Senate
8 May 1962

24th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1161

REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

– On 20th February last I announced the appointment by the Governor of South Australia of Gordon Sinclair Davidson as a senator to hold the place in the Senate rendered vacant by the resignation of Senator Buttfield until the expiration of fourteen days after the beginning of the next session of the Parliament of the State of South Australia, or until the election of a successor, whichever first happens. I have now received advice from the Governor of South Australia that this appointment has been confirmed by a joint sitting of the two Houses of the South Australian Parliament.

page 1161

QUESTION

PEARLING

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration: Is it a fact that a number of Malays have been permitted to enter Australia recently as indentured labour to work in the pearling industry? If so, how many have been admitted? What is the name of the individual master pearler to whom the Malays have been indentured, or if there is more than one master pearler involved, what are their names, and where are they located? If the Malays have been indentured to a company conducting pearling operations, what is the name of the company and where is it located?

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

– I understand that the indentured labour system to which the honorable senator refers has been in operation in the pearling industry for a number of years. A certain number of Malays are indentured. I cannot, of course, supply details off the cuff; but if the honorable senator puts his question on the notice-paper I will be happy to get the relevant facts for him.

page 1161

QUESTION

RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Works. By way of preface, I refer to the fact that the Reserve Bank of

Australia intends to erect, on the corner of Victoria-square and Flinders-street, Adelaide, what may well be the tallest building in that city. I am informed that the State Government, as tenant, will utilize six floors of the building and that the bank and, possibly, Commonwealth departments will utilize the balance. Is it a fact that the proposal to erect this building has not been referred to the Public Works Committee? Am I correctly informed that South Australian interests, both employers and employees, are urging the use of South Australian granite and marble in the construction of this building? Is it correct that Commonwealth works officials in Sydney, who apparently have a big say in the matter, have been in favour of transporting marble from New South Wales for the building, despite the excellence of the South Australian marble? Will the Minister urgently discuss the matter with the Minister for Works and also the Treasurer to ensure that the economy and propriety of using South Australian granite and marble in this Adelaide building are not disregarded?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · CP

– I am not sufficiently well informed to give the honorable senator a specific answer to the question that he has raised. If he will put the question on the notice-paper I shall bring it to the notice of my colleague and expedite an answer.

page 1161

QUESTION

COAL

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On 28th April last, the Minister for National Development supplied me with information relating to the possibility of exporting coal from New South Wales. During last week there was a press report to the effect that the proposed opening of a Queensland port might result in a considerable reduction of exports from New South Wales. Has the Minister any reason now to doubt the accuracy of his estimate that £60,000,000 worth of coal would be exported from New South Wales in the next five years?

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

– No; I stand firm on the estimate of coal exports from New South Wales. I take the view that the coal that will be exported - I hope in increasingly large quantities - from Queensland will be over and above that which will be exported from New South Wales. When I was in Japan a couple of years ago; I made the point with the Japanese steel industry that it could not expect Australian governments to make big investments in port facilities unless there was continuity of business. As a result, New South Wales colliery proprietors, in the main, are doing their business on contracts for terms of five years. My recollection of the press report is that Thiess Brothers have a seven years contract for the sale of the amounts already arranged and that each of the proprietors concerned will get a contract for a period pf years. I have no doubt that there will be competition between Queensland and New South Wales coal, but equally I have no doubt at all that the demand in Japan for that type of coal is so great that there will be room for the collieries in both States to write an increasing amount of business.

page 1162

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Senator DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

– I direct to the Minister for National Development a question that arises out of the eminently successful and historic occasion on Saturday last when the Tumut power station was opened and when, in the course of speeches, it was announced that the half-way mark, approximately, in the development of the Snowy Mountains scheme had been reached. Can the Minister indicate whether the timetable for the completion of the portion of the scheme called the Snowy-Murray development has been worked out? Can he say when this development will reach the stage at which, it is expected, some 800,000 acre feet of water will flow into the Murray for irrigation purposes?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Snowy Mountains Agreement provides that the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric authority has to give the States notice in specific terms of the coming into operation of each block of power. These blocks are, of course, so large that the State authorities, quite rightly, want notice of the actual time when the power will become available, because if the States do not get Snowy power they will have to provide very substantial capital investment to build power houses to provide an equal amount of power. With the approval of the Commonwealth Government, formal notice has gone from the Snowy Mountains authority to the effect that the Murray 1 power station will come into operation in June, 1966. That is a firm arrangement. My recollection is that the total cost of the work will be of the order of f 115,000,000 and that we have already let contracts totalling approximately £40,000,000. The building of the power house determines the time at which the water will be available and, by June, 1966, some 440,000 acre feet of water will be flowing to the Murray annually from that set of works. At a subsequent date, when the Jindabyne section comes into operation, the total quantity will be increased to 800,000 acre feet.

page 1162

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services aware that in Rockhampton some married workers with dependent children have recently been informed that their unemployment benefit payments will be terminated? As some of these workers have been unemployed for more than six months, have no sources of income and are not hopeful of obtaining employment at an early date, will the Minister have all cases of suspended payments of the unemployment benefit investigated by a senior officer?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am sure there must be an error in the information that has been supplied to Senator Benn. Unemployment benefits are not payable at the whim of an officer or of a department; there is a statutory entitlement to them. I cannot state the exact formula offhand, but my recollection is that if a person has been Unemployed for more than fourteen days and is unable to obtain employment, he has a statutory right to the unemployment benefit. I suggest it would be more appropriate for Senator Benn to write to the Minister, for Social Services and quote specific, cases.

Senator Benn:

– I do not get satisfaction, from the department.

Senator SPOONER:

– The fault might be yours. I had the privilege of administering the Department of Social Services for a while and I know that the officers of the department are meticulous in their courtesy and in the way they answer correspondence.

page 1162

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I direct the Minister’s attention to a statement published in a leading newspaper this morning, quoting the Prime Minister as disclosing, at a parliamentary dinner given in honour of the New Zealand Prime Minister last night, that there is a trend towards closer understanding between Australia and New Zealand, particularly in economic and defence policy matters. Can the Minister say whether the Prime Minister will be furnishing the Parliament with a report setting out in some detail the results of the talks between himself and the New Zealand Prime Minister during this visit to Australia?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The primary purpose of the visit of the New Zealand Prime Minister is to attend the Anzus Pact conference. I assume that at the conclusion of that conference a communique will be issued. I assume also that, having regard to the highly confidential nature of defence arrangements, the communique will not be very illuminating, because of the matters that are on the agenda. In regard to trade and our general relations with New Zealand, I do not think anybody would deny that our association is becoming increasingly closer as the years go on. If any specific trade matters were negotiated or discussed during this visit, I think events might show that the two Prime Ministers would make information about them available.

page 1163

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister a series of questions, pertinent to the one subject. Is the Minister aware that in the Professional Engineers’ Determination No. 19’ of 1961 the tribunal awarded a wage scale for base-grade engineers, and for experienced engineers - that is, those trained under departmental conditions, defined as experienced - and suggested that salaries other than base-grade salaries should be determined by consultation? Is ke aware also that the Public Service Board restricted the award to engineering graduates and members of the Institute of Engineers? Does he know that the Public Service Board, instead of consulting, arbitrarily fixed other rates? Does the Minister know that the board initiated a new classification to whittle down salaries, and that similar work does not attract similar salaries? Does he realize that, as a result of this miserable cheeseparing, the professional officers have filed a new application? Has the Government any idea of rendering economic justice to the people concerned and, if so, when?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– As Minister administering the Snowy Mountains authority, I know that recently an award of far-reaching consequences was made for professional engineers. As a result, there was a very substantial increase in the remuneration and status of engineers. Contrary to the view expressed by Senator Dittmer, I thought that that award applied principally to junior engineers, or to young graduates. I was further of’ the opinion that an award for the more senior positions was being considered. Senator Dittmer may be correct in saying that this is a matter for the Public Service Board, but with respect to the honorable senator, he cannot have it both ways at once. He cannot have an arbitration system and blame the Arbitration Court, and he cannot have a Public Service Board, with a wide field of authority and broad discretionary powers, and blame the Public Service Board. Of course, we cannot blame Senator Dittmer for blaming the Government, but by the same token, he should not blame me for trying to stop him from getting away with it.

page 1163

QUESTION

LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior explain the meaning of the war-time term “ lend lease “, which is now applied to a corporation that is carrying out many large building construction works in Canberra?

