23rd Parliament · 2nd Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 119
– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Government aware that the Australian-Asian Association of Victoria has launched an appeal to provide food, clothing, education and vocational training for children of Australian paternity abandoned by their fathers in Japan and who may be in need? As the appeal has been commended by Justice Sir Charles Lowe, the president of the AustralianAsian Association, to the goodwill of the Australian community, will the Government consider the desirability of making a Commonwealth donation to it?
– From time to time, representations have been made to the Government in connexion with this matter. If my memory is correct, the most recent form of such representations was that the Commonwealth Government should make some general donation or subscription to the Japanese Government for support of the children referred to. That request and others that have been made from time to time, have received very careful consideration. I think that the outcome of them was a decision that special cases brought to the notice of the Government, particularly special requests for migration of the children, would be dealt with on their merits. I was not aware that the Australian-Asian Association of Victoria had launched an appeal, but I shall direct the attention of the Treasurer to it and ask for a specific answer to the query raised by the honorable senator.
page 119
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. In respect of recruiting for the Australian Army, is there provision whereby a serving British Army officer who desires to migrate to Australia, may enlist in the Australian Army without reduction in rank? If there is such provision, are the relevant facts adequately publicized in England? If they are not, in view of the necessity to increase the flow of recruits to the Australian Army, does not the Minister agree that the British Army could be a very valuable source of supply?
– The question Senator Marriott poses is one of great interest and importance. I think that the Minister for the Army should be given the opportunity to make a considered reply. If the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper I shall obtain a reply for him.
page 119
– Can the Minister representing the Treasurer inform me whether donations to appeals such as that mentioned by Senator McManus are allowable deductions for income tax purposes? Similarly, are donations to appeals for flood relief, bush fire relief and other such disasters, and to the St. John Ambulance Brigade, lifesaving organizations and so on, allowable deductions? Can the Minister arrange for a list to be furnished to the Senate of organizations and appeals, donations to which are allowable income tax deductions? Has the Commissioner of Taxation discretionary power in this respect?
– The list of the kind of societies donations to which are allowable deductions for taxation purposes appears in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Commissioner of Taxation has no discretionary power in the matter. I do not think that the appeal being launched by the Australian-Asian Society, to which Senator McManus referred, would qualify under the act. However, I shall examine the question more closely and ask the Treasurer whether it is possible to make available, by way of an answer to this question, a list of the societies donations to which are allowable deductions.
page 119
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I preface it by saying that yesterday the Netherlands Charge d’Affaires, Dr. Insinger, said in Adelaide that Dutch firms would invest a lot more money in South Australia but for double taxation.
In view of the success from an investment viewpoint of the bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada, will the Minister have examined the question of extending these agreements to the Netherlands?
– I think it can be said that, where reciprocal tax agreements have been entered into by the Australian Government with the governments of other countries they have been, as described by Senator Buttfield, a great success. But those agreements have flowed from reciprocal benefits to each of the countries, and each treaty has been made according to the merits of the individual case. I certainly do not wish to comment in any way on the merits of a Dutch agreement, but I shall be pleased to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Treasurer and ask him to examine the merits of the proposal.
page 120
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Territories whether he is able to comment upon an article written by the well-known feature writer, Mr. Osmar White, which appeared in last night’s Melbourne “ Herald “ and in in which he passed some very critical remarks about the Public Service of New Guinea. He said it was no new story that resignations from that service were increasing, and he quoted a statement by the Public Service Commissioner in Port Moresby to the effect that resignations in the last financial year rose by 50 per cent. If the Minister is unable to offer any comment, I should be very pleased if he would bring my question to the notice of the Minister for Territories and ascertain whether, in view of recent public discussion about Australia’s position in Papua and New Guinea, he is prepared to comment on the situation and state what the Government intends to do to improve the position so that Mr. White’s suggestion that public servants are not being recruited in the best manner may be refuted.
– I have not had an opportunity to read the statement by Mr. White that was published in the Melbourne “ Herald ‘”, but I shall ask the Minister for Territories to let me have some comment upon it and ascertain whether I can make a statement in the Senate in reply to the honorable senator’s question.
page 120
– I ask the Minister for National Development whether it is a fact that the Kimberley Research Station on the Ord River in Western Australia has proved that rice and safflower can be grown commercially in that area. Is it a fact that the Western Australian Government has now decided to establish an irrigation area of some 15,000 acres in the Ord River valley and that land clearing has already begun? Can the Minister inform me whether this large-scale production will commence in 1963? Is the Commonwealth assisting the State with this project, and if it is, what is the cost? Are there any crops other than rice and safflower that can be grown commercially, such as sugar cane and cotton? Has any success been obtained by the experimental station with fattening stock on irrigation-improved pastures?
– The honorable senator’s question calls for a comprehensive dissertation upon the Kimberley Research Station and I doubt my ability to give such a dissertation in reply to a question without notice. I think that I can answer the question in these terms:. The research station has operated very usefully and successfully. It has established that not only rice and safflower but also sugar cane and cotton can be grown in that area of the Kimberleys. Whether those crops can be produced on a commercial basis remains to be seen. There are big problems such as transport costs and the extent of the irrigation area which would be available. The Western Australian Government has in mind the use of this area for irrigation. I forget what the size of the area is. I have an idea the honorable senator said it was 15,000 acres. Anyhow, it is a pretty big approach on an experimental basis.
The Commonwealth has agreed that a proportion of the amount of money that was devoted to the north Kimberley area for developmental purposes shall be applied to this particular project. It is intensely interesting not only to Western Australians but to all Australians to see the results under actual working conditions on farms of the size of living areas, as distinct from the scientific experimental work on the research station. The work may be described as epoch-making.
The results obtained from this irrigation area will determine, influence or give sound foundations for opinions as to what can be done in the north-west and, therefore, this matter is of great interest and importance.
page 121
– I preface my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation by stating that I have received correspondence from him informing me that he has now revoked his earlier undertaking to lay on the table of the Senate the whole of the report submitted to him by Mr. Warren McDonald, the former chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission. I now ask the Minister: Did Mr. McDonald in his report suggest that the Government should attempt to give equal opportunities to Trans-Australia Airlines in regard to intra-state air traffic? If Mr. McDonald made such a suggestion in his report, is the Government paying any heed to that part of it?
– I think I have stated on a number of occasions in this chamber and elsewhere, apart altogether from what was written by Mr. McDonald in his report, that Trans-Australia Airlines has always held the view, and always strongly pressed the view, that in its opinion no restraint at all should be placed on its operations in respect of intra-state services. Mr, McDonald said - and I have acknowledged it in this chamber on a number of occasions - that that was the view of the Australian National Airlines Commission. The Government, however, for policy reasons, has decided that that view shall not be implemented. I have said in this chamber in reply to questions asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from time to time that the question of intra-state operations is constantly watched by the Government and that should any variation of policy in that regard be necessary, a change of policy will be considered by the Government.
page 121
– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question that concerns an announcement in to-day’s Melbourne press by Councillor Kilpatrick, of Melbourne, the chairman of the Cancer Services Committee of the Victorian Anti-cancer Council, which is sponsoring an international cancel congress in Melbourne, to the effect that a federal body will shortly be set up in relation to this important matter. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether this announcement is in fact true? If a federal anti-cancer council is to be established, can the Senate have the assurance of the Minister that everything possible will be done by the federal health authorities to assist in this most important work?
– I did not see the article referred to by the honorable senator, and at this stage I do not know whether a federal body is to be established. I have no doubt that the Minister for Health has this matter under close review and that when he makes a decision on the matter every endeavour will be made to give effect to that decision. The matter is so important that the honorable senator should put the question on the notice-paper. I shall then obtain a direct answer to the question from the Minister for Health.
page 121
– I direct to the Leader of the Government two questions, because I feel that in his answers he will be impartial. If I asked them of Mr. Nicklin, the tory Premier of Queensland, or Mr. Duggan, the Labour leader of the Opposition in Queensland, they might not be impartial. Can the Minister tell the Senate and the country why 1,702 more people left Queensland than came to that delightful State in the year ended March, 1960? Was this due to the Menzies Government’s neglect of the development of Queensland?
– I have no difficulty in being completely impartial in replying to the second part of the question. At the present time Queensland is going through the greatest era of prosperity and development in its history. This is due entirely to the fact that the Menzies Government reigns in Canberra and the Nicklin Government reigns in Brisbane.
page 122
– I direct to the Minister for National Development a question which is, if I may say so, also impartial. Has the Minister seen the very fine supplement in this morning’s edition of the Sydney “ Daily Telegraph “, dealing with the activities of the New South Wales Housing Commission, which contains an introductory article by Mr. Landa, the New South Wales Minister for Housing? Has the Minister noted that Mr. Landa’s article is laudatory of the efforts of the commission and the State Government in the housing field, that it makes reference to the State Government’s decision to enable tenants to purchase homes on small deposits, and that it refers to steps being taken to meet the problem of accommodation for the aged? To enable this matter to be viewed in its right perspective, will the Minister affirm that the Commonwealth Government provides the New South Wales Government with the money for housing; secondly, that the ability of commission tenants to purchase homes is a direct result of Commonwealth legislation; and thirdly, that homes for the aged are a direct result of Commonwealth legislation, namely, the Aged Persons Homes Act?
– The statement by Senator Anderson is correct. All of the money provided for housing is provided by the Commonwealth Government and moreover is: provided at an interest rate concession which is borne by the taxpayers of Australia. The Commonwealth Government has the task of collecting that money. The Commonwealth Government alone subsidizes the erection of homes under the homes for the aged scheme. The only reason why State governments can sell houses on small deposits is because the Commonwealth Government provides the finance for the erection of those houses.
– I desire to ask the Minister a question supplementary to the one that he has just answered for me. Is it a fact that a condition of the grant to the States under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement is that 30 per cent, of the funds must be directed to the co-operative building society movement? Is it also a fact that the co-operative building society movement has from time to time publicly urged that the percentage allocation from the agreement should be increased? Notwithstanding that this may involve a matter of policy, will the Minister and the Government seriously consider increasing the percentage allocation when the agreement is next under review?
– It is true that 30 per cent, of housing finance is apportioned to co-operative building societies. It is always difficult to hold the scales of justice evenly balanced between what should go to the housing commissions and what should go to the building societies. Many representations are being made to me to increase the proportion allotted to building societies, but any plan to do so would need to be acceptable to the States. We would have to make a deal with the States. We often see statistics of the number of people who are waiting for homes from housing commissions, but I remind honorable senators that equally powerful statistics could be presented of the number of people who are waiting for homes to be built with finance provided by building societies.
– I, too, wish to ask the Minister a question supplementary to those that he has just answered. I preface my question by pointing out to the Senate that co-operative building societies in South Australia do not enjoy the benefits of the 30 per cent, allocation that applies in the other States. However, my question is on another aspect of housing. Is it a fact that the Government of the Netherlands has arranged to invest approximately £2,000,000 in Australia for the housing of Dutch migrants? Is it also a fact that almost all of that sum will be invested in New South Wales and Victoria but that none of it will be invested in South Australia? I point out that the housing scheme operated by the South Australian Housing Trust is by far the most efficient of its kind in Australia. There is no waiting time for houses and no discrimination is made as between new Australian and old Australian applicants. However, there is a shortage of mortgage money in South Australia. Therefore, will the Minister consult-
– Order! The honorable senator is giving information. She should ask her question.
– Will the Minister consult with the Dutch authorities to see whether South Australia may in any way share in the scheme devised by the Government of the Netherlands?
– I wish to correct Senator Buttfield as courteously as I can with regard to the 30 per cent, appropriation. The arrangement with South Australia is the same as it is with the other States - 30 per cent, of the money allocated for housing must be applied to building societies or other like institutions. A phrase in the agreement refers to building societies or institutions that lend on similar terms and conditions. The South Australian Government of its own accord decided that not all of the 30 per cent, should go to building societies - that portion of it should go to some State instrumentalities. As to the balance of the question, I am not quite certain as to why the Netherlands building societies have not operated in South Australia. It recently came to my knowledge that they are operating in Western Australia. I think that the establishment of them in South Australia must be a matter mainly for negotiation between the State Government and the Netherlands authorities. I do not know of any reason why the arrangement should not operate as effectively in South Australia as in other States of the Commonwealth.
page 123
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has he seen the report in the daily newspapers of a sharp fall in wool prices - to the extent of from 5 per cent, to 7i per cent - compared with the prices at the previous July sales? Does the Minister believe that the fall will continue? Does he care to comment on the reason for the fall and on its possible effect on the Australian economy?
– I think that any comment at all - should there be any comment at all - or any looking into the future - should there be any looking into the future at all- is properly the responsible Minister himself. I suggest to the honorable senator that he approach the Minister for Primary Industry direct.
page 123
– Will the Minister for Repatriation inform me whether any provision has been made in the Estimates for the current financial year for the build ing of the proposed new psychiatric ward at the repatriation hospital at Springbank, South Australia? In reply to a question I asked in this chamber on 10th March last, the Minister stated that he hoped the new ward would be put on the works programme for the next financial year. Have those hopes materialized?
– I regret to tell the honorable senator that there is nothing on the works programme this year in regard to the repatriation general hospital in South Australia. The proposal has not been dropped entirely, but owing to certain factors we were not able to put it on this year’s programme.
page 123
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. In view of the recent humane decision of the Minister for Immigration that some physically handicapped members of migrant families shall be admitted to Australia, will the Minister for Labour and National Service answer the following questions: As a result of the recent intensive drive to obtain employment for physically handicapped persons, for how many such persons were positions found in each of the States? How many physically handicapped persons are registered for employment in each State? While these persons are waiting for employment, are the facilities of the rehabilitation centres available to them?
– I should like to commend the honorable senator for the tribute she has paid to the Minister for Immigration, and to the Government, for the decision to admit into this country so many families, one member of which is suffering from a physical disability. As to the number of physically handicapped persons, the number registered for employment, and the rehabilitation facilities which are available, obviously I do not carry that information in my mind. I shall get it from the Minister for Labour and National Service and supply it to the honorable senator. I would remind her that the Government has taken a great step forward in the present Budget by making available, free of sales tax, cars for physically handicapped people, so that they can accept employment.
page 124
– I ask the
Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service a question arising from the answer he gave to Senator Tangney. The Minister said that the Government was making motor cars available for physically disabled persons. Is it a fact that such a person has to supply the money to buy a car and that the Government does not supply the car to him?
– I should like to make it quite clear that what the Government intends to do in respect of physically handicapped persons is to enable them to secure cars without having to pay the sales tax component of the price.
page 124
– My question also is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Does he agree that the C series index, upon which cost of living figures are based, is now out of date? Is it a fact that some items such as rent - which, because of improved living standards, is not now paid by the majority of Australians - have a disproportionate effect on this computation? Is it expected that action will be taken to bring the index up to date or to replace it by some other measuring rod?
– I think that all honorable senators have been interested in the recent comparison of two methods of ascertaining rises in the cost of living. One is the C series index and the other is an index which takes into consideration the fact, mentioned by the honorable senator, that many more Australians now own their own homes than was the case when the C series index was introduced. It also takes into consideration the fact that so much more of the earnings of the ordinary Australian can now be devoted to what formerly would have been considered luxury goods. It seems to me, without making any commitment on the matter, thai that type of index does commend itself and should be considered very carefully.
– I direct a supplementary question to the Minister. Will he have the Commonwealth Statistician supply information concerning’ the prices and the weightings involved in the new index, the purpose being to evaluate the index more appropriately?
– 1 shall ask the Minister responsible whether the Commonwealth Statistician can make that information available to the Leader of the Opposition.
– I, too, direct a supplementary question to the Minister. Can he inform the Senate what proportion of the £417,000,000 that is owed to finance companies in Australia has been loaned for the purpose of house purchase?
– I most certainly could not supply that information, but if it is available I shall endeavour to secure it for the honorable senator. Do I take it that he wishes to know what proportion of the money that is owed to finance companies is on account of house purchase?
– Yes.
page 124
– I address a question to the Minister for the Navy. By way of preface, 1 wish to compliment the Minister on the nature of the tasks he has assigned to the Navy in recent months. I refer particularly to the task of making, in conjunction with certain Indonesian and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization personnel, a survey of the Indian Ocean. Can the Minister indicate whether a report is yet available concerning that survey and, generally, can he indicate the purpose_of the survey?
– In answer to the first part of the honorable senator’s question, may I say that the only report that I have seen - indeed, the only report that could be available at this stage - was to the effect that the Indonesian scientists in question had been embarked. I also saw a report in the form of a signal from “ Diamantina ‘’ to the Indonesian authorities thanking the Indonesian authorities at Tanjong Priok for giving the ship’s company such a good time when it called there.
The scientific report, to which I think the honorable senator is referring, obviously would not be available until the conclusion of the cruise, which includes not only the ocean around Singapore, but also the Arafura Sea, to the north of Australia. This cruise is the first of its kind, I think, since Flinders made a general oceanographic survey in that area. At the end of the cruise, the scientific findings - the salinity of the water at various depths, the amount of sea food available for fishes at various places, the temperature of the water, and the depth of the water - will be correlated. All those things which the scientists find out will be tabulated and eventually considered. Perhaps the scientists will come to conclusions which will help us to know a little more about how to catch and perhaps conserve fish, and of the seas around our coasts. When that report is available I imagine it will be a public report. I shall endeavour to make it available to the honorable senator, or at least such portions of it as are available to the public.
page 125
– I address a question to the Minister for Repatriation. I believe that, when an ex-serviceman in receipt of a full total and permanent incapacity pension dies, his widow is entitled to a war pension equal to £5 a week, but that if an ex-serviceman in receipt of a 100 per cent, pension or less dies, unless the death certificate shows that he died from war-caused injuries, his widow is entitled to only £4 7s. 6d. a week. If my information is correct, will the Minister give favorable consideration to allowing all war widows to receive the higher rate of pension?
