual expenditure to within £10,000 of the actual amount. I do not see how such officers could estimate the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission as accurately as the honorable senator suggests.

I mention another point which has not been raised. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know that if one principle guides us more than another it is the need to preserve the right of the Parliament to control the expenditure of public money. This bill proposes to delegate that right to the Executive. Perhaps we should delegate everything to the Executive and go home! That is not my idea of the function of Parliament. I am more than surprised to hear the suggestion that we cannot deal with all these matters because we have not the time. We returned, not long ago, from a three months recess, and, as honorable senators know, there is hardly a sessional period when we do not have to close down here early on Thursdays because we have nothing to do. That plea carries no weight at all with me. We are sent here to do a job, and I believe that our constituents expect us to do it. One continually hears complaints about excessive expenditure in departments.

I cannot see what difficulty there is about reserving to the Parliament the right to review the salaries of the members of the commission. They must first be recommended by the Minister and the Executive. Surely we can trust the Parliament, having heard the reasons advanced and being satisfied with them, to agree with what has been recommended. The Minister gave no real reason either at the second-reading stage, or to-night, why the Parliament should not be entrusted with the task of fixing the salaries of the members of this important commission. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I do not know what is to be paid to the members of the commission. Whatever it is I have no hesitation in saying that they are worth it. I have the greatest admiration for them, and for the very able way in which they perform their work. The question of their remuneration does not enter into my calculations at all. I am merely concerned that the matter should come before the Parliament for decision. This is not a judicial body. It is one specially singled out to perform a task which is of vital importance to the smaller States. Consequently, we should be able periodically to review its work. That can be done when bills to vary salaries, and so on, come forward. I agree with Senator Wood that one cannot imagine the Senate throwing out a budget because it did not agree with the –salaries proposed to be paid to three particular officers. That is quite ridiculous. Everything else in the budget would probably <be quite in accordance with our views. The proper way would be to have salaries fixed by a bill and to let the Parliament decide the matter. We are indebted to Senator “Wright for moving this amendment, which I support strongly.

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

.- :Before the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan) replies, as he obviously intends to do, I want to refer again to a point which I made earlier when I referred to certain officers who are not dealt with as it is now proposed to deal with the members of the -Grants Commission. Is a general policy row being pursued which will apply to other officers who, so far, have been dealt with exclusively under statute? The Auditor-General is responsible to the Parliament in a particular way and is dismissable by the Parliament. Therefore, I would -exclude him from any similar treatment. However, I do refer to the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner. Is it proposed for -any reason to deal with him similarly to the manner in which members of the Grants Commission are to be dealt with? If not, why not?

I refer also to the Public Service Arbitrator and the Commissioner of Taxation. If a step of this rather dramatic nature is being taken, there must be a compelling reason for it. Therefore, there must be a reason why other officers who could be similarly dealt with are not going to be similarly dealt with. I would be pleased if the Attorney-General, when he replies, would indicate whether this bill is an indication of a general policy, of what is regarded by the Government as a more modern -approach to administration so that, in these -days of rapidly varying salaries and prices, the salaries of certain officers can be rapidly -adjusted and inequities avoided. If that is the general line of policy, the Minister might indicate how far it is to be followed. If that is not the general line of policy, I wonder why the Grants Commission has been selected for inclusion in the jurisdiction of the Executive Council and for exclusion from parliamentary and statutory protection.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP

– The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. Dealing with the last question raised by Senator Byrne, I do not think there is any special significance in the fact that this piece of legislation has been introduced. It is not an indication that the members of the Commonwealth Grants Commission are the first on a list or the last on a list. That should not be read into it.

Senator Armstrong:

– It is just incidental?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It happened that the remuneration of the members of the Grants Commission came up for consideration and that this was the way in which the Government proposed to deal with it. As Senator Wright pointed out, I was somewhat extravagant when I used the word “ removal “, referring to a member of this commission. I should have referred to “ suspension leading to removal “. If there is to be a restoration, it must be on the initiative of both Houses of the Parliament, taken within the prescribed period. In the case of the Commissioner of Taxation or the Second Commissioner, unless the Parliament moves in the matter, praying that the suspension shall be sustained, the suspension is lifted and the officer concerned is restored. The same provision applies in respect of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General may not be removed except on an address praying for such removal by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. That is one way in which the AuditorGeneral may be dealt with. The GovernorGeneral may at any time suspend the Auditor-General from his office because of incapacity, incompetence or misbehaviour, but, as in the case of the Commissioner of Taxation, unless an address is presented by both Houses of the Parliament praying that the suspension be sustained, the suspension is lifted and restoration takes place. So there is a difference in the statutory approach to the officers in the second part of the schedule which I read earlier.