Senator WADE:
CP

– “Lend Lease” is an abbreviation of the name of the Lend Lease Corporation Limited which, I understand, is a public company incorporated in New South Wales. It has a paid-up capital of more than 7,000,000 5s. shares and is the parent company of a fairly large group of subsidiaries. The company is wholly controlled and, in the main, owned, by Australians. In the broadest sense, it is engaged in land development by providing facilities and accommodation of all types. I do not know whether that answers the question, but that is all the information I can give to the honorable senator.

page 1164

QUESTION

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether he noticed, in this morning’s Brisbane press, the following statement by Lord Mayor Jones: -

What an extraordinary situation exists. We have the people to do the sewerage job - contractors with machines available and a labour force at hand, but because of a fantastic financial arrangement we’re immobilized.

Was the Lord Mayor’s statement prompted by the fact that the Brisbane City Council cannot obtain Australian Loan Council approval to get on with the job? Is the Government prepared to look into this hiatus, with a view to overcoming the financial troubles of the Brisbane City Council and other local authorities, and allowing them to get the essential work done?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am sorry that I did not see the statement by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane to which Senator Brown has referred. It follows, of course, a line with which we are not unfamiliar. Those who want to borrow money are quite fre*quently critical of those who have money to lend. The Brisbane City Council is a very big local government or semi-government authority. I do not think we have been remiss in finding money for semigovernmental activities. My recollection is that at the last meeting of the Australian Loan Council we made special arrangements to provide money for local government works in order to pick up the slack in employment. Therefore, I cannot say why the Brisbane City Council has not been able to obtain funds.

page 1164

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. It has been reported that the Minister was a passenger on a Caravelle jet flight from Sydney to Canberra. Is he prepared to report to the Senate on the result of the flight, so far as the virtues and merits of this type of aircraft are concerned? Does he consider that the aircraft is suitable for Australian conditions? Would it be capable of operating on the Melbourne-Perth route?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I was not a passenger on the flight from Sydney to Canberra yesterday although as the Senate well knows I am not unfamiliar with this type of aircraft. I would hesitate to make an off the cuff assessment of the technical qualities of any aircraft. Of course, the reason for that is that most of the matters involved are of an extremely technical nature and require technical knowledge. What I will say about the Caravelle is that it is a very comfortable aircraft in which to travel. Indeed, from the time of its production some years ago I have never held any view other than that. As to whether the domestic airlines of Australia are favorably disposed towards the Caravelle in preference to other types of aircraft which are now. under consideration, I fear the honorable senator will have to possess himself in patience until the airlines themselves, advised by their experts, announce a decision in the matter. Mileage performances clearly show that the Caravelle Horizon, the model currently in Australia, could fly non-stop from Melbourne to Perth, but that in order to do so some payload penalty would have to be accepted.

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT. r

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the Premier of Tasmania urging amendments to the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry (Long Service Leave) Act which he stated are the cause of industrial- disputes on the Tasmanian waterfront, to the detriment in particular of the orcharding industry? If so, is the Government prepared to act on the suggestion of the Premier?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I do not know whether the Prime Minister has received a letter from the Premier of Tasmania. Lacking that necessary information, I cannot say whether the Commonwealth would be prepared to accede to the request.

page 1164

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR OIL. “I

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for National Development. It relates to a recent press announcement concerning the activity of certain French interests in the field of oil exploration in Australia. Can the Minister indicate the areas in which this new French oil concern is interested, and can he tell the Senate the significance of this new company’s participation in oil exploration in

Australia? Also, can he state whether the company is in any way connected with the French experts who found oil in the Sahara and who, last year, were invited to come to Australia to do certain work for the Australian Government in this field? Finally, can the Minister comment upon a recent statement concerning the work of the Bureau of Mineral Resources in the area known as the Canning Basin in which the opinion was expressed that as the result of a report from the French advisers it was now considered that the Canning Basin had the highest possibilities for oil exploration in Australia?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The rate of increase in the search for oil in Australia has been so marked over the last six months or so that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep in one’s recollection the activities of the various companies. Senator Vincent talks of a French group. I hesitate to express an opinion because I have in mind reading a recent report of a French group which was endeavouring to obtain an area which it could take to itself for an extensive search. Up to that stage it had been unsuccessful in getting an appropriate area. Another French group is undertaking professional work in Australia - seismic and geological surveys - and that group also, in my recollection, is operating in Western Australia. It is difficult to keep all the companies in mind. As I have said previously, we expect that this calendar year some 70 holes will be drilled in Australia. This means that a large number of new organizations will come into the field. As to the Canning Basin, as I have said previously, that area was given a very high priority by officers of my department, and that order of priority was confirmed by the team of French experts who came out here. Despite the success in Queensland, the professional view is that the prospects for oil in Western Australia rank very high indeed. Theoretically there is more chance of finding oil in Western Australia than in Queensland, but practically oil has been found only in Queensland.

page 1165

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator KENNELLY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Now that separate figures are issued for the various classifications of migrants coming to this country, can the Minister tell me the Government’s immigration target for the year 1961-62?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– At this stage I can give the honorable senator only the gain in settlers under this new system for the first nine months of the present financial year. It is a little over 54,000. If the honorable senator puts his question on the notice-paper I shall obtain any further figures that are available.

page 1165

QUESTION

MINING

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development: Is it a fact that with the present envisaged amendment to the income tax and Social services legislation, Australia will have the best income tax laws in respect of mining of any country in the world? If so, will the Minister give consideration to making a statement in the Senate setting out the advantages to people in Australia interested in investing in mining companies?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– It has been the deliberate policy of the Menzies Government since it has been in office to encourage mining activity in Australia. As a result there has been a series of amendments to the income tax legislation and increased expenditure by the Government on activities of the Bureau of Mineral Resources. I would not be quite certain that we have the best legislation of this kind in the world. I have seen exhaustive analyses made of the Canadian and Australian systems. Our income tax concessions available to those interested in mining are all part of Government policy to encourage mining. I would go to the length of saying that I doubt very much whether there are more attractive conditions available elsewhere. Senator Scott asked whether I would make a statement to the Senate about this matter. I shall give consideration to that request. There is, I think, a bill being introduced this afternoon in the Senate which sets out the latest proposals, and I would hope that we might get an interesting exchange of views during the course of the debate on that bill.

page 1165

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. I preface the question by saying that the permissible income of civilian widow pensioners has remained at £3 10s. a week since 1954. I realize fully the difficulties that may arise when questions such as this are asked, but I ask the Minister: When the Budget for 1962-63 is being framed, will he consider increasing the permissible income in this case beyond £3 10s. a week?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– When each Budget is being prepared careful consideration is given to all the provisions of the social services legislation. I assure the honorable senator this his suggestion will be brought to the notice of the Minister for Social Services.

page 1166

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Health whether doriden, a hypnotic sleeping drug, previously obtainable in Western Australia without a doctor’s prescription at a cost of about 6s. for twenty tablets, has now been placed on the pharmaceutical benefits list. Is the Minister aware that as a consequence a person requiring doriden tablets will need to pay for a consultation wilh a doctor in. order to obtain the necessary prescription, as well as to pay 5s. to a chemist for supplying the tablets? Can the Minister say whether doriden has any dangerous side-effects? Is it as effective as largactil, which has recently been removed from the free list?

Senator WADE:
CP

Senator DrakeBrockman sought information from me on this subject earlier, and I thought it was of sufficient public interest to warrant the facts being carefully collated. Doriden has been added to the list of pharmaceutical benefits. Few drugs are without side effects in some patients. Doriden is a hypnotic, that is, a drug that produces sleep, whereas largactil is a tranquillizer - a drug that produces a feeling of well-being and serenity. Therefore, direct comparison of the two drugs cannot be made. Largactil has not been removed from the list of pharmaceutical benefits, but its use has been restricted. Largactil may be prescribed as a benefit for (a) pensioners; (b) in-patients and out-patients of approved hospitals; and (c) patients receiving psychiatric maintenance treatment following discharge from an approved hospital. These latter patients may receive supplies of the drug largactil as outpatients of any approved hospital or, if living in an area remote from an approved hospital, the patient’s own doctor may prescribe the drug on the authority of the Commonwealth Director of Health in the relevant State.