What the honorable senator has said in regard to the widow of a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman is true. The department accepts the death of a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman as being due to his warcaused disabilities, and his widow is entitled to the war widow’s pension. With the 100 per cent, rate pension, which of course is a lower rate than that for total and permanent incapacity, the degree of disability being not so great, the normal practice, as it is with all other cases, is for the widow’s application to be considered carefully to determine whether her husband died from war-caused disabilities. If it is decided that he did die from such dis abilities, she receives the war widow’s pension, but if the claim is not accepted by my department she is not entitled to a war widow’s pension. The department takes the view that because a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman has been so severely injured and handicapped, his widow is deserving of some extra benefit, and her claim is accepted automatically. That is not so in the case of other exservicemen, whether they are in receipt of the 100 per cent, rate, the 50 per cent, rate or a lower rate. It is necessary for a determination to be made that the exserviceman’s death was due to war-caused disabilities.
– I direct a supplementary question to the Minister. He has admitted that what I said before was correct. I asked whether he would view favorably reconsideration of the policy of the Repatriation Department so that all war widows would be in the same class. The reason I ask the question is that I believe - as, I think, most of us believe - that although it is probable that the death certificate of a deceased ex-serviceman would not show that he had died from war injuries, his disabilities could have contributed to his death. His previous disabilities might have caused him to do certain things, to make mistakes, or to be subject to other complaints which would not have been the case had he not served in the armed forces. I now ask the Minister whether he will give favorable consideration to altering the policy of the department so that all soldiers’ widows will be granted the same rate of pension.
– That is entirely a matter of Government policy. The Government is continually considering how it may increase benefits for not only ex-members of the forces but also their widows and dependants. Such consideration would include giving to the widows of deceased 100 per cent, rate pensioners a higher rate of pension, or assisting them in some other way. Those matters are considered on their merits. So far, we have not been able to do as the honorable senators has suggested. Such matters were considered when the present Budget was being prepared and they will be considered again. As I have said, this Government has given many additional benefits to ex-service men and women.
page 126
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. In view of the world-wide use being made of propaganda by the Russians as one of their psychological weapons in the cold war, will the Minister make a statement alerting the Australian people to just what to be wary of in this new type of warfare? Will he consider including in the statement an explanation of why the Russians are apparently ahead of the Western democracies in the field of intercontinental ballistic missiles, if indeed they are, and draw comparisons of advancement in other fields of engineering and scientific achievement in which the Western democracies are far ahead but which do not impress the newspapers of the world as being worthy of equally spectacular headlines?
– I think I should bring that question to the attention of the Minister for External Affairs. It is a difficult question to answer, since in fact a proper answer would require a speech. Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to bring the question to the attention of the Minister so that he may consider whether he can make a statement on this subject.
page 126
– by leave - I should like to read the text of a statement on Australian policy in Papua and New Guinea which is being delivered in another place this afternoon by the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck). The statement reads -
On behalf of the Government I wish to set out as clearly as possible a number of facts concerning the situation in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and to clear away some misunderstanding that may have arisen regarding our aims and our achievements in that Territory.
We wish to present Papua and New Guinea as a national question. Although, as the Government of the day, we accept our responsibility for what is done in the Territory, we believe that this is a subject on which the vast majority of the Australian people and all Australian parties share one purpose and that the only differences which may arise will be minor differences of emphasis or method.
I believe, too, that those Australians in the Territory - whether in the Public Service, in private enterprise or in mission work - who give so much of their lives to the people of Papua and New Guinea are conscious that they carry a trust for
Australia in their hands. That is certainly the ideal which I have personally always tried to set before my own officers. We know, too - and this is imprinted deep in the most sacred memories of thousands of Australian homes - that those men and women who, in two world wars, gave their lives in Papua and New Guinea were moved by a patriotism which transcends any of the momentary contests of politics. Let none of us forget - and, indeed, do not let the world forget - that this country, so close to our shores, is also close to the hearts of the Australian people because over a period of more than 70 years we have given not only laws, not only money, not only good government, but ‘the blood of our children to nourish its future.
There are two preliminary observations to be made very briefly before passing to the main body of this statement. First, 1 repeat as plainly as I can on behalf of the Government that, contrary to an impression that has been fostered in some quarters, there has been no recent change in policy nor any change of interest on the part of the Government in Papua and New Guinea. What has been done up to date and what is to be done in the future have the approval of the whole Government and I know will also have the support of this Parliament.
Secondly, there has been considerable distortion and some misunderstanding of what has been said on behalf of the Government in recent months. I do not propose to enter into any argument but the Government has set down in a separate publication a plain record of recent ministerial statements in order to keep the record straight. This publication is being distributed separately to honorable members and is commended to their attention.
The main purpose of the present statement is to discuss the responsibilities of Australia in Papua and New Guinea and the policies through which we will discharge them. Before opening that discussion I want to mention a few simple facts in relation to the Territory which will make it quite clear that the rest of this statement is neither defensive nor apologetic, but a description of policies that have already produced great results and will produce even greater results in the future.
What has Australia done since the war? The return to civil government took place with the establishment of a provisional administration in October, 1945. That provisional administration faced all the problems of the devastation, the disturbance of population, the disruption of civil rule and the loss of trained staff which had been caused by war. In most parts of the country it had to start again from scratch; in some parts it started from behind scratch because of the effects of war. It had on its hands an initial job of re-construction and rehabilitation and the stabilizing of a population which had become unsettled by war-time experiences. Against that background of war let us ask again: “ What has Australia done? “
Since the war we have established law and order over more than 50,000 square miles of country which was previously in a state of savagery and belligerence. We have built up an Administration service from nothing to a total of 3,623 Australian public servants, 334 native members of the Public Service and 7,500 Administration native employees. We have provided facilities with which to enable this Public Service to do its work. We have equipped each of the five main ports with modern wharfs, built over 5,000 miles of road, constructed over 100 airfields and many alighting areas, provided housing, sanitation, water supply and electricity services. We have re-established and greatly improved the postal and telecommunications services inside the country. In short we have put the whole country into working order with many more modern facilities and amenities than people who have not visited the Territory can appreciate.
We have built four large and modern base hospitals, 101 subsidiary hospitals and 1,200 aid posts and medical centres, at the same time assisting the missions to build an additional 92 hospitals and 420 aid posts. To-day we - and the missions whom we assist - have in operation 578 infant and maternal welfare clinics in various parts of the Territory. We have built from nothing medical services which, counting both officials and missionaries, now have 119 doctors, 16 dentists, 17 pharmacists, 347 trained nurses, 236 medical assistants, 307 other European medical workers and, as a result of training inaugurated since the war, 1,447 native medical assistants, 1,620 native medical orderlies, 390 native nurses and 1,158 other native medical workers. In close association with the missions we have established an education system so that to-day there are over 400 European teachers and some 5,400 native teachers at work in 4,100 schools attended by 196,000 pupils. In agriculture we have built up an agricultural department staffed by close on 300 officers, with a high proportion of persons with technical and professional qualifications. Notable among these is the Agricultural Extension Branch with about 75 trained European extension officers, 250 trained native extension officers and 420 native agricultural trainees, who are engaged in work directly related to the improvement of village agriculture and the encouragement and guidance of the native people in the growing of crops for market. We have established 41 agricultural and live-stock stations and extension centres and in the course of a normal year we are now capable of conducting 200 agricultural patrols by European officers throughout the Territory to bring agricultural services within reach of the people. In forestry we have established a major industry which has an export value approaching £1,500,000 million a year and is backed by a Department of Forests with a staff of over 100 officers. We have built up a lands department which, although greatly hampered by a shortage of surveyors, has done notable work and is now preparing to undertake the major measures of land reform which I announced to the House in a statement last April.
We have encouraged, guided and instructed the native people in agriculture, with the aid of many private settlers who have taken more than a neighbourly interest in the native people. To-day we have native farmers growing copra, coffee, cocoa and food crops for market of a value which, it is conservatively estimated, must be returning to them an income of £3,000,000 a year, which will increase steeply as the potential now developing is realized. Under our guidance, although mining has declined as an industry, the native people are themselves mining gold and enjoy the direct income which it provides. We have reestablished trade and, compared with a pre-war annual value of trade of £5,000,000, approximately half of which was accounted for by the production and export of gold, we now have a total Territory trade of £40,000,000 a year, including over £18,000,000 export trade.
The Territory now has a banking system. Savings bank deposits by natives have risen from a negligible amount to a current total of credit balances of £1,190,000. The monthly average of deposits in the cheque-paying banks has risen in comparatively few years from nothing to close on £8,000,000. Individual native people are sharing in this prosperity and furthermore the cooperative societies, formed and guided by the Administration have to-day an annual turnover of close on £1,000,000. In the field of political advancement we have moved in less than ten years from nothing to a position where a population of 250,000 people living in more than 1,000 villages is now being served by 36 local government councils, democratically elected on an adult franchise and handling their own budgets for the management of local affairs. We have established town and district advisory councils on which natives are represented; we have set up a Legislative Council on which there are native members and have completed plans for the reform of this council and an increase in its native membership.
During this post-war period public expenditure of all kinds has totalled not less than £179,000,000, of which £157,000,000 appeared on the budgets of the Territory Administration. That is a record of material achievement. At the same time in major questions such as land, labour and economic development we have made fundamental decisions on policy and administration. We have some reason to be proud of what has been done, particularly when we know the difficulties that have been overcome and the complexity of the factors which had to be considered. The members of this Parliament who have followed closely developments in the Territory, and those officers of the Territory on whom constant and unremitting demands have been made by the Government, will be well aware of the great urgency which the Government has given to this task and the initiative it has taken in forcing the pace. We defend the wisdom of building a broad base for future progress. We repudiate the ill-founded criticism that we have gone too slowly. Such limits as may appear are not set by policy, but exist in the nature of the situation itself. Every bit of this achievement is solid and there are no shams about it. On this foundation we will see even greater progress in the next few years.
In the light of that record of .the post-war years let us discuss the future. I propose to make some observations on three phases of the situation in Papua and New Guinea - the international aspect, the existing situation inside the Territory and the Australian domestic scene.
The Territory of Papua and New Guinea is an administrative union formed of the trust territory of New Guinea and the Australian possession of
Papua. In respect of both of these territories the Australian Government has accepted obligations by its signature and ratification of the United Nations Charter. In respect to the trust territory, there is, in addition, an agreement between Australia and the General Assembly of the United Nations. I emphasize that these treaties give to Australia both rights and responsibilities. We have discharged our responsibilities with scrupulous care and we intend to continue to do so. On the other hand we expect our! rights to be respected and we will be active to maintain them.
As a result of recent developments in Asia and Africa and of changes that are taking place in the United Nations, there is increased international interest in the Australian administration of Papua and New Guinea. This interest comes to focus each year in the comments of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations and in the debates in the General Assembly. Regularly, a visiting mission of the United Nations makes a report on our administration. On the whole, the reports of the visiting missions have been highly favorable to Australia and, speaking in particular of the report by the last visiting mission, I would say that there was no comment in that report that was not acceptable to us and, in fact, where the comments drew attention to this or that problem, the observations made by the mission were very closely in accord with observations which I had personally made in discussion with the members of the mission while it was in Australia. A report such as that presented by the last visiting mission is extremely valuable and helpful to the administermg authority.
When the report of the visiting mission goes for discussion to the Trusteeship Council, our hope and wish is that our work in the Territory will be judged only on its merits. If in any way we have fallen short of what we have pledged ourselves to do, it will be helpful to us and of benefit to the peoples of the Territory to be told about it. As members of the United Nations and as an administering authority under the trusteeship system of the United Nations, we will carry out faithfully all that we have pledged ourselves to do.
It is well for us to remember, too, that the principles of trusteeship towards the native peoples antedates by many years the birth of the League of Nations, with its mandates system, and the later creation of the trusteeship system of the United Nations. Under the influence of thinking which had taken shape in British colonial administration, and drawing on our own experience as a colony that had won its way to independence, we Australians had established for ourselves certain principles in the administration of dependent peoples even before those principles were written into the League of Nations mandates system or copied into the United Nations trusteeship system.
It is worth recalling that Australia herself took a notable part in the discussions which led to the setting up of the trusteeship system of the United Nations, and that at the first general assembly in 1946 we were among the first nations to make a declaration indicating readiness to conclude agreements respecting the mandated territories under our control. We did not come reluctantly to the trusteeship system. We helped to promote it and we were among the first to embrace it.
Now, what have we undertaken to do? A study of the basic documents reveals clearly that we have undertaken to advance the welfare of the people of Papua and ‘New Guinea. I quote the opening sentence of Article 73 of the Charter - the first article in the chapter which establishes the principles of administration for all nonselfgoverning countries -
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the wellbeing of the inhabitants of these territories
All else in the trusteeship system serves those two ends. That being so, the yardstick by which our work is to be measured is: “Does this serve the interests and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the Territory? “ The Government stresses as the first principle that the welfare of the people is the objective. That objective should never take second place to any theory or any other purpose.
The end of the trusteeship comes with selfgovernment and independence. One point which should be recognized internationally is that political independence on its own is of limited value unless the people have the capacity to use their independence to their own advantage. On the one hand this requires some preliminary training and experience in the working of the institutions of self-government and it also requires some training and experience in the tasks of administration. Because we are conscious of both needs we are devoting ourselves to policies which will give the people training and experience in the use of all democratic institutions and which will also bring them in large numbers into the Public Service of the Territory. This work is important, partly in order that the self-governing Territory of the future will have a reasonable level of efficiency in carrying out the tasks of government, but, above all, so that the government of this independent country will be such as to command the confidence and the respect of the people whom it governs. A people may be able to blunder along without being highly efficient in government but they suffer tragically if there is not fair dealing, probity and regard for the public welfare on the part of those who attain power and a measure of trust among those who are governed.
A second requirement of self-government is that a country should be reasonably well equipped to live an orderly and well-rounded life. It is part of our trust to give to these people, not only a parliament, but also a system of law and order, institutions for the administration of justice, hospitals, schools, houses, roads, services of various kinds and the means to provide food and livelihood for the population. History shows with tragic clarity that the past failures of colonialism have been not simply the withholding of self-rule but failures to give the people the means or the capacity for living on their own.
In considering this side of our task we should first understand clearly the actual situation in New Guinea. It is a unique situation and most of the comparisons that are sometimes made between the situation in Papua and New Guinea and situations that may have existed in the past in the newly independent countries in Asia and in Africa are inexact. Except where modifications have been made as a result of the coming of Europeans, New Guinea is still almost unbelievably primitive. It was originally divided into hundreds of small groups speaking different languages and living in a state of fear and enmity towards one another. Even the racial types are greatly dissimilar. There is nothing yet even faintly resembling a sense of nationalism or sense of community over the whole Territory. There was no single religious belief and nothing in the nature of a priesthood but only the fear of the dead and the power of thesorcerer. The existence of most of the people was handtomouth from the garden and the jungle straight to the cooking pot, and, except on the occasions of preparations for a feast, there was little or no storing of food. In their primitive condition the expectation of life was short because of disease, violence and the absence of medical knowledge or hygienic practice. The country itself is made difficult by jungle, precipitous mountains, torrents and vast swamps. These facts are certainly not presented as reasons why the people should not be advanced - indeed we are setting ourselves resolutely to the overcoming of all these difficulties - but, at the present time, the world would be acting in ignorance if it did not appreciate the primitive and unique character of the conditions in the Territory and the size of the basic civilizing tasks still to be completed. The administering power and the advanced native peoples with whom it is working need time for this job.
A further point that is relevant to any international judgment is the relationship between Australia and the people of the Territory. Many commentators both here and abroad have a conventional picture in their minds of what they call a colonial situation. What we want them to do is to look at the reality of the situation that exists in Papua and New Guinea. The situation there is that the indigenous people number 2,000,000 and the immigrant population of all kinds numbers 25,000. There never has been in New Guinea a situation where the colonizing power has overthrown a previously existing system of government or a social order. Independence will mean not the restoration of a system or a community that previously existed but the establishment of something which is being newly created under our tutelage.
To this country of close upon 2,000,000 people, who lived originally in a condition of the most primitive savagery, separated from each other into hundreds of hostile groups, we have brought law and order without bloodshed. Our young Australian patrol officers have done by patience, common sense and force of character what was done in some other lands with battalions of troops. We have been scrupulously careful from the beginning about the preservation of the rights of the indigenous people to their own land. To-day, over 70 years after European settlement began, 97 per cent. of the Territory’s land is still in native owner ship and occupation. Of the 3 per cent. of the land area alienated over 80 per cent. was acquired with consent of the native owners voluntarily given. The native people have been given the opportunity of sharing in the economic enterprise of the country both through their individual enterprise and through co-operative societies and to-day their share in economic enterprise is steadily increasing as their interest in production and their general level of progress are raised. This is a situation in which the indigenous people can and do look upon us as people who have brought them benefits and not people who have given them cause for resentment. Thanks to the standard set by many Australians of exceptional character who have laboured in the Territory on our behalf we can find in the Territory to-day many instances of close trust and friendship between the indigenous people and our people.
We Australians should not only be aware of these facts but should recognize them and ask the world to recognize them as providing the conditions on which the people of the Territory can progress towards self-government without the conflicts, the stress and the resentments that have made the path to independence so painful in some other lands.
The foundation of justice, friendship, and mutual respect between races is one of the most precious things we have in the Territory. It is also one of the best assurances for the progress of the indigenous people.
The theme which we put forward internationally is -
The welfare of the people should be the objective not the gratification of having applied a principle or a theory.
We should ensure that political advancement leads to the welfare and happiness of the people by making sure that it is accompanied by measures for social, educational and economic advancement. At the present stage of advancement law and order, health, education and how to earn a living are the more urgent tasks.
The New Guinea situation is unique and comparisons with Africa and Asia are inapplicable.