Senator Vincent:

– Not in principle.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– There is a different statutory provision for their suspension and removal. In the case of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner and the members of the States Grants Commission it is obligatory, if the suspension is to be lifted, for the Parliament itself to take the initiative, praying that the suspension be lifted. In the case of the AuditorGeneral, the Commissioner for Taxation and the Second Commissioner for Taxation, if Parliament does nothing in the matter, the suspension is lifted.

Senator Laught:

asked whether there were deputies and if any had been appointed. I am not in a position to say whether deputies have been appointed, but there is provision in the act for that to be done. Section 3 provides that the Governor-General - may appoint a person to act as the deputy of that member during his suspension or inability to act, and the deputy shall, while so acting, have all the powers and perform all the duties of a member of the Commission.

Whether that power has ever been exercised, I cannot say at the moment.

With regard to remuneration, the word is used in section 5 in the general sense, covering a fixed retainer, plus so much per sitting day and so much by way of allowances. The combination of all three amounts to remuneration. Section 8 (4), which it is proposed to amend, provides -

A member who is suspended from office under sub-section (1.) of this section shall not be paid salary in respect of the period of his suspension unless and until he is restored to office under the last preceding sub-section.

There is nothing sinister in the proposed amendment. It is designed merely to extend the provision to cover the whole of the remuneration, so that a suspended member would not be paid any part of the remuneration during the period of his suspension. It is really a correction of what might be described as some loose drafting.

Senator Laught also asked what it was proposed that the remuneration should be. Initially, in 1933, it was ?300 per annum. In 1951, the amount was raised to ?600.

Senator Wright:

– For the Chairman.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That is so, ?600 for the Chairman and ?400 for each member. I thank the honorable senator for his correction. Now it is proposed that the Chairman, to bring him into relativity with other officers, shall have his remuneration increased to ?1,200 a year and that each of the other members of the Commission shall receive ?600 a year. I understand that considerably more of the Chair man’s time is involved than is the case with the other members of the Commission. It is proposed that for each day on which he attends a meeting the Chairman shall, in addition to his salary, be paid a fee of eight guineas; that each of the other members shall, in addition to their salaries, be paid a fee of seven guineas; and that each deputy member shall be paid a fee of seven guineas.

Senator Armstrong:

– Were those the daily rates paid previously?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Previously the daily rates were five guineas and four guineas. The travelling expenses are still prescribed by regulation.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I do not want lo misquote Senator Wright, but I understood him to say that the provision that the members of the commission and deputies of members shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as the Governor-General determines does not imply any necessity for the determination to be in writing, and that it can be done by a nod of the head or a verbal communication.

Senator Wright:

– I asked whether there was any legal requirement for the GovernorGeneral’s determination to be in writing.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The practice is-

Senator Wright:

– Yes, the practice!

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I see no reason why this Government should depart from a practice that has been in operation since federation. The practice is for an executive minute to be recorded, which is signed by the Governor-General or whoever presides over the Executive Council, the Ministers who attend the meeting, and the secretary. So there is a permanent written record of such determination.

Senator Wright:

– Did the Minister say that travelling expenses are still fixable by regulation?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Yes.

Senator Wright:

– That is an oddity.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Sub-section 5 (3.) provides -

There shall be paid to each member, and to each deputy of a member, of the Commission, on account of his expenses in travelling to discharge the duties of his office, such sums as are prescribed.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- Just as a footnote, 1 thought that what we were being asked to do was to repeal the section from which the Attorney-General (Senator O’Sullivan) has just quoted. If section 5 of the principal act is to be repealed, then sub-section (3), which requires travelling expenses to be fixed by regulation, must go. The committee should see the matter in its proper perspective.I do not think anybody will contend that, if the clause under consideration is agreed to, there will be any need to fix even travelling expenses by regulation. What an oddity it would be if the requirement to fix the amount by regulation was repealed in relation to remuneration but preserved in regard to travelling expenses’.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The point taken by the honorable senator is correct. I misinformed myself.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 18

NOES: 33

Majority . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 October 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1957/19571001_senate_22_s11/>.