The cost to a patient of 50 doriden tablets - the number available as a pharmaceutical benefit - obtained on a private prescription would be 15s. 6d. Under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the cost of those tablets is 13s. 8d., of which the patient pays only 5s.

page 1166

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator ARNOLD:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Is it a fact that the Civil Aviation authorities will not grant permits for Lockheed Electra aircraft to ]and at Canberra? If so, why is this prohibition necessary?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– It is a fact that Lockheed Electra aircraft are not permitted to land at Canberra airport fully loaded. Before giving the honorable senator a complete answer to his question I would like to obtain technical details. If he will place his question on the notice-paper, I will obtain the necessary information for him.

page 1166

QUESTION

AIRFARES

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, is, I suggest, appropriate at this time, when we are talking about closer liaison with New Zealand. Is the Minister aware that the air fare from Sydney to Wellington, in New Zealand, is significantly in excess of the air fare from Melbourne to Perth, although the distance between Melbourne and Perth is greater than that between Sydney and Wellington? What is the reason for this apparent anomaly?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– This question is not easy to answer with any particularity; but a number of general considerations come to my mind in regard to why international air fare structures are in excess of domestic air fare structures. The first considerations that I state are in respect of crewing. On some legs it would be necessary for an international aircraft to carry a crew greater in number than that of a domestic aircraft. The salaries paid to the crews of international aircraft, in” most instances, are greater than those paid to domestic air crews. The expenses of international air crews are greater than those of domestic aircrews. In many cases international flights involve overnight arrangements and expenses at points along the route.

In addition, instrumentation and navigational aids in an internationally operated aircraft are more expensive and more highly technical than those generally used on domestic routes. The cabin service on an international aircraft is, for obvious reasons, of a higher standard than that on domestic routes. Because of the length of legs on international routes, the seating configuration is more generous to the passenger; each passenger has more space allotted to him than on the domestic routes. Per head passenger administration costs on the ground are generally higher.

Senator Vincent:

– What about luggage?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I do not know how that would work out. Ground facilities required by an international aircraft are greater and more expensive than those required by a domestic aircraft. I also mention the storage of petrol, lubricants, spares and the like, involving the laying down of stores and spares, particularly, at points along an international route.

Senator Marriott:

– There are no landing points between Wellington and Sydney, are there?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I ask the honorable senator to wait a minute. It is impossible to isolate any one route in a domestic pattern and say that the fare for that route shall be this amount or that amount. If we did that, of course, we would have very high fares for some routes, which would be out of all proportion to the rest of the fare structure. Similarly, in the field of international air transport, the International Air Transport Association fare structure has to cover a series of routes covering different conditions and varying load factors. Generally speaking - this is most important - the load factor obtained by international aircraft, as the honorable senator will realize, is much lower than that obtained by domestic aircraft. Those reasons - of course there are others - provide the basis for higher air fares on international routes than on domestic routes.

page 1167

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen a report of a statement made by the Indian High Commissioner to Australia, when speaking in Hobart over the week-end, about the potential market for the Australian wool industry in India and the possibility of the export of Australian sheep for inter-breeding with the Indian native sheep? Will the Minister consider having a report made to the Senate on any investigations that have been made or will be made along the lines referred to by this distinguished Indian diplomat?

Senator WADE:
CP

– The question asked by Senator O’Byrne is interesting and opens up some prospects that have not been explored previously. I think the best service that I can render to him is to ask my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, to provide me with a statement on this matter, and then I will see that the honorable senator receives the benefit of my colleague’s thinking on it.

page 1167

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for National Development, relates to housing. Has the Minister seen the construction figures for houses and flats that were approved in the month of March? Does he consider that those figures indicate a real improvement in the rate of dwelling construction in Australia?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– There is a good deal of confused thinking about the relative importance of housing figures - commencements, approvals and completions. This point arose in a discussion, and I have written down a few paragraphs about these figures. The best measure of the rate of dwelling construction is the number of dwellings which are actually commenced. Figures published on 1st May gave an estimated total of 20,207 dwellings commenced in the March quarter of 1962. That rate of commencements represents an improvement on the level of constructions in the December quarter of 1961 and is equivalent to a level clearly in excess of a rate of 80,000 dwellings per annum.

According to the new figures for approvals -s- not commencements - the erection of 7,486 dwellings was approved in March 1962. Very many of those dwellings will be commenced during the June quarter. The March rate of approvals, which is more than IS per cent, greater than the February rate, gives us good grounds to expect that the recent improvement in the level of home-building activity will be continued during the June quarter.

page 1168

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been directed to recent statements in the newspapers on the danger from radio-active ash from bomb tests, as distinct from fall-out? Can the Minister give the Senate some information on this matter? What action is being taken to reduce or eliminate such danger?

Senator WADE:
CP

– I have not seen the report referred to by Senator Wedgwood. I point out to the Senate that the responsibility of the Department of Health, as far as radiation fall-out is concerned, is confined to the testing of the air samples that are taken. The Department of Supply accepts the responsibility for having the samples finally analysed and the results brought to the attention of the Prime Minister. I undertake to bring the matter raised by Senator Wedgwood to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Supply. Together we will provide the honorable senator with answers to the questions that she has asked.

page 1168

QUESTION

VIET NAM

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. I refer to the statement in to-day’s press about Australia supplying £3,000,000 aid to Asian countries. That aid is believed to be directed largely to South Viet Nam. I also refer to the supply of barbed wire, steel posts, corrugated iron and communications equipment. Is the Minister able to explain in any greater detail the use to which that equipment is to be put and why it has been sought? Is the Minister able to state whether Viet Nam has made a request for the supply of obsolescent .303 riflles and ammunition? If it has, have they been provided?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– The material referred to by the honorable senator - that is to say, such things as barbed wire, com munications equipment and air-raid sirens - is used to protect outlying villages from attacks by Communist guerrillas, which take place in an endeavour to murder the leaders of those villages and to intimidate the villagers themselves. The barbed wire is used to form a perimeter around the village, which is closed at night so that the noctural attacks are made more difficult. Communications equipment is needed so that a fairly isolated village that is suffering attacks can inform the nearest large town or the nearest source of aid that it is under attack and needs assistance. Sirens and things of that kind are for the same purpose. That is the reason for requiring material of that sort. I understand that some time ago there was a discussion as to whether obsolete .303 rifles were required for local village guards, but I gather that these were found by the Vietnamese to be not necessary.

page 1168

QUESTION

SPACE FLIGHT

Senator VINCENT:

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Air a question in relation to a recent press statement concerning the flight in America of the interceptor fighter, manually operated, jet projectile XI 5, which attained a height of some 40 miles, and the subsequent announcement by the pilot that he had, in his opinion, almost reached conditions in which orbital flight could have been achieved. Can the Minister comment upon the significance of this flight and upon the possibility of modification of such aircraft so that orbital flights could be achieved in the circumstances described by the American pilot?

Senator WADE:
CP

– I cannot speak with any authority on this subject. I did read of the achievement of an American pilot in reaching an altitude of some 48 miles in an XI 5 rocket-powered research vehicle. I understand that he reported that he believed his aircraft could have gone into orbit. I point out that the X1S is a manned rocket designed to withstand great stresses. For that and other reasons I cannot see any real prospect of a conventional fighting aircraft ever being modified to attain orbital flight.

page 1168

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. During the week-end, with other senators,

I journeyed to the Snowy Mountains scheme, and I was favorably impressed with everything that I saw. However, in a news broadcast this morning I did hear of a claim by the Premier of Tasmania, Mr. Reece, that the Tasmanian hydro-electric undertaking would - if I heard correctly - produce twice the amount of power of the Snowy Mountains scheme and at half the cost.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That was the report.