Australia is not a colonial power in the sense in which that term is used by anti-colonial critics.
Honorable members, while they subscribe to these statements, may ask whether they will have any effect internationally. It is unfortunate but true that so many questions affecting the welfare of peoples are decided as part of a contest for world power. It is a matter of record that votes in the United Nations are not always the result of a judgment on the merits of a case but are often cast for reasons remote from the point at issue. Nevertheless, the Government believes that there are countries in the world that will look fairly at the New Guinea situation as it is, will try to understand it as it is, and above all will make a judgment on what will be best for the people of that territory and serve their happiness and welfare. If that kind of approach can be brought about, the Government has complete confidence in the international judgment on Papua and New Guinea. It must be our constant aim to try to bring about that kind of understanding, in the interest of the people of the Territories themselves.
I have spoken up to date of the paramountcy of the interests of the people. Let us speak plainly, too, of the Australian interest. From the point of view of Australia, in this part of the world, it is of the highest importance that we should have good relations with an independent and self-governing New Guinea. We have that in mind, for we are entitled to consider our own security and our own proper self-interest. If we fail to make sound preparations for their independence - politically, administratively and economically - they may fall in the first years of their independence into such disorder and trouble that instead of being a blessing their independence will be a tragedy for them. We will be held accountable for their ills and goodwill between us will suffer. Goodwill and the good relations for which we are working will not follow if independence is based on inadequate foundations. Let both the people of New Guinea and ourselves be careful about those who would talk us into trouble by precipitate change.
I shall now turn to conditions inside the Territory. At present there is a slowly awakening interest among the more advanced of the people regarding their political future but there is no pressure inside the Territory for far-reaching political change. There is growing interest in local government - a movement originally promoted by the Government rather than being sought by the people themselves - and we look for a considerable extension of it. The proposals which I will submit to the House later in the session for reform of the Legislative Council will give increased representation to the indigenous people, both in members elected by themselves and by appointed official and non-official native members. In shaping these proposals for the Government I had the benefit of extensive discussions with the people of the Territory and have followed closely the suggestions made to me in the Territory.
At this point I should record that in the Territory in July I had meetings with the leaders of the native people - over 80 in Rabaul, 120 at Lae and several scores of people at Port Moresby - representative of and entitled to speak with certainty on behalf of all the advanced people of the Territory. With unanimity they expressed their desire for us to stay and to help them, their need for us, their wish to be in partnership with us. They rejected talk of early selfgovernment. That was for a more distant future. They told me of their confidence in what the Government was doing.
While saying this, however, I want to repeat what I have said before. In the Territory we are dealing with a rapidly changing situation. We need to keep a close and acute observation of these rapid changes, and we must make certain that we do not become set in our ways. Intelligent watchfulness and flexibility are essential in the government of a society that is changing as rapidly as that in Papua and New Guinea, and I think that, as the result of the changes we propose in the Legislative Council, the directions the Government has given for the more frequent use of the native people on boards and committees, and the present and prospective growth in the number of indigenous officers in the Public Service, we will have to an increasing extent the assistance of the native leaders to bring sureness of observation and readiness to make adjustments. The Government also recognizes a need to strengthen the Territorial Administration at certain key points, particularly to improve its capacity for planning and carrying out major programmes on matters on which policy has been declared.
The most pressing problems we face in the Territory at the moment are in matters such as education, land tenure, native labour, the living conditions of native people who have left their villages to congregate in towns, and economic development. There is also a need to improve the closeness of our association with the native people through extension services and community development projects. All these require and will receive increased attention from the Government. In the course of the debate on the Estimates I will endeavour to indicate some of our proposals for the immediate future, and members will also find detailed information in the “ Notes for the Budget “ which I am circulating to them this week. 1 now turn to the domestic situation in Australia so far as it affects the Territory. I have already said that there has been a good deal of misrepresentation over recent months on matters affecting the Territory. There have been exaggerated stories, and even some untrue stories published about racial discrimination in the Territory. There have been news items and comments which, when read carelessly, have been interpreted to mean that it is only a matter of a few years before Australia gets out of the Territory. There has been no warrant for any of this. These stories have done harm by causing confusion in the minds of Australian people, by damaging Australia’s position internationally and, perhaps most lamentably of all, in promoting doubt and uncertainty in the Territory itself, both among the native people and among the Australians who are working there, and who have contributed their investment and skill to the development of the Territory. Such investment and skill are of the highest importance in the Territory’s progress.
Doubtless many of the statements, looking to the early realization of self-government, have been made with a genuine concern for advancing the interests of the people. But I fear that some of them may have been made carelessly and without a close knowledge. The situation in the Territory is not a simple one but an exceedingly complex one and I doubt whether it is within the capacity of even the brightest of journalistic visitors to see the whole of its complexities in the matter of a week or two. In the course of these comments published in Australia, I think less than justice has been done by Australians to the Australian achievement, and a grave wrong has been done to the Australians working in the Territory.
In particular it is necessary to recognize that the rate of progress is not a policy but a circumstance. We proceed as fast as we can. We have no intention to go slowly but, if one has proper regard for the people of the country, the rate of change has to be geared to the rate of response.
Finally, may I summarize the main points that emerge from this rapid survey. Australia is committed by the United Nations Charter to tb<- “political, economic, social and educational advancement “ of the inhabitants of Papua and New Guinea. The end of political advancement is self-government. It is for the inhabitants of the Territory to say, when the time comes, what form of government they wish to have. It is for Australia and the self-governing state of the future to work out by discussion what the relationship betwen them shall be after self-government has been achieved by Papua and New Guinea. Australia wants the relationship to be close, friendly, direct and permanent.
Both in the present and for the future Australia looks on its work in Papua and New Guinea as being done in partnership with the indigenous people, believing that we need each other, that we can help each other, and that past history and present policy have established respect for each other’s rights and brought friendship as well as justice in race relations.
The indigenous people will always be in a vast numerical majority, and Australian policy on such questions as land, their economic advancement and their training in administration is intended to ensure that their rights and interests are maintained so that they can take an effective part in the progress of their own country.
Subject to this, Australia believes that the term “ inhabitants “ used in the United Nations Charter covers all those who have made their permanent home in the Territory. While the immigrant races permanently resident in Papua and New Guinea will always be a minority, Australian policy is to uphold the rights and the legitimate interests of that minority. Australia has rights in Papua as an Australian territory and in New Guinea by the terms of the United Nations Charter, and the Trusteeship Agreement. Our policy is to inculcate and uphold respect for each other’s rights and to allow no one-sided abrogation of rights. This principle is basic to advancement in civilization. We have upheld it in our treatment of the indigenous people. We will maintain it.
Before self-government can be effective in a country as primitive socially and as undeveloped economically as Papua and New Guinea is at present, considerable social changes and economic progress will be required. These changes can only be brought about by major efforts by the Australian Government in establishing and maintaining a system of law and justice, in health, education, agriculture and technical training, and by bringing the indigenous people into public administration and membership of_ all political institutions. In close partnership with the native people the resources of the country have to be developed and a diversity of industries established. Australian policy embraces all such activities.
In this political advancement the objective is that there shall be no differential treatment of races cither before the law or in social custom except as may be required to discharge our commitment under the United Nations Charter “to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned . . . their just treatment and their protection against abuses”.
The Australian Governments have been working steadily in post-war years to apply the policy described above and will continue to work for it.
As the result of this effort we can now see a firm foundation for progress by the indigenous people.
The Government is confident that it has the support of the native people and that the big majority of the non-native people in the Territory share its outlook and are working with it. We are also aware of the fact that Papua and New Guinea is still largely primitive and tha! it is still a dependent territory requiring large support from outside to give it the medical, educational and technical aids it needs.
There is a tendency nowadays for some commentators to lay chief stress on political independence. We should not let the importance of political progress obscure the importance of other measures. The greatest immediate benefit to the welfare of the people in Papua and New Guinea will come through major efforts for the conquest of disease, medical care, infant welfare, schools, more and better food, and opportunity and training to earn enough to maintain higher standards of living, coupled with measures to develop the resources of the country and so lessen its economic dependence. Unless measures to these ends go alongside political change, political advancement will be only a facade that will give shelter to no one. When social, economic and political advancement take place together the political structure will endure.
One last word: We are not going out of the Territory in a hurry. In our judgment of the situation as it exists to-day, the Territory will need our help for many years to come and the advanced leaders of the indigenous people say plainly that they need us for a long time ahead. We are not going to abandon either them or our own people who are working with them.
The situation may change more rapidly than we can now foresee. We will continue to work in close partnership with the native people for their educational, social and economic advancement and there is not the least reservation in our minds that we are advancing them towards selfgovernment. No one is better qualified than they are and we are, in partnership, to work out the successive stages of change. We believe that we have their confidence and that we will continue to deserve it. When the time for selfgovernment comes we want to move towards the final decisions with our confidence, trust and friendship .towards each other still strong and with the certainty that not only the day of independence but the long years that follow independence will give occasion for rejoicing to all of the people. Australia wants to stand with honour in the hearts of the people alongside whom we have fought and worked. We believe we shall so stand.
I lay on the table the following paper: -
Australian Policy in Papua and New GuineaMinisterial Statement - and move -
That the paper be printed.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 132
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is one of three bills which the Government is bringing down to modify Australian tariff procedures. The bills are related measures, and the Senate will no doubt find it useful if I outline the general nature of the proposals and the reasons for them. The bills propose the introduction of changes in the procedures that are used to make our tariffs. I emphasize the word “ procedures “. It is fundamental to the Australian way of making tariffs that protective duties may not be changed without any inquiry and report by the Tariff Board, and that they must be approved by the Parliament. The measures which are now being brought forward do not depart from these basic principles, which the Government regards as sound and desirable. But the Government is conscious of the existence of certain shortcomings in our procedures in the trading conditions of the modern world. These measures are designed to till those gaps by supplementing the existing system. The bills propose, in brief, that the Government be enabled to provide temporary tariff assistance, where an examination of the facts shows it to be necessary, pending inquiry and report by the Tariff Board and Government consideration of the board’s recommendations. They also provide for more expeditious tariff action following Tariff Board reports.
It is a real consideration to-day that great changes in international trading conditions and technology can occur rapidly. We in Australia may well have been somewhat insulated from these conditions in recent years because of the import licensing controls, which, as honorable senators know, have now been virtually abolished. There is the possibility that some Australian industries may find themselves facing rapid and unexpected changes in the overseas competition which they may have to meet.
The traditional remedy for an Australian industry facing overseas competition has been to put its case before the Tariff Board. This remedy has had the support of all parties in this chamber and has been proven over many years. But it is only realistic to recognize that the traditional Australian processes of tariff making take some time to carry out. This is by no means undesirable in principle, because permanent changes in our tariffs, be they permanent increases or reductions, have such important effects on all sectors of the community that they should not be made hastily, nor without a full examination of all relevant information. Indeed, a most commendable feature of our system is the opportunity it provides for all parties concerned to give evidence before the Tariff Board.
The Government took certain action in 1958 to enable the Tariff Board to handle its inquiries and reports more expeditiously. This has been very successful, but the fact remains that it is unlikely that the Tariff Board can conduct an inquiry and report to the Government in less than six or seven months from the date of a reference to it. The Tariff Board system has proved satisfactory, but the Government realizes the need in to-day’s uncertain conditions to avoid a position where a worth-while Australian industry may suffer lasting damage while its case for tariff action is being examined in accordance with the established procedures. This problem is not peculiar to Australia. It is provided for specifically in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by a special article which allows a member country to suspend, temporarily, its obligations to its trading partners, if this is necessary to provide shortterm protection to an industry in critical circumstances.
Similar provisions have been incorporated in our trade agreement with Japan. We have, in recent years taken advantage of these provisions three or four times. On those occasions we have been able to use the import licensing controls as a way of providing temporary holding action on imports pending the results of Tariff Board inquiries into the Australian industries concerned. It is by no means likely, nor indeed may it be desirable, that this method of assistance would be used in the future. There are elaborate administrative requirements which have to be set up before an import licensing system could operate fairly for all importers, particularly if it is applied to goods such as consumer goods which are imported by a great many traders. The Government has, therefore, sought a method appropriate to the kind of situation which it feels may arise, using the resources of the Tariff Board to obtain information on whether a real problem exists and, if so, whether the method of duties is the means of overcoming the problem.
The bills provide that the Tariff Board is to be given the additional task of reporting to the Minister for Trade on whether an industry’s circumstances warrant urgent action to give protection by means of a temporary duty until a normal tariff inquiry and report can be carried out and acted on. This proposal is intended to give the Government machinery whereby it can take temporary holding action to avoid serious damage to Australian industries from import competition, where such damage is a real possibility, while the processes associated with a normal Tariff Board inquiry and report are taking place.
The bill provides that the Tariff Board may be asked the questions -
It provides that when such a reference is received by the Chairman of the Tariff Board, he is required to arrange for a deputy chairman of the board to make an inquiry and report on the question. The deputy chairman is to act in this matter independently of the board as a whole and the bill also provides for the appointment of a second deputy chairman and an eighth member to enable the board to accept this additional function without slowing down its normal work. The report by the deputy chairman must be made to the Minister for Trade as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days from the date on which the chairman of the board receives the Minister’s reference. Honorable senators will realize that this is by no means a lengthy period for such an inquiry and report, but the Government would hope that in some cases the time required by the deputy chairman will, in fact, be less than 30 days. In making his inquiry, the deputy chairman will, of course, take into account appropriate representations from manufacturing and trading sections of the community, although no limitations have been placed on the deputy chairman in obtaining the information which he requires.
In practice the deputy chairman will essentially be reporting on the question of whether the industry is likely to suffer serious damage before the board’s normal processes are completed. He will not be obliged to take evidence in public, as the board is normally obliged in tariff inquiries, but he will have the same powers of obtaining evidence as the board normally has. He will also be allowed independent use of the board’s staff to assist him.
The bill also provides that the deputy chairman who undertakes an inquiry into the question of temporary action, is automatically debarred from sitting also on any normal inquiry by the whole board on the same goods that is held concurrently, or the next normal inquiry held on those goods. This provision has been included in the bill to explicitly avoid any suggestion that the board would be influenced in its normal inquiries by the judgments made on the question of temporary action. The bills provide that temporary duties may be imposed only after a deputy chairman has made his report and that such duties cannot be at higher rates than are recommended by the deputy chairman. The reports of the deputy chairman will be tabled in the Parliament, both in this chamber and in another place. It is also provided that before temporary duties are imposed, a normal reference covering the question of permanent assistance to the industry concerned must also have been sent to the Tariff Board. A temporary duty must be identified as such, and shown separately from any permanent duty on the same goods; a temporary duty may only operate for a period no longer than three months after the Tariff Board’s report on the normal reference has been received by the Minister for Trade.
Honorable senators will understand from what I have said that far from detracting from the fundamental principle of relying on the advice of the Tariff Board before effecting permanent changes to our tariff structure the proposal contained in the bills will add to the responsibilities of the board in the effective use of the tariff. The proposals represent, in harmony with this fundamental principle, a means of adapting our system to the modern world. The Government does not propose to use the powers envisaged by these bills lightly. Industries, not individual companies, will need to provide factual evidence that they are facing or are about to face, damage so serious that if action is not taken their operations will be severely and irreparably damaged before the normal inquiry and report by the Tariff Board can be completed.
The Government will assist industry and commerce to establish the facts of the situation, lt is envisaged that the panel system, which has worked well in connexion with the Japanese Trade Agreement, will be expanded to enable interested organizations to obtain and assess the facts. Panels have operated in connexion with the Japanese Trade Agreement not merely to represent the interests of Australian manufacturers, but also to represent the interests of Australian commercial interests and employees. The same principle will be adopted in connexion with panels set up in response to this legislation. Both manufacturers and traders will be able to obtain access to the necessary information and be able to make representations on whether the situation warrants a reference to the Tariff Board for inquiry by a deputy chairman.
Honorable senators will realize the importance of speed in implementing the Government’s decisions on these matters as distinct from haste in arriving at the decisions themselves. There is in the present procedures a problem in this respect because the Government is unable to take action to change duties except at times when the Parliament is sitting. If this situation were to continue it could well be that damaging delays in averting a dangerous situation for Australian industry could occur, notwithstanding the utmost expedition on the part of others, merely because the Parliament was not sitting at the time the facts had been ascertained and reported on. In these circumstances a delay of some months in implementing a decision to protect an Australian industry is possible.
To overcome this problem it is desirable that, where it is shown that temporary protection to an Australian industry is in the best interests of the economy as a whole, the Government should be able to accord the necessary temporary assistance promptly whether the Parliament is opportunely sitting or otherwise. In this regard, the bills propose that where such action is necessary and the Parliament is not sitting temporary duties may be introduced by the publication of a notice in the “ Gazette “.
The same problem applies to many normal Tariff Board reports and it creates an anomalous situation that where the Tariff Board has reported that an industry warrants certain tariff assistance and the Government agrees with the board, action to give the industry this assistance must be held up simply because the industry is unlucky enough to have the report on its position come forward when the Parliament is not sitting. For this reason, the bills also propose that normal changes to the tariff may be introduced consequent on reports by the Tariff Board, by publication of a notice in the “ Gazette “”, when the Parliament is not sitting.
Careful consideration has been given by the Government to ensure that the prerogatives of the Parliament have not been usurped or overlooked. The Government feels that it is essential that it is able to protect Australian industry following the normal principle of an inquiry and report by the Tariff Board. Under present conditions, Australian industry could find itself in a position where it could be irreparably damaged if normal procedures were followed. However, the new procedures provide that, if action is taken to introduce temporary duties while the Parliament is not sitting, tariff proposals covering these duties must be tabled in the House of Representatives within seven days after it next meets. The procedures further provide that in such circumstances a copy of the relevant report by the deputy chairman of the board shall be laid before that House within the same period and before this Senate on the same day, or the next sitting day of this Senate.
I might mention as a matter of interest that the proposal to which I have just referred is by no means unique. The United Kingdom, for example, provides that its tariffs are varied by a Treasury Order in Council, subject to any subsequent disallowance by Parliament. Similarly, the President of the United States is permitted to vary duties with a provision that his action may be reviewed by Congress. And again in New Zealand, the tariff can be changed by an Order in Council of the Governor-General when Parliament is not in session with the provision that such changes must be submitted to the Parliament within 15 days after it next meets. The opportunity is also being taken to make certain minor amendments to the Tariff Board Act.
As I said at the outset, the Government has sought means whereby it can adapt Australia’s traditional tariff procedures to modern conditions without detracting from or weakening the fundamental principles of reliance upon the advice of the Tariff Board and consideration by Parliament. I have tried, in introducing these bills, to avoid the many and complicated technicalities which they contain in order to make it clear to honorable senators that the Government’s proposals do not take from the Tariff Board the independence or value of its advice, nor do they take from the Parliament its opportunity to debate changes in the tariff. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 135
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henry) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This is the second of the three measures to which I referred when introducing the Tariff Board Bill. It is complementary to that bill and provides for the collection of customs duties introduced at times when the House of Representatives is not sitting.
As already indicated, the proposed amendment to the Customs Act will require that a tariff proposal covering the new duties be introduced in the usual manner within seven sitting days after the House of Representatives next meets. As is the usual procedure in these matters, the question will subsequently come before this Senate. The prerogatives of the Parliament in relation to the imposition of customs duties will thus be preserved. I commend this bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 135
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henry) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is also complementary to the Tariff Board Bill which was introduced earlier. It deals with temporary duties.
As I have already explained, temporary duties will be introduced only where such action is necessary to prevent serious damage to a local industry whilst its case for tariff protection is being examined by the Tariff Board. Because temporary duties are intended merely to hold the position until the board’s report is received and considered by the Government, the main provision of this bill is one which will require that temporary duties shall cease to be collected three months after the board has submitted its final report.
I commend the bill to honorable senators. Mr. Deputy President, as I have indicated these three bills are cognate measures and when the debate is resumed I will ask that the Senate consider having a general second-reading debate covering the three bills.
– The Opposition is in accord with the suggestion just made by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty). The three bills that have now been carried to the second-reading stage are a part of one pattern and I think that, with advantage, the three of them might be debated together at the second-reading stage. They will, of course, necessarily be put separately to the vote. With the concurrence of the Senate, 1 shall proceed to deal with the three bills on the motion for the second-reading of the measure now before the chamber.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - As there is no objection, that course will be followed.
– I take it that that picks up the adjournments of the debates on the two earlier bills to a later hour of the day and that it is understood that the three bills are now before the Senate.
– Yes, Mr. Deputy President, that is so.
– The position with which the Senate is faced has been brought about very largely because of the substantial abolition of import licensing earlier this year. At the time the Government introduced import licensing - on 8th March, 1952 - it indicated that the licensing was to be of a temporary nature, that its purpose was confined to protecting our overseas balances, and that it was in no way to be. regarded as a measure to protect Australian industry. I do not dispute that position. It has been made clear again and again throughout the period that licensing has operated, but I think it will be agreed that when import licensing was introduced in March, 1952, nobody imagined that it was to continue for eight years, until 1960.
Despite the clarity of the Government’s announcement that import licensing was not to be regarded as a protective measure, it is true that it came to be so regarded by many sections of industry. Quite a number of industries were tempted to start up, and they proceeded to nourish in the expectation that what was deemed to be temporary would become more or less permanent, and that if it did not, the tariff would be available to come to their rescue. It has been made easy, on the sudden, almost complete abolition of import licensing, for a flood of imports to do serious damage in a very short time to industries established in this country. The Government now has npt the preknowledge of what is to occur that it enjoyed under import licensing when it had a general picture of the pattern of the import of goods for a long period ahead. It may be faced suddenly with a fait accompli when a flood of imports suddenly hits Australia from not one overseas country but quite a number of them, and even affecting the one industry.
It seems to me that this series of bills might properly have been introduced at the time of the substantial lifting of import restrictions, because the anticipations that 1 have now indicated should have been before the mind of the Government. Apparently it is provoked at this point of time by reason of the proximity of the meeting to review the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and by reason of the approaching review of the Japanese Trade Agreement. When all is said and done, it seems to have been an obvious step to take some emergency measures. I point out that the last sessional period was not such a heavy one or so notable for pressure of Government business that time could not have been found to introduce these measures.
Despite very recent and full explanation by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) of the contents of the three bills, 1 propose to take a moment or two to review them. Provision is made for the appointment of an additional member to the Tariff Board; a second deputy chairman is to be appointed. The Minister for Trade in an urgent case where serious damage to an Australian industry is threatened by the importation of goods, may now have referred to the senior deputy chairman the question whether that industry needs some form of protection. The deputy chairman is required to report on three things - whether urgent action is necessary, whether having “regard to the public interest the situation could be met by an imposition of a duty and, if that be so, what should be the rate of duty. Under the proposed legislation, he is required to report within 30 days. Upon receipt of the report the Minister, provided he first refers the whole question to the Tariff Board for normal inquiry and report, may impose a rate of duty, the only restriction upon him being that he may not impose a rate of duty higher than that recommended by the deputy chairman. He is not obliged to accept the recommendation of the deputy chairman; in fact, he is not obliged to do anything. He may elect to discard the recommendation and let matters take their own course.
He is under no compulsion as to the action he takes. His one restriction is the ceiling limit upon the duty he may fix, that ceiling limit being the figure recommended by the deputy chairman. The duty is to be expressed as a temporary duty and is to be expressed to expire three months after receipt by the Minister of the final report of the Tariff Board following a normal inquiry into the matter.
Machinery provisions governing the procedure are contained in the third measure to which the Minister for Customs and Excise addressed himself. If the House of Representatives is sitting, no difficulty arises. Before the duty becomes operative, the report and the tariff proposal must be tabled either on the day upon which the tariff alteration takes effect or before that day. Otherwise - that is, when the House of Representatives is not sitting - within seven sitting days after the House of Representatives next meets the tariff proposal must be put before the House and a report from the deputy chairman must accompany it. Simultaneously, if the Senate is sitting, or as soon as possible thereafter, the Senate is to be supplied with a copy of the report.
The Minister is under an obligation to publish in the Commonwealth “ Gazette “ the date of the receipt by him of the final report of the Tariff Board. That is important, because the temporary duty will expire within three months from that date and it is proper that public notice of the receipt of the report be given in that way.
I have been addressing myself mainly to the Tariff Board Bill. The Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) is largely a machinery measure. I have already covered its provision in my brief outline of the proposals. I come now to the Customs Bill. It provides that, when the House of Representatives is not sitting, the Minister may publish in the Commonwealth “ Gazette “ a notice that he intends, within seven days of the next sitting of the House of Representatives, to propose a customs tariff or a customs tariff alteration. The notice is the equivalent to a tariff proposal tabled in the House of Representatives as at present. I point out at this stage- I think I shall advert to it again when we are considering these measures in committee - that proposed new section 273ea is so expressed as to enable the Minister to act and impose a duty without in fact having received any kind of report from the Tariff Board. I direct the attention of the Minister for Customs and Excise to that matter at this stage. There is no preliminary condition to the authority of the Minister for Trade to fix a rate when the Parliament is not sitting. The proposed new section does not provide that, after there has been a normal inquiry by the Tariff Board, the Minister’s right to fix a duty is dependent upon the receipt of a Tariff Board report. If a condition is prescribed elsewhere, I would be grateful to the Minister if he were to direct my attention to it. At this stage I record the fact that the bill contains no such requirement.
I point out, too, that in proposed new section 273ea to which I have referred there is no requirement of any particular urgency, as in the Tariff Board Bill. The power does not arise in a situation expressed to be urgent. It is an omnibus power exercisable at the will of the Minister, so far as it is expressed.
We of the Opposition sympathize with the Government in the broad purpose of these measures. The party that I have the honour to represent in this chamber is notoriously a protectionist party. I recall that my first essay into public affairs was to advocate very publicly in Victoria in the 1920’s, together with a few of my friends, a complete prohibition of the importation into this country of goods that could be manufactured from Australian raw materials. Free traders were alive in those days, and we had many famous debates in the Athenaeum Hall in Collins-street, Melbourne, particularly during lunch hours. My mind throws back to the days when, if one were offered an article of Australian manufacture, it was almost automatically spurned. Although our remedy was very drastic, it did help to focus a great deal of public attention on the need to look to the self-sufficiency of this country to develop its industries to provide employment opportunities.
Speaking personally, I have been associated with the Labour Party since I was sixteen. My association has been made very happy by the part the Labour Party has played in the protection of Australian industries and we rejoice to see the truly enormous development that has taken place and admire the precision and skill of Australian workmanship. We take very great pride in that.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), when he introduced these measures in another place, said that the proposals were procedural and not fundamental. The Minister who introduced the measures in this chamber adopted that thought, if not the words, when he said the proposals related to procedures only. That is the one point of difference between the Opposition and the Government in relation to these measures. The Opposition feels, and feels strongly, that by-passing the Parliament in the matter of fixing a duty, which is in essence the imposition of a tax with very wide repercussions on many, if not all, sections of the Australian community, is a very fundamental and serious matter and goes far beyond a matter of procedure.
We concede, without hesitation, the need for speedy action in an emergency. We accept what the Minister has said on that particular point. Although I think it is obvious to everybody, I point out that in the imposition of a duty there is a good deal more involved than merely the protection of an industry. Importers are affected; the cost structure of our own country can be affected; it can have its effect upon our exporters; if the customs duty is passed on, it adds to the cost structure in Australia; and the fifth element in the situation is the ever-hungry, revenue-seeking government, because it is true that sometimes customs duties may be imposed merely for the sake of raising revenue. They have that function as well as the function of protecting Australian industries.
Mr. McEwen, the Minister for Trade, in another place claimed that these procedures were not novel. We of the Opposition join issue with him on that. He quoted the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act of 1957, which he indicated was in line with what is being done now, and he claimed that the Opposition supported what was done in that legislation and now opposes a similar procedure. That is a very direct and powerful argument on the face of it. 1 want to test its validity for a moment or two. Mr. McEwen said -
The proposal I brought to the Parliament was that in certain circumstances which would threaten an Australian industry there should be an arbitrary authority on the part of the Executive, which would be exercised through the Department of Customs, to increase the rate of duty.
The Parliament passed the measure. The Labour Party supported it. Why the turn-about now?
I invite the Senate to look for a moment at the act to which he referred. He quoted the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act and referred to the amendment made to section 11a in 1957, three years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, section 11a was inserted in 1956 and sections 11b, 11c and Hd were inserted in 1957. Sections 11b and 11c imposed substantive duties. Section Hd was a procedural section dealing with the application of Gatt to all these provisions. I need not deal with section Hd.
The countervailing duties which were imposed by sections 11b and 11c related, in the first case, to instances where goods imported into this country to the detriment of an Australian industry had been subsidized by the exporting country as to their production, manufacture, carriage or export. They dealt with subsidies. The Minister was given power to impose a duty where an Australian industry was detrimentally affected. Although the rate of duty in precise arithmetical terms was not imposed, a most definite principle for the calculation of duty was laid down by the Parliament. The duty was not only imposed; the amount of it was clearly defined, although not expressed in pounds, shillings and pence. Sub-section (3.) of section 11 b provides that where subsidized goods are imported and are hurting an Australian industry -
The amount of the countervailing duty in each case shall be a sum equal to the amount of the subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section.
Sub-section (4.) provides -
If the evidence of the amount of subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance is, in the opinion of the Minister, insufficient, the amount of subsidy, bounty or other financial assistance shall, for the purpose of this section, be such as is determined by the Minister.
In sub-section (5.) “ financial assistance “ is defined.
It is quite clear that when a country subsidizes the export of any of its products, that is done by a public authority - either the Government or a government instrumentality. It seems clear to me that it is done in the most public way so that those who might benefit from the subsidy will be attracted to take advantage of it. With our trade representation throughout the world, we would have ready advice of that type of thing. It is not the sort of thing that can be concealed in the country where the goods originate. I should imagine that normally there would be no difficulty in saying, “ The amount of subsidy in that case is so much”. The Parliamentary Draftsman and his staff have taken the wise precaution of providing that if for any reason the subsidy is camouflaged or difficult to determine, in that case and in that case only the Minister may determine it. The situation is that in 1957 the Parliament said, “ If goods are subsidized, we impose a duty and the amount of the duty is the amount of the subsidy “ - a clear formula for determining the duty. That is not comparable with the present case; it is an entirely different situation.
I pass now to section 11c. In this case again it is a matter of foreign subsidies on goods imported into Australia to the detriment of other countries trading in the Australian market; not affecting our own industries, but affecting the exports of our friends into the Australian market. In this case there is exactly the same formula. The amount of duty to be imposed is defined as the amount of the subsidy on the goods. That is not comparable with the proposals which are now before the Senate.
So far I have dealt with only the amendments made in 1957. Mr. McEwen cited other instances of the power conferred in the act in these terms -
For as long as this country has had a Department of Customs there has been power in the hands of the Executive, exercised undoubtedly on the advice of experienced officials in the Department of Customs, to impose an anti-dumping duty, to revoke a by-law admission or to impose, often, a higher rate of duty, in a procedure which not only can be followed without special sanction by the Parliament, but in relation to which there is no necessity for Parliamentary ratification or confirmation of the action taken.
– Was he talking about the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act?
– He did not define it, but I take it that he was referring to other provisions in that act. I have addressed my mind to the matter and I say to the Senate, from my examination of the position, that the pattern which happened in 1957 in relation to the provision of a formula for determining the amount of duty that the Minister may impose with a high degree of precision is the procedure followed in every case. It is a quite elaBorate formula. I shall not take up the time of the Senate to go through all the provisions. I just say, from my examination of the other sections of that act which have stood for a very long period, that they are all on the one base. They relate to cases where duty is imposed by the Parliament and where, with a high degree of precision, a formula is established in determining the duty.
Mr. McEwen also referred to what he called the gazettal of substitute notices. He said -
There has Deen for years a complete power given by the Parliament to the Department of Customs which provides that where, in the judgment of an officer of the department, an imported item can be substituted for some other item upon which there is a specific rate of duty or an ad valorem rate of duty, that duty, although not provided in the schedule, may be imposed in full upon the substitute, upon the advice of the officer. That system is known, in the Customs jargon, as gazettal of substitute notices.
The authority for substitute notices lies in the Customs Act itself. Section 139 reads -
Whenever any goods are imported which in the opinion of the Minister are a substitute for any dutiable goods or are intended to be or can be used as such substitute or for any purpose for which such dutiable goods can be used or for any similar purpose the Minister may by Gazette notice direct that such first mentioned goods shall be charged with the duty chargeable upon such dutiable goods and the same shall be so charged accordingly.
– It still fixes duty.
– Yes, the honorable senator is completely right. In effect, what the Parliament says is: “ We put a line of goods, which we shall define as A, into the Customs Tariff and we fix the duty as a specific amount or amounts. But we recognize that there may be substitutes for that particular article. First, we may have overlooked something. Secondly, new types of goods which are not known now may come into existence, and we now fix the duty on those types in the same way. “ There again is a definition of the quantum of duty, a clear indication of the expression of the Parliament and the type of goods. That, too, is not a comparable case with what we are now considering.
The Minister for Trade referred also to the power of the central bank to call up deposits from the trading banks. I do not embark on that argument; that has nothing to do with the one that the Opposition has in mind. That is a question of extraparliamentary action. It is not a matter of taxation and I do not address my mind to that any more than I address it, for instance, to the actions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission affecting even more the workers of Australia, without reference back or responsibility to the Parliament. They are matters that are quite irrelevant; for the purposes of this debate I am keeping to matters of tax.
Finally, Mr. McEwen referred to the Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945. He did not specify the year, but I take that to be the act he meant when he said -
The honorable member for Lalor was assistant to the former Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, Mr. Scully, and later was Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. While he was assistant, the Wool (Contributory Charge) Bill was introduced. It said in most stark language that there would be a percentage levy on the value of wool, as determined by the Minister on the recommendation of the appropriate body.
Again, that statement seems to be a very violent and rather complete answer to the attitude that the Australian Labour Party is taking in this matter. Let us turn to the act of 1945. I say in advance, before I read it to the Senate, that one finds the total amount to be collected is most clearly defined and it becomes merely a matter of arithmetic for the Minister to determine the rate. The total amount would vary from year to year. That is the only reason a fixed rate was not included. The act, which is No. 51 of 1945, provides for the imposition of a contributory charge on all wool and proceeds -
The rate of the charge shall be such percentage as is prescribed from time to time of the sale value of the wool, being a percentage which, in the opinion of the Governor-General, after taking into consideration any advice tendered to the Minister by the Australian Wool Realization Commission, is necessary in order to provide the following amounts: -
The amounts required to meet the share of the industry in the operating expenses of the Joint Organization as provided in paragraph three of Part III of the Disposals Plan, being the plan a copy of which is set forth in the Schedule to the Wool Realization Act 1945.
Of course, those operating expenses will vary from year to year, so the first thing the Minister has said is that a rate should be struck which will pick up that clearly and easily defined total sum.
– To what act was he referring?
– The Wool (Contributory Charge) Act 1945. It appears in the 1945 volume of statutes at page 412. Section 4, from which I am quoting, continues -
So, in effect, what that legislation says to the world is that the Minister has power to fix a rate that will yield a series of variable sums clearly ascertainable year by year, two of them already fixed by legislation.