Senator McMANUS:

Senator O’Byrne confirms that that claim was made. Will the Minister comment on that claim, which appears to me to be a remarkable one?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I shall do my best. I doubt whether I can comment in terms sufficiently clear to make myself understood. When you compare the Tasmanian hydro-electric scheme with the Snowy Mountains scheme, you are not comparing like with like; you are comparing like with unlike. The Tasmanian scheme is designed to generate power for almost 24 hours a day. So, there is a big volume of power. The Snowy Mountains scheme is designed to run for only 20 per cent, or 25 per cent, of the time. If you are running a big capital installation only part-time, your costs must necessarily be greater than they would be if you were running equipment of the same capacity continuously. But, of course, if New South Wales and Victoria did not have the Snowy Mountains power to take the peak load, they would have to build their own power stations for that purpose. Those stations would be thermally operated and to run them for only one-fifth of the time - at breakfast and dinner time, when the demand for power is at its peak - would be very expensive. Therefore, the Snowy power is a most attractive proposition to the New South Wales and Victorian authorities, because it can be turned on and off in accordance with the demand. Another point is that Tasmania has the benefit of having had its power generation equipment provided in years gone by, when costs were lower than they are at present.

page 1169

QUESTION

TIMBER INDUSTRY

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Despite some small but hopeful signs of increased activity within the timber industry in Tasmania early in the year, these signs have not been apparent more recently and there is, in fact, a slight worsening of the situation at present. Is the Minister aware that the latest figures show a continuing increase in timber imports, which indicates that these timbers are apparently absorbing the bulk of any increase in demand? Also, is the Minister aware that the mills of a large timber-producing company in Tasmania will be closing down shortly, and that the employees will be dismissed, although desperate efforts are being made to prevent this? Does he know that quite a number of logging contractors have been given notice and are finding it virtually impossible to obtain alternative employment for their men and machines? Finally, can some move be made by the Department of Trade, or some other government instrumentality, to put sales promotion officers to the task of assisting the Tasmanian timber industry to organize a “ Build a timber house “ campaign and so achieve increased sales such as the wool industry, it is hoped, will achieve by its promotion campaign?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Diagnosis of these problems depends on matters of fact. I have not seen any recent information, but my recollection is that when the Department of Trade inquired some months ago into the decline in business in the timber industry, the conclusion that finally emerged was that it was a question not so much of imports as of a decline in the demand for timber and consequent surplus saw-milling capacity. That situation may have changed. It is some months since the last inquiry was made. I think that the fairest thing is to ask Senator O’Byrne to put the question on the notice-paper so that we may get uptodate facts about the position.

page 1169

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator WEDGWOOD:

– I ask the

Minister representing the Minister for Air: Is it a fact that the Air Board is to be asked to decide whether the Royal Australian Air Force Central Band may compete in an international festival of music in Holland later this year? In view of the importance of having Australian representation at all international levels, will the Minister ensure that the R.A.A.F. band is given the opportunity to compete in Holland?

Senator WADE:
CP

– I think all people who have listened to the Royal Australian Air Force band have an appreciation of its high quality. For my part, I think it is one of the finest bands in the world. I am not prepared to comment now on the suggestion that it should play in Holland, except to say that I think we would all be delighted if it did so, because it would be a great advertisement for Australia. I have no doubt that the bandsmen would acquit themselves with credit, even in world company. ] am not sufficiently well informed to be able to advise the honorable senator whether the Air Board is making a decision on this matter, or even whether such a decision has been called for. I shall find out what the position is and advise Senator Wedgwood accordingly.

page 1170

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

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

How many migrants, who entered Australia as such under our migration scheme, have left this country permanently during the last two years?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer: -

The new statistics released on 1st May, 1962, by the Commonwealth Statistician set out the “ settler “ component among permanent and longterm movement. These figures show that the number of “ former settlers “ departing permanently during 1960 was 5,551 and in 1961, 8,240. Former settlers include only those persons who, on departure from Australia, stated they had come to Australia intending to settle and had stayed for a period of twelve months or more. The Commonwealth Statistician has pointed out that on the basis of experience over the last three years the number of former settlers departing after a stay of less than a year would vary from 1,000 to 2,000 a year.

page 1170

QUESTION

REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL, HEIDELBERG

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

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

  1. What is the present bed capacity at the Heidelberg Repatriation General Hospital, Victoria?
  2. How many beds are at present vacant?
  3. What is the present staff position at the hospital?
  4. How many applications for admission for hospital treatment were rejected in the last twelve months?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answers: -

  1. As at 31st March, 1962, there were 790 beds available for occupancy at the Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg.
  2. Of these beds, 49 were vacant. u:W<
  3. As at 31st March, 1962, there were 1,167 full-time and 14 part-time staff employed at Heidelberg. j^-.
  4. During the year 1st April, 1961, to 31st March, 1962, two eligible patients were unable to gain admission to Heidelberg. In each case.ii; arrangements were made for the patients conn. cerned to be admitted immediately to a nondepartmental institution for treatment at departmental expense.

page 1170

QUESTION

BANKING

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Treasurer noticed the accounts for the last financial year recently published by Lombard (Australia) Limited, a group of companies operating very much in the way of banking institutions?
  2. Does the Banking Act require that any banking institution shall have a licence to operate although it carries on operations of an interstate character?
  3. Does this institution have such a licence; if - not, is section 92 of the Constitution the reason for it not having a licence?
  4. Is there any possible risk to investors if the operations of such an institution are contrary to the Banking Act and consequently illegal?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following information: -

  1. The Treasurer has noted a recent press reference to the trading results of Lombard (Australia) Limited for 1961.
  2. The honorable senator’s attention is drawn to.. sections 8 to 11 of the Banking Act 1959 which I need not quote in full. ^
  3. Lombard (Australia) Limited has not sought or been granted an authority under section 9 of,e the Banking Act or an exemption under section ll-ot of the act. t
  4. This is a hypothetical question hinging on a legal interpretation, and it would not be in accordance with established practice to express opinions in answers to such questions.

page 1170

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator BRANSON:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that, due to no fault of the returning officers but to defects of the storage equipment they were obliged to use, it would have been appallingly easy during the last federal elections to interfere with ballot-papers in the Stirling divisional office, particularly at night when the premises were unattended?
  2. In cases where one or two outstanding seats are in doubt and could decide the fate of a government, what security measures does the department take to guard against interference with the ballot-papers?
  3. If security measures have not been taken in the past, will the Minister see that they are taken in future?
Senator WADE:
CP

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

  1. I am not aware of the storage facilities at individual divisional offices, but divisional returning officers are required to store ballot-papers in locked and sealed ballot-boxes and to take special precautions to ensure their safe custody during periods when the scrutiny is adjourned.
  2. Arrangements are made for the police to keep a close watch on divisional offices during the night when premises are unattended. I would add that these arrangements were made in respect of Stirling divisional office at the recent elections.
  3. See 2 above.

page 1171

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. Is a civilian widow’s allowance for a dependent child, other than the youngest, reduced to £1 17s. 6d. a week as soon as that child reaches the age of sixteen years, irrespective of the stage the child may have reached in his or her education?
  2. Is it a fact that such an allowance to a widow makes it almost impossible for her children to continue their studies if they have the capacity and ability to do so?
  3. Will the Minister reconsider this question of widows’ allowances with a view to recommending improvements in the legislation in the next Budget, so that the children of widows, who probably need more opportunities for obtaining higher educational qualifications, have a comparatively favorable chance with children who have the good fortune of possessing a father who can assist them when choosing a career?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answers: - 1 and 2. No. The maximum general rate of a class A widow’s pension, £5 10s. a week, is increased by 15s. for each child in excess of one in the custody, care and control of the widow. This additional pension ceases when a child reaches sixteen years of age. When the youngest or only child in the custody, care and control of a widow reaches sixteen years of age, the class A widow’s pension may be continued for a further two years if the child is receiving full-time education at a school or university, provided the child is dependent on the widow and is not in employment.