In 1950, the present Government put a bill upon the statute book in almost exactly the same words. This act put another limitation on the Minister’s power and provided that the rate of charge was not at any time to exceed 10 per cent. of the sale value of the wool. These are cases, as I see them, where the Parliament has imposed a duty and although it has not specifically, in pounds, shillings and pence, fixed a duty, it has provided the clearest of formulas, as clear as anybody could get, to determine what the rate of duty shall be. That does not compare at all with what is done in this legislation. The only limitation upon the Minister in this bill is that he may deem it to be urgent, if the deputy chairman of the board thinks it is and recommends a rate of duty. The Minister may impose that duty or anything less than it. Then, if the Parliament is not sitting, the duty immediately becomes operative. The imposition of a duty being the imposition of a tax, the view of the Opposition is that it is a fundamental matter for parliamentary attention. We know the procedure now. The moment a tariff proposal is filed in the House of Representatives, the duty specified is collectable. Section 226 of the Customs Act provides that no officer who collects it can have any action brought against him until the charge is validated, or until the parliamentary session ends, or within a period of six months from the time the tariff proposal was filed. In the normal course of events, no charge becomes operative until the proposal has been tabled in the House of Representatives.
– When was a tariff proposal last attacked in the Parliament?
– I do not think one has” been attacked. That is for the obvious and very good reason that we have so much confidence in the Tariff Board. That confidence has been built up over a number of years, and the Parliament is prone to take for granted that the board has done the right thing. The board has done the right thing so very often. But I remind the honorable senator that the board’s proposals were attacked recently by his own Government and that its recommendations on that occasion were not accepted. I have heard of no attack in the Parliament on a tariff proposal. I think that answers the honorable senator’s specific question.
– This will be the same organization.
– I hope that the Minister is correct in saying that, but I point out that we have two propositions before us. One is for an emergency duty to be imposed after deliberation, not by the Tariff Board, but by one member of it. He will be asked to act in a hurry. Obviously, he will not be able to give to the case the thorough consideration that it would receive in a normal Tariff Board inquiry.
– He will act with the realization that if it is not done in a hurry, the industry concerned may well be wrecked.
– That is true. The Minister should agree with me that the two cases are not comparable. In one case, the duty will be assessed after hurried consideration. The member of the board will be asked to complete his inquiry in not more than thirty days, and less if possible. It is to meet a sudden emergency.
– The alternative is to allow the industry to be wrecked.
– No.
– What is your alternative?
– I will come to that. We raise no objection to speedy procedures. All we say is that the procedure of filing these charges in the Parliament before they become operative should continue to be employed.
– What if the Parliament is not sitting?
– That is a fair question. The answer is that the Parliament should be called together. I understand, from what the Minister said, that we are talking about worth-while Australian industries.
– Do you want more sittings of the Parliament?
– Indeed, yes. 1 say to Senator Scott that since in this year 1960, the Government saw fit to invite the Parliament to assemble at a dinner to farewell the Queen’s representative, and again saw fit to invite the Parliament to assemble for the ceremony of swearing in his successor - both proper matters, and properly done - surely it will not deny the proposition that it is worth while to call the Parliament back to deal with the preservation of a worth-while Australian industry.
– What is the definition of “ worth-while industry “?
– The honorable senator used the term himself, so I would expect him to understand it. I cannot define the term in a word or a sentence. In my concept, it would be an industry that was important to Australia, cut off as we are from the rest of the world. It would be an industry that would make us independent of other nations for the article that it produced, which would be one that could be produced economically in this country. The industry would be one that provided substantial employment for the community. Those are some aspects that occur to me in a quick consideration of the term. I have no doubt that the Minister, who doubtless addressed his mind far more than I have done to the question of what was worth while when he drew up his secondreading speech, would be able to add to my definition. Aspects that might be taken into consideration are our self-sufficiency, the employment of our people and the provision of export opportunities. I do not profess, at such short notice, to be able to give an exhaustive definition of the term.
– The Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss the proposals as soon as it meets.
– When it does meet. A point of principle is involved, and one cannot compromise on principle. That is the attitude that we on this side of the chamber take. I do not want the honorable senator to misunderstand me. I make it clear that we, like the Government, recognize that emergency action may be called for. We do not object to speedy procedures, but we ask that no taxes be imposed in this country without clear reference to the Parliament.
– You oppose the principle that is adopted by a Labour Government in New Zealand?
– Yes. It is adopted also in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America. The fact that other countries breach a principle is not a good and sufficient reason why we should do so. I never find virtue in running away from a principle.
– Are you against the principles of the Australian Labour Party?
– I am affirming what I am against in this bill. I do not want the honorable senator to put words into my mouth. I am perfectly capable of expressing what is in my mind without Senator Scott’s aid. His is an old trick.
– Tariff proposals laid before the House of Representatives sometimes are not validated until twelve or eighteen months later. Are you abrogating that principle also?
– No, that has been the principle for as long as I remember, and for a long time before that. If a tariff proposal is tabled in the Parliament, then, as I understand the position, section 226 operates to prevent any officer who forthwith proceeds to collect the duty, or who will not hand goods over until the duty has been paid, from being attacked in any court.
– The rate of duty is what you are discussing, and the rate of duty in a proposal may not be the rate that the Parliament, six or twelve months later, decides shall be charged.
– That may be, but the difference is that the moment any type of duty is sought to be imposed, the Parliament has the power to decide what shall be done. The matter is before it and it may initiate action. The Opposition may initiate action. The matter is under the jurisdiction of the Parliament. It is true that tariff proposals may not be validated for a long time. I do not understand the Minister’s reference to eighteen months later, because, if I remember correctly, section 226 limits the period of operation of such a proposal until the end of the session or six months, which ever is the sooner.
– We have had validating bills come in and the duty carried on for another six months, and then another six months.
– The honorable senator must recognize the hand of the Parliament in that. The Parliament decides that the duty shall be continued for another six months. That is the simple point. It is a pity that the Government is not prepared to recognize the validity of the Opposition’s contention. We are asserting a principle and upholding it in this place, as we upheld it elsewhere.
– You are dropping all other principles in another place.
– I do not understand the honorable senator. The view that I now put is, in my understanding, that which was expressed by members of my party in another place. It was the basic point of the Opposition’s objection to the measure. I certainly did not interest myself in the debates in the House of Representatives that were irrelevant to this issue, so I am not able to say just what went on there. I did concern myself with the fundamental points that were germane to the point I am pressing.
I indicate now to the Senate, on behalf of the Opposition, that what we propose to do to assert our point - the one point to which I am directing my remarks - by opposing the amending Customs Bill. I refer to the measure in which the Parliament now purports to confer authority upon the appropriate Minister to publish a notice. I assume that is to be done after the receipt of a normal Tariff Board report, although that point is not specified in the clause. The report is to become operative whenever the Parliament is not in session - when it is prorogued, dissolved, or is adjourned for more than seven days. All the conditions are set out. We will oppose that bill to indicate our opposition to a proposal that enables the Parliament to be by-passed in the levying of customs duty.
– Mr. President, I am entering the debate with the concurrence of my colleague, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty), who is responsible for the bill, for two reasons. The first reason is that while I was recently overseas I had the good fortune to visit Japan. Whilst this legislation is not specifically directed to our Japanese trade relations - it is only a part of our general trading and manufacturing arrangements - it will affect the Japanese trade arrangements. Secondly, we live in a changing world and we pin such a large proportion of our faith in the development of Australia, the development of manufacturing industries and the employment opportunities they provide, that I regard any legislation which affects the position of the Tariff Board as being of fundamental importance to the economy. Because I feel that way about the position, I should like to participate in the debate.
I hasten to say that, on the points that may arise, I have learned the wisdom in politics of Ministers speaking with one voice. The spirit of Pentecost is a good one for them to observe. I do not propose to answer the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) - I shall leave that to the responsible Minister - except to say that as I understand the honorable senator, he makes what seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition. He will not oppose the machinery that is required in order to give effect to tem porary duties, but he will oppose the same principle in respect of normal Tariff Board inquiries.
– No, you have misunderstood me completely.
– I understood the Leader of the Opposition to say that he would oppose the proposal giving the Minister authority to publish notices making Tariff Board recommendations operative when Parliament was not in session. I understood him to refer to the act covering that matter. I gathered the impression that that did not apply to those cases in which special inquiries were made, temporary duties were recommended and the Minister put them into operation while Parliament was sitting.
– If I am permitted to interject, I should like to say to the Minister that the opposition is to the one principle in the Tariff Board Bill in relation to emergency duty, and in the Customs Bill, dealing with the normal reports of Tariff Boards. I have said that we shall oppose the Customs Bill alone, as indicating our objection to a principle that is in both bills. Our objection is to the emergency duty and the general duty on the one point of reference in the bill.
– So you show your objection in principle in one vote instead of two?
– Yes.
– Very well! I withdraw my statement. Having been a long time in politics, I shall not apologize but shall continue with my remarks. I make the point, first of all, that whilst this legislation will affect our trading relations with Japan, it is not to be regarded in any way as being directed particularly, or even peculiarly, to Japanese trading arrangements. It is a general arrangement aimed at protecting manufacturing industry in Australia from the difficulties that have been experienced as a result of the great step forward - the major step forward - of eliminating import licensing.
I make the second point, that any variation of Tariff Board procedures must be of great national significance and, therefore, worthy of the thought and attention of all of us. I say at the outset that this variation in our Tariff Board procedures, in the circumstances with which we are faced in Australia, not only as a result of the elimination of import licensing, but also as a result of the great vista that is opening up and the prospects of developing manufacturing industries, is simply a common-sense approach to the matter. With due respect to the contrary view that has been put forward, I contend that the proposed amendment will enable matters which affect an industry as a whole - not a particular company - to be dealt with promptly and maintain parliamentary control over the situation to a practical extent in a practical way - to the same extent as it is maintained at the present time. Indeed, in the light of my experience I believe that under these arrangements Parliament will be closer to the problems of the Tariff Board and closer to the problems of protecting manufacturing industry than it is at the present time.
– You would have to explain that statement.
– I think I can explain it in the remaining minute before the sitting is suspended. The situation now is that we have in practice quite a number of Tariff Board reports. Because of the administrative matters which have to be dealt with when a Tariff Board report is submitted to the Government, quite a number of these reports come before the Parliament in the last few weeks of a session. What will happen in the future under this procedure which, I think, improves the position of Parliament, is that in the early days of each session - during the first seven sitting days - we will have before us the Tariff Board reports that have been dealt with since the Parliament rose. We will have an opportunity to deal wth them promptly and adequately, if we so desire.
Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.
– I said that one of the reasons why I was participating in this debate was that I had been to Japan and had formed some opinions and reached some conclusions during my trip. I believe that the matters I propose to mention are very pertinent to this legislation, because I remember that when the Japanese trade treaty was inaugurated there was opposition to it and expressions of apprehension as to the way in which it would work. I should like to start this part of my speech by making it clear that I spent only six days in Japan and that I am not to be regarded in any way as an expert on the conditions in that country. I propose to express my views in very cautious terms.
From a trading point of view, the atmosphere and conditions in Japan turned out to be very different indeed from what I had expected. The main impression that I carried away was not so much the desire as the great anxiety of the Japanese merchants to do business with Australia on satisfactory terms and conditions. When you come to think of it, that is a natural state of affairs, because the Japanese merchants face problems similar to those that we ourselves face. With a vast population, a developing economy and developing industries, Japan needs to expand and develop its manufactures for the same reason that we in Australia need to expand and develop ours - in order to provide employment for its population and to earn an export income so that it can keep its economy viable. The great difference between us is that Japan, despite its great manufacturing industries, lacks many basic raw materials such as coal and manganese, wool, foodstuffs and other things of which we are already great producers and, in my opinion, greater prospective producers.
I found a desire on the part of the manufacturers to be as independent as they can, and to obtain their supplies of raw materials from a greater variety of sources than at present. This seems to be due to a deep apprehension that they will be forced into the position that they will be dependent for supplies on either Russia or Communist China. They fear that unless they can obtain more sources of supply of the coal and other things they need, they will be forced back into the position that existed in years gone, when they were dependant on China and Russia for their supplies. They have a deep rooted apprehension that that position will occur again unless they are successful in making other arrangements for supplies of raw materials. I think that we all agree that we have a common interest in preventing Japan from being placed in that situation. It will be to the benefit of the whole of the democratic world if the Japanese are not placed in that situation, and we should do all that we can, so long as we do not act against our own interests, to help them attain their objective.
I am sure that it would not be right to think that the Japanese have adopted that line because of complaints on their part against the United States of America. On the contrary, I sensed a feeling of appreciation of what America has done for Japan - and America has done a great deal. One cannot get a true idea of what America has done without seeing the actual affect of American help for Japan. However, there was the normal business reaction of the Japanese that if they were to expand and develop, if their population was to increase and if the living standards of the Japanese people were to be improved, they did not want to be in a position in which, in respect of their supplies of raw materials, they had all their eggs in the one basket, or were getting a preponderence of their supplies from the United States.
I proceed from there to express the view that the Japanese trade treaty, which has now been in operation for close on three years, has worked very successfully indeed and has made a great contribution to putting trade between Australian and Japan on a stable basis. I remember that when my colleague, Mr. McEwan, evolved the idea of a trade treaty with Japan, he faced a great deal of criticism when he advanced the view publicly and brought forward the necessary legislation. He showed a lot of courage in fighting what was then a strong force of public opinion against trade relations with Japan. I think he deserves his share of congratulation for carrying the treaty through and for seeing that it has worked out successfully. I can give chapter and verse in support of the view that the treaty has worked out successfully.
At this stage I want to make the point that I think it is correct to say that these proposed tariff changes - even though they apply no more to Japan than to any other country and, in my opinion, will not in practice apply to Japan only - will provide another sound basis for trading with Japan, and will make an important contribution to the solution of our internal problem - the problem of how to develop within the limits of our economic capacity. There is no walking away from the situation that there is an apprehension and a fear that Aus tralian markets will be flooded with low-cost goods from Japan. So I look on this as being legislation of great importance and another step in the gradual but sure development of Australia as one of the great trading nations of the world, lt will help to lay another sound foundation for development, in the same way as I think the Japanese trade treaty had a sound foundation. I should like honorable senators to consider a few relevant facts that I have gathered concerning the results of the Japanese trade treaty. In 1956-57, our exports to Japan were worth £139,000,000. Last year, they were worth £133,000,000. Nominally, therefore, exports to Japan were worth less than previously, but I ask honorable senators to remember that 1956-57 was the year of the great boom in wool prices. A calculation that I have made shows that if we had received last year the wool prices that were obtained in 1956-57, exports to Japan would have been worth £150,000,000.
In order to get the picture clearly and for purposes of comparison, I think it is fair to make a theoretical adjustment of the figures for the purpose of showing how the agreement has worked out. That adjustment shows that the result has been an increase of the order of £20,000,000 per annum in our exports to Japan. On the other side of the picture, imports from Japan were worth £13,000,000 in 1956-57. Last year they were worth £38,000,000. Expressed in round terms, therefore, the net result of the Japanese Trade Agreement has been an increase of the value of exports and imports each way by approximately £20,000,000 a year. We are selling goods worth between £130,000,000 and £150,000,000 a year to Japan and buying in exchange from Japan goods worth between £35,000,000 and £40,000,000 a year. That is big business and developing business.
I also want to take honorable senators’ minds back to the fact, because I think it is pertinent, that at the time of the inauguration of the Japanese Trade Agreement three clauses were written into the treaty to protect Australian markets. The first was that the Japanese, of their own initiative, were to ensure that exports to Australia would not cause damage to Australian industries; secondly, if damage was caused, or even threatened, consultations would take place between the two Governments, and Japan would apply voluntary restraint at an agreed level; and thirdly, if the voluntary restraint was ineffective, the Australian Government would be free to impose either emergency duties or import quotas. Those were the restrictive clauses or the safeguards that were written into the Japanese trade treaty. In addition, as well as consulting committees, an administrative authority was appointed in the person of Mr. McCarthy, who was at one time chairman of the Tariff Board, to whom we look for an opinion if complaints are made that the volume of imports of particular classes of goods provides competition that is too harsh for Australian production.
I think it is interesting to state information that I have obtained from the Department of Trade. In three years of operation of the treaty, thirteen such complaints were referred to the advisory authority. Of those thirteen complaints, the advisory authority said that only three justified acting being taken. The remainder were not supported by the independent authority. In the three cases which the authority said justified action being taken, the Japanese promptly took effective action. So, I think it is fair to say that the treaty has expanded trade, that the apprehension regarding Japanese competition expressed at the time the treaty was entered into, was over-stated, and that experience has shown that the Japanese have lived up to their obligations under the treaty when circumstances have justified their doing so.
I should like to dwell for a moment on the importance of this situation and on its implications, because it is of consequence. We have two objectives. There are two things that we have to do if we are to continue our present rate of development. We have to develop not only our manufactures but also our exports. As a supplier, we want to be in as strong a position as we can be, and we want our export trade to be as diversified as is practicable. In addition, we want to have export transactions with as many countries as possible. It is the old story. If you have a great number of customers, you can spread your risk. If you have trouble with a particular customer and lose his custom, you still have a great number left to deal with. That applies with particular force in a world in which the European trade agreements are gathering strength and in respect of which it is difficult to foresee the possible implications for Australia.
Quite apart from the European trade arrangements, we must have a greater volume of exports if we are to continue our expansion. It is natural for us to look to markets in this part of the world, and in this part of the world Japan is at present the greatest prospective market, and she will be so for some time to come. We have the goods in the form of raw materials that Japan wants, and there is a desire on the part of Japan to trade with us. It is to our common interests to increase trade. The view that I put is that these Tariff Board arrangements - although, I repeat, they are not applicable only to Japan - make a valuable contribution to the formula, to the foundation on which we can develop our trade, because they lay down the conditions under which trade may be halted and precautions taken if competition becomes too severe for our manufacturing industries.