  1. Any question of extending the conditions of eligibility, or increasing the rate of pension, for widow pensioners will be considered when social services are reviewed in connexion with the preparation of the Budget later on in the year.
Senator MARRIOTT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that an ex-serviceman’s war pension is not taxable?
  2. Why, on retirement at 60 or 65 years of age, if entitled to a service pension, is his war pension taken into account when the Department of Social Services receives an application for either an age or service pension?
Senator SPOONER:

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Yes.
  2. Proposals to exclude war pensions from income in the assessment of social service pensions have been examined in the past but successive governments have found them unacceptable. The main reason is that the granting of the concession could not be justified while at the same time similar concessions were refused to persons in receipt of superannuation pensions or ether forms of income including earnings. The Government’sviewis that the means test should have general application without discrimination in favour of particular groups. Age pensions are not payable to men under 65 years of age.

page 1171

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator McKENNA:
through Senator O’Byrne

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

  1. Is it a fact that conferences have been held between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and officials of the Waterside Workers Federation on the one hand and the Minister for Labour and National Service and his departmental officials on the other?
  2. Is it also a fact that the Minister has acknowledges that there are anomalies in the long service leave legislation affecting stevedoring operations?
  3. Does the Government propose to introduce legislation to correct the anomalies admitted by the Minister and the department; if so, will that legislation be introduced and dealt with during the current session of the Parliament?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following information: -

  1. Yes. 2 and 3. When the legislation was being discussed with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in mid 1961 I said that it could very well be that bearing in mind the complexities of this industry some anomalies in the legislation would be revealed. Since then I and my department have become aware of some points that need attention and the A.C.T.U. Waterside Workers Federation have drawn our attention to others which they feel need adjustment. I and my department have already had discussions with the A.C.T.U. Waterside Workers Federation about these and further discussions are scheduled for 9th May. It can be expected that the drafting of amendments to the legislation will take some little time.

page 1172

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Senator KENNELLY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. How many officers are on the diplomatic staff of the Department of External Affairs (a) in Australia, and (b) abroad?
  2. Of these officers, how many can proficiently speak, read, and write (a) Chinese, (b) Japanese, (c) one or more of the Indian group of languages, (d) Javanese, (e) Burmese; (f) Siamese, (g) Annamese, (h) Korean, (i) Malayan, “or (j) Tamil?
  3. Of these, how many are overseas in each case?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. The number of officers on the diplomatic staff of the Department of External Affairs is as follows: - (a) in Australia - 80 plus fifteen trainees; (b) abroad- 112. 2 and 3. Of these, the following speak, read and write proficiently: - (a) Chinese - eight, including four overseas; (b) Japanese - ten, including eight overseas; (c) (i) Hindustani - one (overseas), (ii) Bengali - one (overseas), and (iii) Urdu - one; (d) Javanese - nil (Note. - Javanese is a regional language). - The official language of Java - and of all the islands of Indonesia - is Indonesian. Eleven diplomatic officers are proficient in Indonesian, seven of whom are overseas; (e) Burmese - 1; (f) Siamese (Thai) - three (two overseas); (g) Annamese - nil; (h) Korean - nil; (i) Malayan - basically, Indonesian is similar to Malay and those officers shown in (d) as being proficient in Indonesian would have little difficulty with Malay; (j) Tamil- nil.

page 1172

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BRANSON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What is the cost of the new physics block at the Universityof Western Australia?
  2. What contributions were made towards the cost (a) by the Western Australian Government, and (b) by the Commonwealth Government?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The following answers are now supplied: -

  1. It is estimated that the cost of the new physics building in the University of Western Australia will be between £660,000 and £680,000.
  2. This building is still in the course of construction. The cost of the building will be shared on a £1 for £1 basis between the State and the Commonwealth.

page 1172

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator WADE:
CP

– On Wednesday last, Senator Kennelly asked the following question: -

  1. Has the Government imposed any conditions on the Australian Broadcasting Commission in granting it permission to belong to Intertel? If so, what are these conditions?
  2. Will the commission now make the film which it intended to make originally for Intertel and which was the cause of the difficulties which arose between the Government and the commission?

The Postmaster-General has now supplied me with the following information: -

  1. No. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has agreed to discuss with officers of the Department of External Affairs any subject on which the A.B.C. proposes to produce a film for Intertel. This will give the A.B.C. access to a further series of up-to-date information about the subjects chosen and will minimize the possibility of any embarrassment to the Australian Government in its international relations arising from any film produced by the A.B.C. for Intertel. The treatment of the subject and the responsibilities for any Intertel production it undertakes will rest with the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  2. Originally, the A.B.C. intended to produce a film in North America called “ Living witha Giant” - a study of United States-Canadian relations. However, this film has now been produced by another Intertel member. The A.B.C’s first contributions to Intertel are expected to be a film about Tahiti and the South Pacific and a second ‘film about Antarctica. Production of the Tahiti-South Pacific film should commence very soon.

page 1172

COAL LOADING WORKS AGREEMENT (QUEENSLAND) BILL 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to obtain the approval of Parliament to an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland providing for financial assistance to the State towards the cost of improved coal loading facilities at the port of Gladstone.

In November of last year, the Prime Minister announced that the Commonwealth had decided to provide financial assistance to help meet the cost of improvements to coal loading facilities at Gladstone, which have an important part to play in developing Australia’s coal export trade. Agreement has now been reached between the Commonwealth and the State on the conditions under which this assistance is to be provided, and the text of the agreement is set out in the schedule to the bill.

Gladstone is the port of shipment for coal from the large deposits in the Kianga and Moura coal-fields in central Queensland which are being developed to meet substantial export orders from Japan. The Kianga deposits have been traced continuously along the valley of the Dawson River from Baralaba in the north to the Cracow district in the south, a distance of some 85 miles. Open-cuts have been established at Kianga, where soft coking coal is obtained, and at Moura, 13 miles to the north, for hard coking coal. Reserves available for open-cutting are expected to be substantial, possibly of the order of from 60,000,000 to 120,000,000 tons. For the field as a whole, inferred reserves could be of the order of 1,000,000,000 tons, and initial development by open-cut methods might eventually be followed by large-scale underground mining.

The development of coal-mining in the lower Dawson valley could make a most important contribution to the development of the central Queensland region. In the early stages at least, the expansion of coalmining in this area depends substantially upon the growth of the export trade through Gladstone. To permit the export trade to expand, the existing coal-loading facilities at the port require enlarging and speeding up, so that large quantities of coal can be loaded quickly and economically. Harbour berths also need to be deepened to meet the needs of the larger bulk-loading vessels which are to be employed in the trade. Accordingly, the Gladstone Harbour Board has developed plans for the improvement of the harbour and loading facilities. In the first place, the harbour is being dredged to a depth of 32 feet, which will be adequate for carriers of up to 15,000 tons. This work is estimated to cost £50,000 and is being carried out by the Gladstone Harbour Board outside of the arrangements for the provision of Commonwealth assisance.

The coal-handling facilities at present consist of a 20,000-ton stockpile area and a conveyor loader with a capacity of 200 tons per hour. The loader has a fixed head which makes it necessary to warp vessels when changing from one hold to another. The Gladstone Harbour Board plans to install a travelling gantry loader and conveyor which will enable vessels to be loaded in the one fixed berthing position, and the rate of loading is to be raised to at least 500 tons per hour. The areas for stockpiling coal awaiting shipment are also to be enlarged to provide two areas, each with a capacity of 25,000 tons, one. for soft and one for hard coking coals. These works are estimated to cost £405,000, of which the Commonwealth is to provide up to £200,000.

The Commonwealth’s decision to assist this project followed a request from the Government of Queensland for financial assistance to ensure that these important works could be carried out as expeditiously as possible. The maintenance and development of ports is, of course, a matter that comes within the province of the States, and the Commonwealth has no intention of intruding into State rights and responsibilities in respect of port facilities. Nevertheless, in view of the prospect of substantial additional export earnings, the Commonwealth decided that the provision of special financial assistance was warranted to ensure early completion of the works.

As honorable senators will recall, an agreement for the provision of Commonwealth financial assistance towards the cost of improving coal export facilities at certain New South Wales ports was approved by Parliament last year. Good progress is now being made on the works designed to expand and safeguard our important coal export trade from New South Wales ports. The agreement with Queensland set out in the schedule to the bill now before the Senate is generally similar in purpose and design to the agreement with New South Wales. The agreement is subject to the approval of this Parliament and the Parliament of Queensland, and to the receipt of a certain minimum level of orders for export of coal through Gladstone. I am happy to say that the operating company, Thiess Peabody Coal Proprietary Limited, has already received firm orders for the export of 3,400,000 tons of coal over seven years, this being substantially in excess of the minimum quantity specified in clause 2 of the agreement. These orders have been estimated to provide more than £14,000,000 in overseas income when finally executed.

Under clause 3 of the agreement the Commonwealth undertakes to provide to the State up to £200,000. The remaining £205,000 is to be found by the Gladstone Harbour Board. Up to the maximum of £200,000, Commonwealth assistance, in accordance with clause 4, is to be on a £1 for £1 basis, and of this amount £100,000 is to be a grant and £100,000 is to be a loan repayable over fifteen years. The provision of assistance partly by grant and partly by loan was also a feature of the arrangement with New South Wales in respect of coal-loading facilities at ports in that State, which was designed to avoid the need for high loading charges to recoup the full amount of capital expenditure in the early stages of the development of the coal export trade.

The repayment arrangements for the amounts to be lent are contained in clause 6 of the agreement. They provide that repayments do not commence until December, 1963, by when the Queensland authorities expect the works to be substantially complete. Interest is to be paid on the repayable advances at the long-term bond rate applying when the advance is made.

The State has undertaken to ensure that the works are carried out in conformity with sound engineering and financial practices and as expeditiously as possible. The agreement also contains appropriate provisions relating to the provision of estimates, the supply of information, audit and the giving of notices, and the variation of the works described in the schedule to the agreement, if circumstances so require.

I should like to conclude by emphasizing that the assistance to be provided under the agreement with the Queensland Government is designed to foster an important export trade in its early formative years. It is expected that the improvement of these basic facilities will enable the trade to become established on a basis which will enable private enterprise to carry out its plans for the large-scale development of the coal export trade from central Queensland. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Benn) adjourned.

page 1174

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill now before honorable senators proposes amendment of the schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962. In the main, the tariff changes are based on recommendations arising out of some 35 Tariff Board reports which have already been tabled in this chamber. A comprehensive list of the changes involved is now being circulated to honorable senators.

The bill comprises nine schedules, each schedule having a different date of commencement. Of these the third and fourth schedules implement normal full-scale Tariff Board reports, the sixth and ninth schedules relate to both temporary and normal Tariff Board reports, while the remaining schedules, that is to say the first, second, fifth, seventh and eighth schedules, are confined to the imposition of temporary duties.

The third and fourth schedules provide for alteration in import duties on -

Bathing caps.

Ceramic tiles and tile blanks.

Lactose.

Musical instruments of the lute class.

Industrial nitrocellulose.

Onions in their natural state.

Plain safety pins.

Synthetic resins of the styrene and acrylic types.

Tire cord and cord tire fabrics, and

Vacuum cleaners and floor polishers.

The protective rates of duty on bathing caps were reduced and the goods are now subject to non-protective rates of free British preferential tariff and 71/2 per cent, ad valorem otherwise.

The rates on ceramic tiles and biscuit tile blanks when having a surface area of less than 10 square inches have been reduced, whilst those on the larger sizes in the main remain unchanged.

Lactose from New Zealand will no longer be subject to protective rates of duty following acceptance in principle by the Government of the recommendation of the Tariff Board. Lactose from other countries is subject to duties commensurate to Australia’s international commitments.

Turning next to musical instruments of the lute class, the protective duties have been removed following recommendation by the Tariff Board.

Increased duties at a basic rate of1s. 3d. per lb. are proposed for industrial nitrocellulose having a nitrogen content of less than 12.5 per cent. This involves an increased protection of about 6d. per lb. over that recommended by the deputy chairman for temporary duties in January, 1961.

Higher protective duties are provided for onions in their natural state by a sliding scale of duty dependent on the freeonboard price. Honorable senators will note that as the price of onions increase the duty payable decreases.

Plain safety pins are now removed from the protected list and become free of duty under the British preferential tariff.

Increased protection has been accorded to emulsions, dispersions, pastes and certain solids of synthetic resins of the styrene and acrylic types in any polymerized or copolymerized form. Those which are suitable for use in paints are subject to rates of 25 per cent. British preferential tariff and 40 per cent, most-favoured-nation tariff which are those rates already applying to polyvinyl paint resins with which they are interchangeable.

The existing levels of tariff protection on cotton tire cord and cord tire fabrics remains unchanged. On the other hand protection is increased on tire cord fabrics wholly of man-made fibres.

As a result of the board’s recommendation the existing tariff provisions covering vacuum cleaners, floor polishers and combination vacuum cleaner-floor polishers have been redrafted into a consolidated item. These goods are now dutiable at slightly lowerrates than previously levied.

The sixth and ninth schedules of the bill provide for alterations in duty on -

Ball point pens and pencils.

Bean seeds (Phaseolus vulgaris).

Bisphenol A: Epoxyresins.

Bolt cutters.

Chain and chains.

Continuous man-made fibre yarns.

Fish in airtight containers.

Floor coverings.

Gelatine and animal glues.

Glucose.

Polyethylene resins and moulding compounds.

Poultry.

Spirit levels.

Unmanufactured tobacco.

Work trucks, mechanically propelled.

In accordance with the Tariff Board’s recommendations, increased duties will apply to the cheaper types of ball point pens and pencils. A redraft of the tariff items relating to all pens and pencils has been made in the interests of improved administration, but except in respect of ball point pens and pencils the incidence of the existing duties has not been changed.

Increased protective duties are now imposed on bean seeds imported for purposes other than for cultivation. No change is proposed for seeds imported for cultivation.

One type of epoxy resin that is produced from bisphenol A and epichlorohydrin is being made in Australia and tariff protection is recommended for this product and for the bisphenol A from which it is made.

The protective duties on spirit levels and bolt cutters are removed and rates of free British preferential tariff and 7i per cent. Otherwise will now apply. The board found that marketing of these goods in Australia was not likely to be re-established on a commercial basis.

On the board’s recommendation the range of iron and steel chains subject to protective duties has been extended. However, with the exception of chains made in Australia, all such chains will be admitted at nonprotective rates under customs by-laws.

The Tariff Board’s report on continuous man-made fibre yarns has been received and accepted by the Government. The existing duties on viscose rayon tire yarns are being extended to all types of continuous man-made fibre high tenacity industrial yarns. In this regard there has been quite a swing to nylon yarn for the manufacture of tire cord and tire cord fabric for vehicle tires and this nylon yarn is now made in Australia. In addition, reduced duties will apply to monofil of a weight greater than 60 denier, that is to say, weighing 6.6 milligrams per metre or more.

Increased protection at the rate of 6d. per lb, has now been accorded to canned tuna and similar fish such as albacore and bonito.

With floor coverings some minor drafting amendments are introduced, but, in accordance with the Tariff Board’s recommendation, the duties are unchanged.

Increased duties generally have been imposed on gelatine and animal glues in accordance with the Tariff Board’s recommendation.

The Tariff Board has recommended increased protection for glucose of the types made in Australia, but has recommended that the duties on dextrose, a pure form of glucose, not made in Australia, revert to the level existing prior to the change in the tariff made on a temporary basis following the deputy chairman’s report.

The Tariff Board’s report on polyethylene recommended that additional duties be not imposed on high density polyethylene, but that increased duty be imposed on low and intermediate density polyethylene. The Government has implemented the Tariff Board’s recommendations.

In its report on poultry the board recommends no change in the overall level of existing duties under the customs tariff and the primage duties. In accordance with the Tariff Board’s suggestion, primage duty is being removed and incorporated in the customs tariff.

Changes are being made by the Government in respect of imported unmanufactured tobacco. Rates of duty are not changed but the wording of the tariff item is altered to require that a manufacturer entering imported unmanufactured tobacco at the concessional rates of duty shall hold a certificate issued by the Minister for the purposes of the tariff item. The issue of a certificate shall be conditional upon the manufacturer meeting certain requirements about usage and stock holding of Australiangrown tobacco leaf. The requirements are that the manufacturer use a prescribed percentage of Australian grown tobacco leaf in his manufactured tobacco products and that he hold stocks of Australian leaf at a level which will ensure that adequate quantities of matured Australian grown leaf are available to meet the percentage provisions.

Trucks such as fork-lift trucks, of the types used for loading, unloading, stacking and tiering of goods, are now accorded tariff protection irrespective of lifting capacities. Previously only work trucks with a lifting capacity of 10,000 lb. or less were subject to protective duties. Temporary amendments are proposed for automotive electric equipment, electric shavers, internal combustion engines not exceeding 10 brake horse-power, peanut oil and oil substitutes and weftless narrow fabrics of man-made fibres. Further temporary duties are provided for in the remaining schedules on styrene polymers and copolymers, penicillins and streptomycin, road wheels other than of the well base and drop centre rim type, taximeters and fibre glass textile materials.