Taking the long view, I do not think any of us would like to see Australia again face a situation in which it was necessary to put an embargo on imports. Multilateral trading is the accepted foundation for expansion of world trade. That principle is written into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the charter of the International Monetary Fund. It is a part of the accepted formula for the maintenance of full employment. We have given evidence, by lifting import restrictions, of the strength of our economy. That action undoubtedly will expose our manufacturers to greater competition, but to my way of thinking it is a logical and well thought-out step which will enable us to continue the process of keeping in line with world trends in trading and the removal of restrictions. At the same time, we have a formula which will ensure that no disaster occurs to any of our major manufacturing industries. It seems to me that the action we have taken is another sound step forward nationally, in the same way that the Japanese-Australian Trade Agreement proved to be a sound development. The steps we have taken will give us encouragement to go forward, knowing that that going forward will not involve hardship or danger to, or destruction of, Australian industry. As I have said, the aim of the legislation is to provide machinery within the atmosphere of existing Tariff Board legislation and procedure, in which Australia as a whole has so much confidence. 1 turn now to the criticism of the legislation made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). It seems to me that what the Leader of the Opposition did was to adopt the extraordinary logic of proclaiming his faith in the principle of the protection of manufacturing industries and of indicating his agreement with the view that there should be machinery to enable circumstances to be dealt with urgently, but of then stating that he must oppose it on the ground that it derogates from the power of the Parliament. Then he said that the correct way to implement the principle was to take authority from the Minister and provide that the Parliament should be called together before any recommendation was finalized. I am glad to note that, by implication, the honorable senator does not associate himself with some of the criticism that was made in another place when it was said that we should rely upon import licensing in defiance of our obligations under Gatt and the International Monetary Fund, and that we should be wary of the importation into Australia of overseas capital.
The Leader of the Opposition took his stand entirely on the point that the proposed change derogated from the authority of the Parliament. I shall leave to my colleague, the Minister for Customs and Excise, the task of replying to the proposal that the Parliament should be called together, because he is the Minister in charge of the legislation. I hope Senator Henty will not mind my doing that and of getting in ahead of him to say that I am certain that the solution suggested by the Leader of he Opposition would make the whole scheme impracticable. It is better to say that in simple terms and to leave my colleague to deal with the details of Senator McKenna’s argument than for me to deal with them.
May I take another minute or two to reply to the criticism that the proposals now before us derogate from parliamentary authority? I do not believe they do. I am very much opposed to any suggestion that that is so, because we have gone to great pains to write into the legislation provisions which we believe will preserve the Parliament’s authority. I commence my reply to the criticism by directing atten tion to the present arrangement under which reports of the Tariff Board are tabled in the Parliament. As I established by way of interjection when Senator McKenna was speaking, we have reached a situation in which these reports are never challenged. Every one has confidence in the Tariff Board. The proposed procedure will, in principle, use the organization of the Tariff Board but with the precaution that the Tariff Board shall not be committed to interim findings. I believe that the reports which will be presented under the new procedure will command as much confidence in the Parliament as do the present Tariff Board reports. I repeat the belief I expressed earlier that under the new procedure parliamentary influence will be greatly strengthened, if only because we shall get these reports on important matters before the Parliament far more quickly than we do now. Within the first seven sitting days of a new session we shall have before us interim and conclusive Tariff Board reports, together with the decisions made. We shall have an opportunity to debate those reports and to criticize or praise them, as the circumstances demand, on much better terms than we enjoy at the present time.
The legislation contains a series of provisions to preserve parliamentary authority. Not only have the interim reports to be tabled in the Parliament, but also the terms of reference. It will be necessary to disclose the terms of reference to the advisory authority, the authority’s recommendation, and the Minister’s decision. Care has been taken to ensure that the interim investigations shall be made by a deputy chairman and that that deputy chairman shall not subsequently sit on the Tariff Board inquiry. In that way, the Tariff Board will approach the matter with an entirely fresh and unbiased appreciation of the facts. It will be necessary for the deputy chairman to report within thirty days and for the proposals to be tabled in the Parliament within the first seven sitting days. The interim investigations must be followed by an inquiry by the full Tariff Board; they will lapse automatically unless confirmed in a subsequent report of the board. Moreover, the Government will not be able to proclaim a higher duty than that recommended, and it must at the same time initiate a normal Tariff Board reference. I believe all those provisions will strengthen rather than derogate from parliamentary authority.
We are living in a world of change. Above all else, Australia must respond to changing conditions and alter its own arrangements to keep pace with those changes. Of all the great countries of the world Australia is developing at a faster rate than are most of the others, and surely we have a greater need to maintain that rate of development than they have. There is an old saying that trade follows the flag. But that is now somewhat out of date and the basis of development must of necessity be an expansion of trading activities. Australia’s predominant need is that of manufacturing and exporting more goods, and we cannot expect to export more without importing more. The formula contained in the legislation now before us covers both contingencies. It seeks not only to protect our local manufactures, but to protect them quickly. At the same time, it ensures that we shall be able to maintain confidence throughout the world in our ability to export.
– Mr. Deputy President, I believe that the legislation now before the Senate is very necessary, even though it may be a little belated, which no doubt is due to the fact that we have operated under a system of import licensing. Australia’s economic wealth may well depend to a large degree upon legislation of the kind that is now before us. At present 80 per cent, of our export income is being earned by our rural industries. Our population is expanding at a tremendous rate in comparison with the rate in other countries, and we can expect that our export earnings from our rural industries will drop in proportion to the increase of population, because in the very near future we will be using a greater amount of produce to satisfy the needs of our own people and exports will be reduced.
So we must look for an alternative. Of course, that alternative will be in the form of the overseas industries which can be encouraged to establish branches in this country or the industries we can start here. Such industries do need a certain amount of protection in their initial stages, but when they become established they can look after themselves. I do not believe that protection can be given quickly, when it may be needed quickly, now that the Government has lifted import restrictions. At present, under the Tariff Board Act the Government cannot give protection quickly to an industry that is suffering from the competition of imports. However, I believe this legislation will fill the gap and safeguard industries in Australia. As I say, we will have to depend more and more on our manufacturing industries to earn our export income over the next ten or twenty years.
The Australian Labour Party’s opposition to this bill amazes me. I am sure members of the party are not unanimous and that quite a number of Labour senators are not very pleased with the decision to oppose this bill. For example, I cannot understand why the Tasmanian representatives are opposing this bill. I am sure that many people, including many farmers in Tasmania will be watching how the Tasmanian senators vote on this issue with very great interest.
– Did you read the “Advocate” on Saturday?
– The “ Advocate “ belongs to the north-west coast. We know all about the “ Advocate “.
I now wish to refer to a quite important industry that is coming to Tasmania. Honorable senators may have heard something about frozen peas. I am sure the people of Tasmania have heard a great deal about them. Most of the Tasmanian Labour representatives took the Federal Government to task for allowing the importation of frozen peas from America. As far as I am concerned, that was quite all right; but now the Government has a proposal which can give those who are processing the frozen peas on the north-west coast of Tasmania the right to go straight to their parliamentary representatives and say, “We want some protection not in six months’ time or twelve months’ time, but now “. Under this legislation they will get a fair hearing and if they have a case they will be protected.
We recall all the hullabaloo in the newspapers when the honorable member for Braddon (Mr. Davies) made some statements about this matter. Senator Poke even wrote me a letter asking me to do something about this dumping, which was going to kill the Tasmanian pea-processing industry. I do not have to do anything about it. The Government is doing something about it now, or it could do something if a case were brought to it after this legislation has been enacted. Yet Labour senators are voting against these proposals. I cannot understand their thinking if they follow that course.
Now is probably the time for those people who are interested in these frozen pea processing works on the north-west coast of Tasmania - and I am one of them - to go to the Government and put a case for the imposition of higher duties on imported peas. It has been announced that overseas peas are coming into Tasmania. This industry is very important for the north-west coast of Tasmania. In mentioning these matters, I am giving illustrations of what may happen when this legislation is passed.
Another very important industry is the processing of the potatoes that are grown on the north-west coast. I say here and now that the only decent potatoes grown in Australia are grown on the north-west coast of Tasmania! I do not know why I did not hear any protests from South Australian senators at that statement. The potatoprocessing plants that will be established at Ulverstone will change the whole concept of potato growing, processing and marketing on the north-west coast. The ideas for processing are coming from America, and when the factories are ready to go into production quite a lot of processed potatoes could be brought in from America, with the result that the industry could be practically stifled at birth. But the authority to be conferred by the legislation now before the Senate could be used to great advantage in a matter of a few days to protect the industry. So, Mr. Deputy President, I am just wondering how the Tasmanian Opposition senators are going to vote on this legislation. I can understand Senator McKenna’s dilemma as Leader of the Opposition. He has an excuse; he has to bring forward these ideas whether he believes them or not; but I am afraid the other Opposition senators who have spoken so strongly against the Government for not increasing the tariff on frozen peas will have something to answer for to the pea growers of the north-west coast and the processors themselves.
I believe it is necessary for this legislation to be passed so that we can safeguard the future economic welfare of Australia. As [ mentioned before, the industrial sector of this country will have to go ahead in leaps and bounds. As Senator Spooner said, there must be outlets for manufactured products. This legislation will aid the growth of our secondary industries and by that means we are certain to make Australia economically strong in the not far distant future.
– I, too, have a little to add to the debate. Although the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) spoke against the measure in mild terms, I believe that in his heart he feels thankful that the Government has brought down legislation which will help some of his fellow workers in Tasmania. Under the existing system, when an industry requires assistance it is necessary for the industry to apply to the Government, which refers the matter to the Tariff Board. The board then takes evidence from all over the country and outside the country in an effort to determine whether the industry should receive assistance. In the past, periods of as long as eighteen months have elapsed from the time the board was asked to submit a report until the time the report was received and the Government, in accordance with the report, presented legislation to this Parliament through the Minister for Customs and Excise.
Failure to introduce this legislation would affect all people working in industry, including people belonging to trade unions. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of inspecting a new plastics industry employing 30 or 40 men. Under the existing system, if such an industry found that a retailer was importing similar goods and selling them at a lower price, the Australian firm would have to go out of business and the 30 or 40 employees - trade unionists - would be out of a job. Yet the Australian Labour Party opposes the legislation. It opposes speedy relief for an industry that requires relief.
We have had a Tariff Board in Australia for many years and almost invariably we have adopted its recommendations. We have a population of over 10,000,000 and a rapidly growing economy. We have become highly industrialized, by comparison with our position before the Second World War. We are at present the eighth most industrialized nation of the world; we could not say that in 1939. We are rapidly becoming much more industrialized. New industries are springing up all over the country. We are hoping that, through our immigration policy, we shall have many more new industries. We hope to increase our population still further, and it has been said that within the next five years we must increase our export income by about £250,000,000 a year. To support this increased population, it is essential that we give to the Australian people every possible encouragement to develop new industries. To that end, the first thing that the Government and the Parliament should do is to see that protection is given to the people who start new industries and to the people who are employed in them. This measure is designed to give that protection speedily. A new industry may find itself in difficulties. Cheap competitive goods may be coming into the country. They may be manufactured in a nation employing cheap labour.
– Even that condition may : not apply.
– That is so, but it may do. What will then happen? The Australian industry will apply to the Minister for Trade for protection. He will refer the matter to the Tariff Board. This legislation provides that the number of members of the board shall be increased by one and that there shall be two deputy chairmen. The Minister will say to the Tariff Board, “ I want a quick decision as to the possibilities and difficulties of this industry “. The Tariff Board will refer the matter to a deputy chairman, who must report back to the Minister within 30 days.
– It is a long time.
– The period is not eighteen months, as was sometimes the case when the Labour government was in office. If the honorable senator were in office, the period might be eighteen years. He says that 30 days is a long time, but it is much less than eighteen months, which the procedure sometimes took. The maximum period is 30 days and the report may be submitted by the deputy chairman to the Minister in less than 30 days. The maximum time is 30 days. The Minister receives the report and peruses it. If the report recommends that the industry should receive protection, say, by an increase in duty of 20 per cent., and the Government agrees, the proposed increase is notified in the “ Commonwealth Gazette “ and, as from the date of notification, the increased duty is imposed on the article imported. As a result the industry is protected until such time as Parliament meets. The Tariff Board’s report and the Minister’s comments are placed on the tables of both Houses of Parliament within seven sitting days. If, in the opinion of Parliament, the rate recommended by the deputy chairman of the board and approved by the Minister is unfair, Parliament may alter it. Parliament at that stage decides the issue. The matter is in the hands of Parliament within the first seven days of both Houses meeting. So the matter has not been taken out of Parliament’s hands, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested.
Having reached that stage, the matter is then discussed by the Tariff Board. Some seven or eight months later, having heard all the evidence available both within Australia and elsewhere, the board presents to the Government its full report on the industry. The Government must lay that report on the table of Parliament and it is then either adopted or rejected. If the report is not dealt with within three months the original proposition becomes void. Parliament, therefore, has ample opportunities to discuss the proposal. In point of fact we have two opportunities to discuss this matter in both Houses of Parliament. 1 cannot agree that in the present instance the powers of Parliament are being usurped. Many items will become important to us in the future when fresh trade agreements are negotiated with Japan and when we are re-negotiating a general agreement on tariffs and trade. Those two matters are of particular interest to Australia. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner) explained, it is only by the negotiation of agreements and trade treaties that we are able to expand our economy. He pointed out that the earlier trade agreement between Australia and Japan increased the amount of trade that those countries did with each other. In view of the importance of European trade negotiations - the sixes and the sevens - in the future we must pay particular attention to the nations just north of us so that we may increase our trade with them. In this country we have large quantities of raw material readily available for export to Japan. The Minister for National Development, who recently returned from a visit to Japan, told us that a large market exists in Japan for Australian coal. He said that provided port facilities were available within the next five years Australia could export to Japan up to 3,000,000 tons of coal a year.
– The States would need financial assistance to develop the necessary port facilities.
– I do not know about that. All I know is that the New South Wales Government has not been able to develop the port facilities at Newcastle. Perhaps a poor State like New South Wales should receive some assistance from the Commonwealth. Is that what the honorable senator is implying? If Western Australia had only a part of the wealth of New South Wales it would probably secede from the Commonwealth. New South Wales is a wealthy State and if it cannot develop port facilities economically to handle coal exports, the people of New South Wales should examine their Government with a view to changing it for a better one.
– Who told you that New South Wales could not look after its port facilities?
– Senator Ormonde said that the New South Wales Government would require assistance from the Commonwealth. Evidently he meant that the New South Wales Government could not look after its port facilities and he implied that New South Wales should approach the Commonwealth for financial assistance. However, I do not want to become embroiled in an argument. I suggest that Senator Arnold and Senator Ormonde discuss between them whom the New South Wales Government should approach and how the approach should be made. I want to get on with my speech.
The economy of Australia has grown so rapidly under the present Government that we have been able to remove import licensing. The Government has been able to take that step only because of increased primary and secondary production. Having done away with import licensing we find that we have not got available the records necessary to apply another system to prohibit the importation of cheap goods into this country. I am referring to quantitative restrictions. We cannot introduce quantitative restrictions because of the lack of records. That is one reason why this legislation is necessary. When the trade treaty between Australia and Japan was entered into the Government decided to allow industries in this country to set up panels which could make representations to the Government if it were felt that the industries were receiving unfair treatment as a result of the agreement with Japan. The Government could then, if necessary, introduce legislation to protect those industries. Under the Japanese Trade Agreement, and following its introduction, some 40 panels were established to look after that number of types of industry.
– Does this apply only to Japan?
– It has applied since the Japanese Trade Agreement was signed. The panels will continue. Organizations will be able to voice their opinions through the panels that became operative after the Japanese Trade Agreement was introduced. They will be able to look after their industries by protecting them from Japanese competition and from the competition of any other nation that wishes to flood the Australian market with cheaply manufactured goods.
As I have said, there are about 40 of these panels in existence at the present time. In order to keep them going, the Government has said that the Commonwealth Statistician shall make reports as to the quantity of imports that are brought into this country each week. Within a fortnight they will be available to the Government. The Minister has stated that those reports by the Statistician will be available to industry and to these panels, so that they will have before them a picture of what is going on. I think that the Government has been most fair in its treatment of this particular problem.
I cannot really understand why the Opposition continues to oppose this legislation, but 1 do not think that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has opposed it quite as strongly as did the members of the Opposition in another place. I commend honorable senators opposite for the thoughts they have expressed on the matter. The Opposition intends to vote against the legislation only because it will permit of duties being imposed without prior consideration by this Parliament. I think that that is the only reason why the Opposition is opposing the legislation. I know that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose if it can find a good reason for doing so, but in this instance I do not think that a good case has been made out for opposing this legislation. I believe that the legislation will be passed, because the Government hopes to have the numbers in this chamber to ensure its passage.
This legislation is designed to protect, not only large industries, but also small industries and, above all, members of the trade union movement who are working in industry. Without this legislation, some of the smaller industries would go out of production, and unemployment would be rife in the country. Honorable senators opposite would then go round Australia saying that the people should change the Government because of its inability to prevent unemployment.
– That might still be on.
– Yes. I know that election time is coming nearer. Although only 16,000 or 17,000 people in Australia are drawing the unemployment benefit - this is probably one of the lowest figures in Australia’s history - Senator Benn will be going round Queensland saying that this Government believes in a pool of unemployment. We are within sixteen or seventeen months of the next general election, and I expect to hear that sort of statement coming from the Opposition in the very near future.
I have said all I wish to say on the bill. T believe it is for the benefit of the workers in industry, and I commend the Government for bringing it before the Senate.
– Senator Scott evidently believes that it is not reasonably possible for another political party to have a view different from his party’s view. I have before me three bills, two of which are amending measures. The third, if passed by this chamber, will become a principal act. 1 do not propose to state the purport of the bills, because each honorable senator who has spoken in this debate has outlined their purpose. One aspect that has been overlooked by those who have so far participated in the debate in this chamber is that it is possible under the scheme set out in the proposed legislation to grant protection to one industry and thereby injure another industry or several industries.