I invite the attention of honorable senators to the summaries of tariff alterations which have just been distributed. The changes involved will be found set but in considerable detail showing, for example, the previous rates and those now proposed and the reasons for the’ changes. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1177

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 3) 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY (Tasmania- Minister for Customs and Excise [4.28]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is supplementary to the Customs Tariff (No. 2) Bill and proposes to enact certain tariff changes made on or after 5th April, 1962. The principal amendment relates to the Tariff Board’s recommendation in relation to nitrogenous fertilizers. In its report the board recommended a bounty in respect of locally-produced sulphate of ammonia, with other fertilizers to be free of duty under the British preferential tariff and other rates to be fixed at the lowest level consistent with Australia’s international obligations. The Government has accepted the board’s recommendation and the bill gives effect to the necessary tariff changes.

Also included in the bill are tariff amendments relating to electric capacitors, sometimes also referred to as electric condensers, consequent on a recommendation by a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board for temporary duties. These goods are currently under reference to the Tariff Board for full scale inquiry and report.

The remaining commodities referred to in the bill are synchronous electric clocks and parts therefor, which are subject to protective duties at the rates of 271/2 per cent. British preferential tariff and 371/2 per cent, most-favoured-nation tariff. These rates are, in the main, those recommended by a deputy chairman when temporary duties were imposed on these goods last June. The duties on other electric clocks revert to the duties applying before 14th June, 1961. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1177

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADA PREFERENCE) BILL 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The provisions of this bill are complementary to those in Customs Tariff (No. 2) Bill 1962. This bill provides for several drafting changes in the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-1961 following amendments of their counterparts in the customs tariff. I commend the bill to’ honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1177

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL (No. 2) 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes a number of amendments to the schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1962. This action is complementary to that being taken in Customs Tariff (No. 2) Bill 1962. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1177

CUSTOMS TARIFF (FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NY AS ALAND PREFERENCE) BILL 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY (Tasmania - Minister

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill proposes an amendment to the Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) 1960-1961 complementary to the amendment to the customs tariff’ proposed by Customs Tariff (No. 2) Bill 1962. The action is necessary to maintain existing preferences being extended to unmanufactured tobacco imported from the federation for use in the manufacture of cigarettes or tobacco. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 1178

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– -I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

By this bill it is proposed to effect a number of important changes in the income tax law. The principal amendment will give legislative effect to the Government’s decision to authorize an investment allowance for expenditure on new manufacturing plant. The allowance, which is one of the economic measures announced in the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) on the national economy, is designed to encourage greater investment in our manufacturing industries which, in turn, will ensure, both now and in the future, an increase in output and employment. In introducing the allowance the Government aims also to promote greater efficiency in manufacturing production with resulting lower costs that should assist our industries in gaining markets overseas as well as being of benefit to local consumers.

Before passing to a brief outline of the form the investment allowance will take, one further matter is worthy of mention. In a statement the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) made on 14th February, he gave some details of the allowance and invited representatives of industry to raise other matters of detail before this legislation was brought down. Many points of view have been placed before the Government and each has been carefully considered in the light of the broad policy underlying the allowance.

The allowance will be in the nature of an income tax deduction of 20 per cent, of the capital cost of new manufacturing plant and will apply over the whole broad range of the manufacturing industries. The deduction will be available to a manufacturer in the first year in which he uses the plant for the purpose of producing assessable income or installs it ready for use for that purpose and holds it in reserve. It will be a deduction additional to the normal depreciation allowances which will continue to be calculated by reference to the full cost of the plant.

Stated broadly, plant qualifying for the allowance will be new manufacturing plant delivered to a manufacturer’s premises on or after 7th February, 1962, that is, the date of the Prime Minister’s announcement that the allowance would be introduced. Complex plant constructed’ on the Manufacturer’s premises by the manufacturer himself or under a contract let to some other person is specially provided for in the bill. These categories of plant will qualify for the allowance if, in the first case, construction commenced, or, in the latter case, the contract for construction was let not earlier than 7th February, 1962. In certain circumstances, component parts of plant delivered to the manufacturing premises on or after that date for use by a manufacturer who is constructing plant on those premises may qualify for the allowance irrespective of the date on which construction of the complex was initiated.

The allowance will not be confined to plant used in the actual process of manufacturing but will extend to ancillary plant, the use of which is inseparably associated with manufacture. For example, plant used in the storage, within the manufacturing premises, of raw materials or unfinished or finished goods may qualify for the allowance. The deduction is, however; available only where the plant is to be used primarily, principally and directly in manufacturing or ancillary processes. It is also a prerequisite of the allowance that the plant be owned by the manufacturer.

Plant used in the concentration of metals, or in processes normally undertaken after a metal has been subjected to a concentration process, will qualify for the allowance if the cost of the plant is written off for taxation purposes over the estimated life of the mine or under the ordinary depreciation provisions of the income tax legislation.

Special provisions contained in the bill make it clear that plant used for such purposes as printing, saw-milling, meat and fish curing, frozen or chilled beef production and the canning of foodstuffs will be treated as manufacturing plant for the purposes of the proposed allowance. On the other hand, certain plant is specifically excluded from the deduction. Plant in this category includes motor vehicles of the kinds ordinarily used for the transport of persons or the delivery of goods and loose tools and hand tools. Plant acquired by a manufacturer in a second-hand or used condition will also not qualify for the allowance.

I turn now to mention a further provision in the bill which is a matter of particular satisfaction to me in connexion with my own portfolio and which, the Government believes, will be warmly applauded by persons leaving Australia. I refer to the proposed abolition of the system of tax clearances now operating in relation to persons going abroad. Honorable senators will observe that the proposal represents the adoption by the Government of the recommendation of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation on this subject.

The clearance provisions were originally designed as a means of protecting the revenue. In its present form the law provides for a person proposing to leave Australia to apply to the Commissioner of Taxation for a certificate that there is no objection to his departure from Australia. Penalties may be imposed on a ship or airline operator who permits a person to travel from Australia on his craft without first obtaining such a clearance certificate.

In 1959 a convention of the International Civil Aviation Organisation held in Rome recommended that contracting States should not require tax clearance certificates from tourists or other temporary visitors. As a contracting State, Australia has an obligation under the convention to fall in line with these internationally accepted standards. In the years since the clearance system was introduced in 1922, travel facilities have improved greatly. Faster and more comfortable travelling facilities are now available and have led to a considerable flow of tourists and other visitors to this country. In 1961, they brought in overseas funds in the region of £19,000,000. It seems clear that tourists show preference for those countries where travel formalities are least stringent and the removal of the clearance provisions will place Australia in this respect in a no less favorable position than other countries, most of which do not require visitors to obtain a tax clearance.

It may be that some loss of revenue will occur as a result of the proposed repeal of the clearance provisions. Relatively few overseas visitors, however, derive income from Australian sources whilst here and others are exempt from tax on any Australian income they derive. Australian residents travelling overseas who owe substantial amounts of tax usually have assets here which would satisfy their tax liability. Against any loss of revenue should be offset the savings in the increasing administrative costs now being incurred in the issue of clearance certificates. Apart from these reductions in official costs, savings will also be made by other sections of the community such as airways and shipping companies, travel agents and banks.

A further feature of the bill is a proposal designed to encourage investment of Australian capital in certain companies whose principal business is prospecting or mining in Australia or the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. The new provisions will apply to capital subscribed after 12th April of this year and up to 30th lune, 1964. The scheme of the present amendment is to entitle shareholders resident in Australia or the Territory of Papua and New Guinea to a deduction for moneys paid to such a company and applied towards the paid-up value of its shares. Those moneys will be deductible to the extent that the company specifies in a declaration lodged by it with the Commissioner of Taxation that they will be expended on its prospecting or mining activities. A consequence of making a declaration will be that the deductions to which the company would itself otherwise be entitled for capital expenditure on exploration and prospecting, mine development, plant or housing and welfare for employees will be reduced by the amounts specified in the declaration.

Because the existing income tax law contains provisions dealing with the deduction of capital subscribed to oil exploration companies and also confers an exemption from tax on income from mining for gold or uranium, the proposed deductions will not be available for capital to be employed in prospecting or mining for those minerals.