The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has reminded us that, by this legislation, we are dealing with international trade. That is one of the things we must keep in mind. Anyway, that is what I deduced from his remarks. When we examine the legislation, we do not do so only for the purpose of seeing where these bills will fit into the tariff structure of Australia at the present time. We do not only examine the acts that two of the bills seek to amend to see what niche they will fit into. We have to go further than that when dealing with this matter.
I assume that the Minister for Trade will initiate the action to be taken under the legislation, and that a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board, after he has made a cursory examination of an industry, will furnish a report to the Minister for Customs and Excise. 1 assumed that that was the course of events, but 1 am told now that the report will go to the Minister for Trade. 1 had based my assumption on an administrative order which states that the Minister for Customs and Excise is responsible for the administration of the Customs Act 1901- 1957 and the Customs Tariff 1933-1957. The order then states that the Department of Trade is responsible for administering trade and commerce with other countries and industrial development, as well as the Tariff Board Act 1921-1953, except to the extent to which the act is administered by the Minister for Customs and Excise. I thought that both Ministers would have a finger in the pie.
At the turn of the century, tariff duties and free trade were burning questions in the Commonwealth. One group of people favoured the imposition of customs duties for the purpose of protecting Australian industry, whilst another group fervently believed in a form of free trade. Even to-day it is possible to find in certain parts of the country people who firmly believe in a policy of free trade. Most of these people will be found in the ranks of the supporters of the Australian Country Party. Nevertheless, over the years our general system of protection has developed for the good of the Commonwealth. Our industries have certainly expanded considerably in the past 60 years. Sixty years ago we had a population of 3,000,000 and our principal industries were the rural industries. To-day the position has almost completely changed. Our principal industries are the secondary industries. If it were not so it would not be possible for us to maintain a population of over 10,000,000. It is in the secondary industries that we provide employment for the migrants we are bringing to Australia. Speaking from my own knowledge I would say that less than 5 per cent, of the migrants in Australia are employed in rural industry.
If we are to proceed in the way in which we have proceeded in the past twenty years, and if we are to have a greater population, we must expand our secondary industries. How is that to be done? We must have a measure of international trade, because merely to provide for our population of 10,000,000 would mean that our industries would become stagnant. We all know that there is no fellowship associated with international trade. The prize goes to the country which can sell the most goods in any circumstances. It is the objective of nearly all countries to have a high export trade and a low import trade. While I was listening to the debate in this chamber this afternoon, I thought sometimes that some honorable senators believed that Australia is the only country that has any tariff legislation. When we examine the situation we find that other countries have their own way of protecting their industries. Honorable senators who say that we must have legislation which will allow swift action to be taken to investigate an industry and increase duties imposed on goods being brought into the country are not giving full consideration at all to the repercussions that may occur in the country affected by the higher duties. Those repercussions could easily be to our detriment.
I recall that in 1952 there was added, by way of superstructure as it were to the protective legislation in the Commonwealth, a scheme known as import licensing. That is almost dead and I have no desire to speak ill of the dead or dying. The system has gone almost out of existence and I hope that it will not be long before the tail goes with the hide. 1 understand that at the present time about 85 per cent, of the goods which were subject to import licensing have been entirely excluded and that only about 15 per cent, are subject to licensing. As a political party, Labour has always believed that there should be a proper tariff system instead of the cursory scheme of indiscriminate licensing which operated from 1952 up until February of this year.
I want to say a word or two about the work of the Tariff Board over the years. It is not possible to consider the proposed legislation without considering the means that has been instituted gradually over the years for the purpose of dealing generally with tariffs. The Tariff Board’s work has been exemplary. It is an efficient board that is capable of dealing effectively with any problem that may arise in Australian industry. I think that in one year as many as 50 reports were furnished by the board to the Parliament. . One of the advantages of having such a board is that its reports are furnished to the Parliament and we have an opportunity to consider every clause in the reports. If those reports have not been fully discussed in the past it is because they have satisfied a majority of the members of the Parliament. That is why we are not so conscious of our tariff legislation as perhaps we should be.
Another act that is in operation is the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act. It can deal effectively with dumping and other practices for the purpose of protecting our industries. We have, too, another way of assisting industry which has not been mentioned so far in this debate. I propose to refer to it briefly. We pay subsidies, or bounties, to certain industries on the recommendation of the Tariff Board. This assistance does assist industries. A bounty is paid on the production of dairy products, and cellulose acetate flake. We pay a copper bounty and a flax fibre bounty. The gold-mining industry gets a bounty as also does the rayon yarn production industry. A bounty is applicable also to the manufacture of sulphuric acid and tractors. These bounties are paid to these industries so that they can be given life.
The countries of Europe have evolved a means of protecting their industries. We set out to sell our goods over as wide an area as possible - in European countries as well as in other countries. Some of the European countries have established for their own protection an organization named the European Free Trade Association. It is known colloquially as Efta. Members of that association are Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Not so long ago the Minister for Commerce for Sweden said that the purpose of the association was the liberalization, not only of European trade, but of world trade. The liberalization of the trade of the world would mean a diminishing of the tariff duties which operate in the various countries. Then there is the European Economic Community, comprising Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Their trade philosophy, as laid down in the treaty made at Rome, is to contribute through a common commercial policy to the progressive lifting of restrictions in international trade.
Australia is one of the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Gatt, as it is well known, comprises 37 countries. Its purpose, of course, is to lay down a code of trade conduct, to provide machinery for tariff reduction and to arrange consultations on trade problems. At one of its conferences, 55,000 tariff rates were either reduced or stabilized. I understand that there will be a further conference of Gatt some time this year, and one may expect that at that conference there will be further reductions of tariffs throughout the world.
The United States of America has her own system of dealing with tariffs. She has used her powers to the detriment of Australia on more than one occasion. We know that she has prohibited almost entirely the export of lead, zinc, meat and wool to her shores, and that she could, almost at a moment’s notice, apply quantitative restrictions to prevent goods from Australia and other countries from entering heT territory. Senator Spooner has spoken of the Japanese Trade Agreement. There is no doubt that we must continue with that agreement. The honorable senator said that the bills before the chamber will affect our trade with Japan. He made a positive statement along those lines, but he did not indicate just how the legislation will affect our trade with Japan. It may affect our trade to our advantage, and on the other hand, it may work to our detriment, but Senator Spooner omitted to provide us with more information on that score.
International trade, from the financial aspect, grows more important every day. Australia has trade commissioners stationed in various countries of the world, but it appears that the more appointments we make to the Trade Commissioner Service the fewer exports we make. We have approximately 30 trade commissioners. They are stationed in Canada, Ceylon, India, Kenya, the Philippines, Sweden, the West Indies, France, Indonesia, Malaya, Rhodesia, Thailand, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Japan, Pakistan, South Africa and the United States of America. However it seems futile to have trade commissioners stationed in so many countries if we cannot sell sufficient goods to pay Australia’s way.
If we visit Canberra’s Civic Centre, we see on display jars and bottles containing jam which was manufactured in the United Kingdom. Those fancy bottles and jars are to be seen beside decorated tins of biscuits. When we examine the contents of the bottles and jars we find that the fruit from which the jam was manufactured was exported from Australia, together with the sugar that was used. We find that the biscuits were made from Australian flour sent to the United Kingdom. It appears that a lot of international trade could be eliminated, to the advantage of many countries. Not so very long ago I was reliably informed that about one-third of the world’s trade could be eliminated without affecting seriously the finances or the industries of any country. It seems that much of our international trade is carried on in a wasteful way.
When we look at our overseas balances we appreciate the necessity for international trade and for Australia, particularly, to increase her exports. In 1951, our overseas balances amounted to £843,000,000. In 1952, after there had been a rush of imports into Australia, our overseas funds fell to £362,000,000. In 1953, they increased to £561,000,000. In 1953-54, we had a trade deficit of £17,000,000; in 1954- 55, a deficit of £259,000,000; in 1955- 56, a deficit of £231,000,000; and in 1956- 57, we had a surplus of £99,000,000. In 1957-58, there was again a deficit of £174,000,000; in 1958-59, a deficit of £207,000,000; and last year, there was a deficit of £243,000,000.
The deficits for the six years amounted to £1,131,000,000, and if we deduct the surplus of £99,000,000 in 1956-57, we see that the total deficit over the seven years to which I have referred was 11,032,000,000. lt has been announced, by way of good news for Australia, that this year there will be a further deficit of £100,000,000. Those figures indicate, Mr. President, that no matter what Australia does to protect her industries by way of tariff legislation, it is still necessary to export more goods to other countries. We see in the legislation before the Senate the possibility of reciprocity on the part of countries that may perhaps be affected adversely by the legislation. That may well happen. In our desire to assist a certain industry we could perhaps cause injury to two or three other industries.
I agree that undue delay in dealing with a tariff situation which threatens the life of an industry should be avoided, but at the same time I contend that nothing should be done to prevent the whole of the wisdom of the Parliament from being applied in reaching a decision regarding proposed corrective action. I do not deny the necessity, on occasion, for swift action to be taken with a view to ascertaining the nature of the threat to a particular industry that the importation of goods may cause, but I claim that this Parliament should deal with such a situation and that the whole of the wisdom of the Parliament should be brought to bear in dealing with it. I think that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) will support me, particularly as he proposes, this year, to collect £97,700,000 in customs duties. We are dealing not with peanuts, but with millions of pounds and with legislation which has taken us 60 to 70 years to establish. I am not one to support the infliction of customs duties on any importer, after a hurried examination of an industry has been made. I say that some time should be devoted to a further consideration of the matter and that the measures before us should not be hurried through the Parliament.
– I support the measures now before the Senate. For the life of me, I cannot see how any reasonable person could find in the legislation anything that is objectionable or which would be injurious to Australia’s economic welfare or any of the industries concerned. The proposed procedure has been outlined several times, so I shall not cover that ground to any great extent.
Several Opposition senators have observed that they are not opposed to speedy action where it is necessary but that they are opposed to the machinery which is to be established to deal with such circumstances. What is the alternative? For some time past, particularly following the signing of the agreement with Japan, the procedure followed has been that, where industries have made urgent representations to the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) and have convinced him that there has been some substance into their claims, the services of Mr. M. E. McCarthy have been availed of. He has examined the facts placed before him and has made recommendations accordingly. I think it was the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) who said that some thirteen applications had been made but that in only three cases was action found to be necessary. Surely the machinery envisaged in the legislation now before us is preferable to the procedure I have just referred to.
It is proposed that a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board shall conduct an inquiry in the manner to which he is accustomed and with a knowledge of the procedures to be followed. He will then make a recommendation instead of the onus being placed upon the Minister to say that he will take certain action. I do not think there can be any comparison between the two procedures. Surely our friends of the Opposition admit to themselves that the proposal now before us is to be preferred to having the onus placed on the Minister.
It has been stated that no higher duty can be imposed than that recommended by the deputy chairman - if he does recommend a higher duty. Some play has been made of the fact that the report of the deputy chairman must be in the hands of the Minister within 30 days of the matter being referred to him. That does not mean that 30 days will elapse in every case but that the maximum period will be 30 days. Only a fortnight may be needed. When we compare that period with the time it would take the full Tariff Board to consider the matter, surely it is desirable that the proposed procedure be adopted. It has been made plain that the holding duties will be only of a temporary nature and that all the circumstances will be referred to the full Tariff Board, excluding the deputy chairman who made the initial investigation. That gets away from the possibility of the deputy chairman who conducted the initial inquiry having some bias when called upon to examine the matter again at a later date. The temporary duties will lapse automatically three months after the Tariff Board reports to the Government.
Much has been made of the suggestion that the measures now before us will have the effect of taking away from the Parliament some of its powers, but that criticism has been satisfactorily answered. I cannot agree with any such suggestion. All the necessary safeguards are contained in the legislation. The relevant information will be tabled in the Parliament and the Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss it. The matter will still go before the full Tariff Board at a later date for investigation.
Tt has been suggested that the procedure envisaged will be peculiar to Australia. But we are in a position to know that most other countries have similar safeguards. Moreover, the proposal we are considering is not in conflict with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which empowers countries to take action of this kind when their own industries are threatened. Other than in cases similar to that in which the Minister took certain action very recently, tariff duties can be altered only when the Parliament is in session. Honorable senators will recall an occasion when Japanese goods were entering this country at a very low figure, when some of our industries were threatened, and when speedy action was taken. Although that action was speedy, it was only temporary pending a report by the Tariff Board after further inquiry.
From time to time industries, including primary industries, complain about the treatment they receive as a result of Tariff Board recommendations. But on very many occasions it has been quite obvious that much of the fault has rested with the industries themselves, because they either have not taken the trouble to be represented or have been inadequately represented. In future, those who have complained on that score would be well advised to see that they are adequately represented at all Tariff Board inquiries which affect their interests. By doing that, their side of the case will have had full consideration by the time the Tariff Board is in a position to make its recommendation.
I note that this morning the Sydney press published a news item to the effect that the Sydney County Council had decided to allocate its purchase of insulators between Australian and overseas manufacturers. Apparently Australian manufacturers quoted approximately £67 per 1,000, and Japanese firms quoted £36 which included the payment of a duty of 50 per cent. The council is reported as having thought that it should allocate half of the contract to Australian interests and half to Japanese interests, the idea being that it would help to keep our own industry in production in case at some future time it would, not be possible to obtain supplies from overseas. That is all right, but I think it must give people in those industries food for thought when they find that competitors from another country, after paying the 50 per cent, duty, can come in and quote the article at very little more than half price.
I also believe, Mr. President, that many of our manufacturing industries, having received a protective duty to enable them to commence operations, have been too prone to go along relying on higher and higher duties instead of paying more attention to reducing the cost of the article being produced and striving for greater efficiency and the cutting of costs in their manufacturing plants, which would bring about the same result.
I know it is easy to generalize on these matters, but from quite a lot of information I have been able to gather round about the city of Sydney I find the tendency has been not to worry about the cost of production so much because at the back of the minds of manufacturers has been the thought that increases could be passed on to the consumer, and indeed, they have been so passed on in most instances. Production cost is a matter we must have a look at because it is one of the big bugbears of those on fixed incomes, particularly primary producers, lt is in relation to the cost of production that the Tariff Board can play a very important part. I refer again to the need for all industries being efficiently represented at all inquiries that take place before the Tariff Board makes its recommendation.
I notice that when these measures were being debated in another place, in commenting on the changes that have taken place not only in the Australian economy but also in. the growth of Australia as a nation, an Opposition member said that on the drawing boards now there are ships the speed of which would compare very favorably with that of the freight planes of to-day. 1 thing that must surely be in the realm of fantasy; but if the day comes when that is so, I suppose we will have to streamline our Tariff Board and instead of having one deputy chairman to handle these matters we will probably need half a dozen.
Senator Spooner made brief mention of’ the results of his recent trip to America. What he said was most interesting. 1 was glad to hear him pay a generous and deserved tribute to the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen). Senator Spooner mentioned very briefly some of the expansion that has taken place in Australia’s exports to Japan. He also referred to the fact that when the Japanese Trade Agreement was made considerable criticism was voiced on the ground that it would be harmful to Australia’s secondary industries. I have very vivid recollections of a gentleman in Melbourne attacking us rather violently on this score and saying he thought the Minister for Trade was going to get Australia into quite a mess. Those were not the words he used, but that is what he meant. As Japan has been mentioned, I take this opportunity to present to the Senate some figures which indicate very clearly the tremendous advantages that have accrued to this country since the trade agreement with Japan was made. Since that time Japan has become our best customer for wool. Prior to the making of the agreement, Japan was not purchasing any wheat from Australia; now she is our second best market for wheat. At the moment Japan is easily our best market for coal. Honorable senators have heard what Senator Spooner said about the possibility of expansion in that regard. The figures I have show that by 1965 Japan’s minimum requirements for Australian coal will be worth approximately £12,000,000 to Australia at present prices. Japan is Australia’s third best customer for sugar. She is our best customer for hides and skins. Last year our exports amounted to £2,500,000. She is our best customer for inedible tallow. Japan purchased £200,000 worth of dried vine fruits and is our third best market for these products.
Those advantages have accrued to Australia since the agreement was made with Japan. In spite of the Jeremiahs who bewailed the fact that we were entering into an agreement with Japan, which, they said, would ruin our secondary industries, and the allegation that we would be flooded with cheap goods from Japan, the results have proved very different from those gloomy forecasts made at that time. I join with Senator Spooner when he said he felt that just as that agreement was something that would prove of immense value to this country, the measures which are before the Senate will also prove of great benefit to Australia as a whole.
We know that it may not be necessary to invoke the provisions which are inserted in the legislation for use in case of emergency; but should the need arise those provisions can be brought into operation for our own benefit. Senator Benn mentioned that quick action by bringing down a rceommendation for holding duties, as I might term them, could prove injurious to another country. Other countries recognize our right to protect our own industries and we concede to them the same right. Senator Benn was merely putting up an Aunt Sally. I do not think the Opposition really sees any danger in this proposal; he has advanced his argument only to justify the extraordinary attitude that the Opposition is adopting to these measures. Senator Benn also stated that by taking action against one industry we might injure one or two other industries. As I mentioned earlier, these inquiries will be conducted by a man who has had experience in matters of this kind. He will not be a novice who is handed the job for the first time. We also must remember that he will not make any recommendation at all unless he is convinced of the urgency of rectifying the position in which the industry is placed. If in his opinion action is not a matter of urgency, he will make no recommendation and the matter will then come before the Tariff Board in due course, in the usual time.
By and large, I believe the measures commend themselves to those people who approach them with unbiased minds. We know that the Opposition’s role is to oppose, and I think we can assess the Opposition’s criticism of the measures on that basis.
I do not wish to reiterate what has already been said. I content myself with saying that I support the measures before the Senate.
.- At the outset, let me put Senator McKellar’s mind at ease. We members of the Australian Labour Party do not oppose for the sake of opposing. Let me also remind him that neither he nor any other speaker has yet replied to Senator McKenna’s argument on the principle on which we oppose the Customs Bill. It is the only point about the measure to which we object. We are and always have been a protectionist party. I say that for Senator Cole’s benefit. Probably his term in the Australian Labour Party was so short that he did not realize it was a protectionist party. He said that he was eager to see how Tasmanian senators would vote on this measure. If he is here at that stage, instead of being absent, as he so often is when vital votes are taken, he will see how the Tasmanian senators vote.
We of the Labour Party are fighting for the retention by this Parliament of its powers and responsibilities. It is with the Parliament that these powers and responsibilities should properly rest. How often have we heard that principle expounded from this side of the chamber! How often, too, have we heard Senator Wright on the other side of the chamber wax eloquent and sarcastic at the Government’s whittling away of the responsibilities of the Parliament! He has not been alone in voicing that criticism. The arguments that he has put eloquently on a number of occasions could be aptly applied to this measure.
The Government does not want to have the responsibility of deciding whether or not a duty should be imposed. It has decided that that power should vest in a single individual, who will report to the Minister within 30 days. The Minister will be duty bound to accept the report. If he were not, what would be the good of having a report made? Whether or not the report is right and adequate, nobody will have any further say until such time as the Parliament meets, which may be three months later.
Senator Cole asks what would happen at Devonport but for such a provision as this. That shows the extent of his intelligence and how far he will go when it comes to sticking to a vital principle. That attitude is nothing new to us. He asks what would happen. The Government is probably asking the same question. What is the alternative to the delegation of this power to one man until the Parliament meets again? We agree that in many instances the Tariff Board takes too long to make investigations. That is why the bill proposes a limitation of 30 days. Some Government supporters set themselves up as experts on this kind of work. What is wrong with establishing a committee of members drawn from both Houses of the Parliament and requiring it to make a speedy investigation and report to the .Minister? Let the burden of responsibility rest on the shoulders of those who were elected to accept such responsibility. Let them not shirk their responsibility by transferring it to a single individual, ls there not sufficient talent amongst Government supporters to make the appointment of such a committee practicable, or is it the policy of the Government that all such recommendations should come from one individual because sometimes it is easier to handle and persuade one in a certain way than it is to persuade three or four?
We agree that there should be speedy action when the future of an industry is at stake. We have heard a lot of piffle about dismissing 30 or 40 employees, as if there were no other possible way out of the difficulty. Surely the Government has not applied to this question the brains that it claims to have. Time and again Senator Wright has waxed eloquent about the responsibility of the Parliament to perform the duties that it was elected to perform. Evidently his arguments have made no impression whatever upon the Government. When we stand up to fight for one vital principle, Government supporters try to make out that we are against the whole bill, that we are against protection, and that we are against tariffs. The Australian Labour Party was the father of the tariffs that sheltered the developing industries of this country. There would not by a long shot have been so many industries had it not been for the protectionist policy 6f the Australian Labour Party. After a number of years the Government has come our way in supporting this policy . We are very pleased that it is catching up with us but we were far in advance of it in this respect at one time.
Senator Wade, who is a primary producer, laughs. I remind him that for more than a quarter of a century his party had the reins of government and we then saw the primary producers go to ruin for the lack of protection and assistance. It was the Australian Labour Party that first gave assistance to the dairying industry, in which the honorable senator sometimes seems to be interested. I emphasize that Labour granted the first assistance to the industry, after the party which Senator Wade supports had been in office for a quarter of a century. The dairying industry was going down, the herds were dwindling, and the position was desperate. The first thing that Labour did upon attaining office was to provide some protection and assistance. The same position is true of the wheat industry, of which he seems to be a champion. That industry was in as bad a position as the. dairying industry until the party with a protectionist policy came into office and helped it out of the mire in which it was left by a Liberal Government. These are facts and I know it is unpleasant for Senator Wade to be reminded of them now. The Government is seeing the light. After it was shown the way by the Labour Party, it continued to apply duties to assist primary industry. The same is true in respect of secondary industry.
The Government says that it is important to have quick decisions in these matters. I agree that is so. Too often, while the Government has awaited a Tariff Board report, have industries had to dispense with some of their employees. In many instances the Tariff Board has been too long in making recommendations to the Government. Some action is necessary to speed up decisions on these matters. But we do not think that the Government’s proposal is the right way. This Parliament should not delegate its powers or run away from its responsibilities in this way. Honorable senators opposite ask why Parliament should be called together to deal with a matter of this sort. They were answered adequately by Senator McKenna. If the preservation or development of an industry important to this country is at stake, Parliament should be called together.
– What do you call an industry of importance?
– I leave that to the good judgment of the honorable senator. He is here because a sufficient number of electors of Victoria thought that he was a responsible man with sufficient intelligence to know what is an important industry.
– I suggest that every industry is of importance to Australia.
– I will not say that the honorable senator is not right when he says that, but I would not favour calling Parliament together to provide protection for a little backwoods industry employing two men. Evidently Senator Wade would call Parliament together under those circumstances because he says that every industry is important. 1 would not go that far. I say that Parliament should be called together when the industry seeking protection is one that is important to the economy of this country. The Government sees fit to call Parliament together to welcome some important personage arriving here or to farewell some responsible person who is leaving the country. If Parliament can be called together for those purposes surely it should be called together to deal with the interests of industries that are vital to the country’s economy. I would not object if a report from a sub-committee of members of Parliament were dealt with by the Minister concerned before Parliament met. When
Parliament did meet the matter could be dealt with in the usual way. I object to Parliament’s powers being whittled away and delegated to an individual. It may be that the individual’s report will be a good one, but if it is not, what happens? Can anybody deny that three, four or six men would be able to provide better advice to a Minister than one man? On previous occasions both Senator Wright and Senator McKenna have referred to the Government’s actions in whittling away the rights of Parliament. Its actions in this present case are a further example of a whittling away of the powers of this Parliament.
– I support the bill because I believe that to some extent at least it will shorten the procedure that characterizes Tariff Board hearings at present. Anything that will do that has my support, and when I say that I do not make any criticism of the board itself. I believe that the delays that occur in the board’s hearings are inevitable. The bill envisages an inquiry by a deputy chairman of the board sitting alone. He will submit an interim report only. Such findings as he makes will carry the force of law until the Tariff Board ultimately makes its final determination.
I support the bill because it can cover inquiries that may be set in train by hardpressed industries which, at the moment, are often faced with considerable difficulties, probably because of a superfluity of imported goods following the lifting of import restrictions, be those goods from Japan or elsewhere.
– Turkish figs, for example.
– I was about to refer to Turkish figs. Senator Cole stressed the importance of this legislation because it will apply to an industry in the northwest corner of Tasmania. I propose to raise a matter that is of some concern to a small industry - but an important one - on the river Murray in South Australia - the fig industry. The procedures of this bill could well be adopted - I hope that they will be - in relation to that industry. Recently, senators representing South Australia made representations to the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) and I believe that their interests could well be dealt with by the machinery to be set up under this legislation. We presented a case on behalf of the Australian Fig Association. The fig industry was being undermined at the time - it still is - by the threat of imported Turkish figs - Smyrna figs. Those figs were and to-day are being imported at a price far below that of the Australian product, thus making the sale of South Australian figs almost impossible. I refer to the industry as being a South Australian industry because I think that almost all figs grown in Australia are grown in South Australia. About 50 growers have properties on the river Murray. Retailers are able to make a handsome profit on the imported figs, which can be landed in Australia at a cost far below the cost of Australian figs but which retail at only a little below the retail price of Australian figs. Retailers prefer to handle imported figs rather than Australian-grown figs. Figs from overseas can be imported into Australia at about half the cost of Australian figs and, by selling the imported figs at a price a little below the retail price of Australian figs, retailers were on a good wicket.
– They could be selling old stock, too.
– It was old stock in fact. The lifting of import restrictions by the Government came at a time when the Australian fig crop for 1958-59 was only partly sold. The 1959-60 crop was almost all unsold and the Australian industry has little prospect of making further sales in the face of competition from imported Turkish figs. It is expected that further quantities of figs will arrive from Turkey about the end of October or some time in November. That will further complicate the position for Australia. Therefore, my hope is that the legislation will cover such a position, and that the Australian industry will be able to put a case to the deputy chairman sitting alone and that his finding will have the force of law until the Tariff Board completes its hearing. I hope that the Minister will agree to my suggestion. I do not see why the legislation should not cover an industry such as this; indeed, I think it is the kind of position that this legislation should cover. My colleagues and I originally asked the Minister for Trade for a complete embargo on the importation of this fruit, but the Minister evidently holds the view that this is a case that should be investigated by the Tariff Board itself. However, there are delays that are inseparable from such Tariff Board hearings, and it might be some months before the Tariff Board could make a determination in this case.
The Minister himself has told me that he has referred this matter to the Tariff Board. 1 hope he will go further than that and refer it to a deputy chairman, when this legislation is passed by the Parliament. We feel that if the Tariff Board were to make inquiries in the normal way several months would elapse before its findings could be brought before this Parliament. Of course, that delay would be fatal to the industry. Time is of the essence of this contract, Mr. Deputy President, and a swift inquiry by some person such as a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board would be a very effective means of disposing of the matter. What is required is an immediate shortening of the procedure, as is visualized in this bill. I sincerely hope that the matter I have raised can be treated in this way, because I believe that this industry and other industries should be granted early and speedy protection pending an inquiry by the full Tariff Board. This legislation envisages that a full Tariff Board inquiry should be held, at which the finding of the deputy chairman would be considered.
As I have said, this is only a small industry, but it is important to those who are engaged in it. I think that only about 50 growers are involved, and as far as I know most of them have areas situated along the Murray River. This industry is just as important to those engaged in it as are some of the larger industries for whom protection is envisaged. Because of the back-log of applications that I have already mentioned, it is imperative for a Tariff Board hearing to be held at some future time. I support this legislation and I hope that it will be passed.
– I rise to support these tariff bills which, in my opinion, represent merely a minor modification of our tariff system - a system which has proved so beneficial to our Australian economy and enabled this country to take its place among the foremost trading nations of the world. These modifications in no way infringe the principles of tariff machinery but are designed to permit our economy to function effectively under present day conditions. I think, Sir, that is the point which is being overlooked by those who are eager to criticize this measure. They seem to be of the opinion that what was good enough some decades ago is good enough to-day. Such is not the case. We live in a rapidly changing world and problems could arise from time to time, particularly in relation to tariffs, which make it mandatory for Australia, if it is to maintain its position as one of the world’s greatest trading nations, to be in a position to meet any situation that may arise. That, I think, is the crux of the legislation. The three bills under consideration are designed to meet changing conditions and put us into a position where we can meet any emergency.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). Somewhat to my amazement, he gently chided the Government for not bringing down this legislation a few months ago when import licensing was removed. I think he said that arrangements could have been made to introduce this legislation during the last sessional period. He went further and opposed the measure, claiming that it would abrogate the rights of Parliament. I hope I am quoting him correctly. Senator Aylett, during his discourse, made a great play on that statement. I remind Senator Aylett and those who sit with him on the Opposition benches that we on this side of the Chamber do not feel that honorable senators opposite are the sole custodians of the rights of Parliament. We on this side have a very lively appreciation of the rights of Parliament. We know that the people, whom we represent demand that we preserve the rights of Parliament. This institution is a fundamental of the British way of life. For that reason, I remind honorable senators opposite, quite bluntly, that they are not the only people who are concerned with those rights.
– It is nice to see the Country Party converted to protection.
– Senator Sheehan has suggested that the Country Party has been converted to protection. The Country Party is not converted to protection, but it is converted to a policy which will make this country great. If our own particular ideals are not implemented in the making of this country great, then for Heaven’s sake let us be big enough to say that what is good for Australia is good for the Country Party!
Reverting to the point raised by the Opposition concerning the rights of Parliament, I remind honorable senators opposite that the United Kingdom Parliament, which is the mother of democratic parliaments throughout the world to-day, has had occasion to bring in legislation similar to the measures we are considering. Tariffs are varied by an order in council and are subject to disallowance by Parliament. That should be an indication to those who criticize the measure because they claim it infringes the rights of Parliament that what is good enough for the United Kingdom as a principle is good enough for us in Australia. It has been found necessary by the United Kingdom to implement this arrangement in its scheme of things, and I suggest that we who wish to follow that lead will be on very safe ground, when talking about the democratic rights of Parliament, in citing that example.
In the United States of America, it was found that the only practicable and workable method was to give the initiative to the President, whose decision could be subsequently reviewed by Congress. That is exactly the same principle as we are embodying in this legislation. If it is good enough for a democratic country like the United States, which we all will concede is the greatest trading nation in the world, surely this principle is a good one for Australia to adopt.
I also remind Opposition senators that New Zealand, where a Labour Government is in office, has found it necessary to resort to a similar method. I say quite bluntly to the Chamber that the Australian Government, after undertaking some research into these methods adopted by the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand, has taken great pains to make the legislation it has brought forward much stronger from a parliamentary point of view. Let us have a look at the proposals themselves and see whether we can evaluate them objectively. The Government’s proposal makes provision for interim tariff protection where an emergency is demonstrated, pending a fullscale Tariff Board investigation. I think the important word in the proposal is “ emergency “, and it is something that should be kept in mind. A state of emergency does not exist where an inefficient manufacturer or producer finds himself in difficulties because of his inefficiency. It is made quite clear that the protest must come from the industry itself. The industry must produce evidence that lasting damage will be done to it unless protection is afforded.
The Tariff Board system has been tried through the years and found most effective. Industries seeking protection must state a water-tight case to this independent, impartial board. It is true that in recent years the work of the Tariff Board has been speeded up. The length of hearings, I understand, has been reduced from, say, one or two years to seven or eight months. I suppose it could be argued that if the length of the hearings could be reduced to that extent, it could be reduced again, and in that way we could perhaps eliminate the necessity for the proposal in this measure. The Tariff Board has never made a snap decision, and I hope it never will make a snap decision, because such a policy would cut right across the principles that have prompted it to make the decisions which it has made from time to time. The board is extremely conscientious and examines every detail and aspect in an investigation. But whilst that investigation is going on, an important industry could be crippled. It could be completely put out of business pending the methodical, conscientious, effective hearing that must take place under Tariff Board procedure. I, for one, would not support any legislation that would reduce the efficiency of the Tariff Board. This legislation has been designed, not to interfere with the ordinary work of the board, but to introduce an auxiliary scheme that can tide an industry over for a short period of time.
The proposal of the Government, as I said previously, goes a good deal further than similar legislation in other countries. The legislation provides for the appointment of a deputy chairman to the board, who shall report to the Minister within 30 days. It is well to remind ourselves that the proposal for the enlargement of the board envisages the appointment of a man well skilled in the task to which he will set his hand. It is also well to remember that if an application for a comprehensive hearing goes before the Tariff Board itself, the deputy chairman who has conducted the initial inquiry will not be eligible to sit upon the board. Therefore, his preconceived ideas, and the decision that he arrived at in his preliminary hearing, are in no way carried to the board.
Emphasis has been placed on the protection of the rights of the Parliament. We must satisfy ourselves that the lessening of the rights of the Parliament is not within the realms of possibility. We find that there are safeguards. First of all, the independent deputy chairman of the Tariff Board is required to make a report. He is required to say whether holding action ought to be taken in respect of an industry. If this holding action involves a duty, he must set out the rate of duty, and the Government is not able to declare a higher rate of duty than that recommended by the board. Before the Government can act in that way, it must make a formal reference to the Tariff Board. Then again, the Government must at the first opportunity table the report of the deputy chairman. It must, within seven days of the Parliament being in session, table the temporary tariff duties that have been proposed. That puts the Parliament completely in charge of the situation.
I ask the Senate whether this is not a better scheme than the quantitative restrictions that we have had over the past seven or eight years. Is not this a more democratic scheme than that involved in giving a person outside of the Parliament the right to say whether goods should enter this country? Is not it far better to have a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board decide that a temporary duty of perhaps1s. a yard on rayon, or1d. or 2d. per lb. on some other import shall be levied temporarily rather than have outside people, who are not responsible to the Parliament, say to an importer, or to an industry, “ You shall not import these goods into this country “? Yet my friends of the Opposition are quite prepared - and in fact have even suggested on some occasions - that licensing should continue and thereby permit a system which I think is a most unsatisfactory one for our developing economy.
This legislation is being introduced because we have removed import licensing. I think a good deal of muddled thinking has taken place about import restrictions. We say generally that they were applied to protect Australian industries. Of course they were, but I would remind the Senate that in post-war years we were obliged to restrict importations into this country in order to maintain our overseas credits, upon which our secondary industries are so dependent. Licensing restrictions, which were so obnoxious to every section of the community, did serve the purpose of preserving and expanding our overseas credits, and at the same time protecting Australian industries. I am quite sure that the time has come in our economic history when the removal of import licensing will do more to make industry in Australia efficient than any other single action that could be taken by the Government. The restrictions have been in force for seven or eight years, and during that time industry has had every opportunity to develop, expand and consolidate. To-day, we live in a world where markets are competitive, and as a nation we have to face that fact. Unless we become efficient and competitive in what we produce and supply to world markets, we are going to be priced out of world markets. That is something that this country cannot afford to permit.
The second reason for this legislation has something to do with the timing to which the Minister made reference in his secondreading speech. The Government is obliged to review the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva in September. Surely our position as a trading nation in the world demands that we arm our representatives at that conference with a weapon that will permit them to enter into negotiations on world trade, realizing that conditions change from day to day. I say that the time factor alone makes it necessary for us to pass this legislation as quickly as possible so that it can come into force before the Gatt conference.
Debate interrupted.
page 163
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuilin). - Order! In conformity with the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 August 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1960/19600823_senate_23_s18/>.