A fourth proposal to which I invite the attention of honorable senators deals with the special depreciation allowances available to primary producers. These allowances are at the rate of 20 per cent, per annum of the cost of certain assets. Plant used solely for agricultural, pastoral or fishing, including pearling, pursuits comes within the scope of the deduction if it is first used by the taxpayer or first installed ready for use before 1st July, 1962. Structural improvements situated on land used for agricultural or pastoral pursuits or which are used for pearling operations are also included if completed before 1st July, 1962, or are commenced not later than that date and are completed by 30th June, 1963. The bill gives effect to a Government decision to extend these provisions for a further five years.

The final amendment to which I would refer is the Government’s proposal that a deduction be allowed for gifts of £1 and upwards made to the Australian National Committee for the Freedom from Hunger Campaign. As honorable senators will know, this committee is undertaking a campaign to make known the extent of the hunger that exists in some countries and to raise funds for use in bringing to an end this most deplorable situation. By allowing the deduction proposed, the Commonwealth will be contributing to the success of the appeal. The deductions will be available for gifts made up to 30th June, 1963, and if the aims of the committee are achieved, the cost to revenue will be in the region of £250,000.

More detailed explanations of the technical aspects of the bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honorable senators and I do not consider it necessary for me, therefore, to elaborate further on the bill at this stage. I commend the measure to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1180

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 1) 1962

Bil] received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill will implement, for sales tax purposes, the Government’s decision to abolish the taxation clearance system in relation to persons departing from Australia. Provisions in the sales tax law concerning taxation clearance requirements are closely comparable with income tax provisions. In my second-reading speech on an income tax measure already before the Senate, I have outlined the reasons that prompted the Government to move for the abolition of the clearance system. It is, however, also necessary to repeal provisions of the laws relating to sales tax, pay-roll tax, woo] tax, tobacco charges and the stevedoring industry charge. This bill will repeal the sales tax provisions relating to the clearance system. Measures to repeal the clearance provisions in relation to the other taxes I have mentioned will shortly come before the Senate for consideration. I commend this bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1180

PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the tax clearance provisions of the pay-roll tax law. Reasons for the repeal have already been given in relation to income tax, and repetition is unnecessary. This bill is commended to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1181

WOOL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a further measure in the series of bills necessary to remove the taxation clearance requirements from a number of Commonwealth taxing statutes. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1181

TOBACCO CHARGES ASSESSMENT BILL 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Provisions relating tothe issue of clearances to persons proposing to leave Australia are contained in thepresent tobacco charges legislation. This bill, which I now commend to honorable senators, will repeal those provisions.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1181

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE ASSESSMENT BILL 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill completes the presentation of measures to abolish the system of taxation clearance certificates for persons departing from Australia. I commend it to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1181

WOOL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3rd May (vide page 1156), on motion by Senator Wade -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

Mr. Acting Deputy President, in the short time that I had available to me last Thursday night before the Senate adjourned, I commented on a few of the matters raised by Senator Kennelly.

I also said that I supported this legislation and that I was very pleased indeed that honorable senators opposite also supported it.

The bill provides for the renewal of authority to impose a levy of 10s. a bale on all shorn wool sold, the income so derived to be devoted to wool research and promotion in Australia and overseas. Last Thursday I outlined the background of this legislation and reached the point that although the legislation had been asked for by the two leading wool-growing organizations in this country, during the course of the debate the suggestion had been made that this request was not unanimous. I agree with that. I know that, as mentioned by Senator Cant, and I think, Senator KenneDy, the Farmers Union of Western Australia was against the continuation of the 10s. levy until such time as a reserve price scheme was implemented. I am very glad that Senator Cant was trying to put Western Australian views before the chamber, but I should like to point out to him that the motions that he read out were instructions to delegates from Western Australia to the half-yearly meeting of the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation. They were expressions of opinion by the Farmers Union to the federation, in regard to the continuation of the levy for another 12 months. However, the outcome was that the Western Australian delegates were outvoted and the policy adopted by the federation was to make a request, in conjunction with the Australian Wool Growers and Graziers Council, to the Government to continue the levy for a further twelve months at the rate prevailing at present.

I should like to say a few words about the views of the Western Australian growers. The question ot marketing has been in their minds for many years now. Although they believe in wool promotion to a very great degree, they believe that promotion on its own is not the be-all and end-all of selling our wool. They believe that something must be done about the existing marketing situation, in conjunction, of course, with promotion and research. They also believe that however much is put into wool promotion at present, it will not do anything to raise the price of wool in the auction room while we are selling wool on a system which allows the buyer to fix the price. I know that this Western Australian view is contrary to the popular belief, held by many people both inside and outside the wool industry, that increased wool promotion is necessary to maintain wool use against a threat of extinction from man-made fibres, but it is supported by a statement made recently in London by Mr. Vines, General Manager of the International Wool Secretariat, to the effect that 30 per cent, more wool will be needed in the next ten years to meet the demand. Here is a man who, in recent months only, has come into the wool trade and has become top man internationally in the wool industry. He has come to the view that there is a great demand for wool. In a comprehensive report on wool in Japan, issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, is a reference to the context of the ten-year plan for the Japanese economy. The report forecasts that it is likely that Japanese mills will be using about 400,000,000 lb. of wool annually by 1970, compared with only 270,000,000 lb. at present. There are two views from different parts of the world in regard to the likely demand for wool in about ten years. With that demand in view, the Farmers Union of Western Australia believes that something should be done to increase the price.

I turn to another statement by Mr. Vines on this matter. When questioned regarding the price of wool, he was in a more restrained mood, but he did say that he believed that wool could stand a higher price than synthetics because of its superior qualities. Therefore, I believe that those people, both in this chamber and in another place, who accuse members of the Farmers Union of Western Australia of being a mob of cranks are entirely wrong. Those growers have a view and I believe that they are entitled to it. Furthermore, I believe that they can - substantiate it.

I make those points in passing. Now I turn to another matter. The debate has covered a wide field. I do not want to traverse the ground covered by other speakers and I shall not’ do so, but I want to comment on a few points made by some of them. Senator O’Byrne opened the debate for the Opposition. He made one or two points with which I could not agree. ‘ First, he said that the wool industry had no plans for promotion and that there was no certainty of funds. I think that he was completely wrong in those two statements. The International Wool Secretariat was established in 1937, with a head office in London, and branches in various countries, including France,’ Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Italy, . Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, India, Japan and Canada. That list covers a fair part of the world and it contradicts Senator Cant’s argument that the secretariat was spending too much money in one part df the world, namely Japan, and not enough in other parts. There are branches in all those countries and the - money is being spent to promote the use of wool.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Have you a list showing how much was spent in each country?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I have not the figures, but they are available. 1 remind Senator O’Byrne that in 1960 - 1 think in November - the secretariat met and decided upon a number of changes in its work and also drew up plans for a huge expenditure in the next five years. Dealing with Senator O’Byrne’s statement that there is no certainty of funds, I want to say that even if this legislation is not passed, there is provision in the act that we passed last year for the rate of levy to revert to 5s. a bale. That would give the Wool Bureau an annual income of roughly £1,250,000.

Furthermore, the bureau has large funds on which it can draw. In 1960-61 it used for promotional purposes an amount of £275,000, taken from the huge sum which it receives in rentals from wool stores. Those stores were used during the war period and later were vested by this Government in the Wool Bureau. In the same year the bureau used £106,000 of the money it obtains by way of interest on its investments. It has invested the sum of £2,800,000 which was handed over to it by this Government from the unused portion of the funds collected from the growers by levies to meet the Australian wool industry’s contribution to the operational costs of the Joint Organization. So Senator O’Byrne will see that considerable amounts of money will be available to the Wool Bureau even if this legislation is not passed. However, the representatives of the industry came to the Government last year and said, “ We want the rate of the levy to be increased to 10s. a bale “, and this year they Have asked the Government to extend the period of operation of the levy at that rate from 30th June, 1962, to the end of June, 1963.

I believe the Australian Wool Bureau has done a very good job over the years. I pay tribute to the men who have given their time freely, travelling long distances and in many cases meeting out of their own pockets the cost involved in their being away from their properties. I know that the bureau has its critics. It has been criticized in relation te many phases of its operations, but I think a lot of the criticism has been unfair. The Wool Bureau is an organization established and financed by the wool-growers themselves to promote the use of wool, to create a demand for wool, but many people in Australia expect it to carry, not only the full burden of wool promotion activities in this country, but also the burden of a great proportion of the activities overseas. From the little knowledge that I have of the operations of the Wool Bureau, I believe that whenever it wants to carry out a campaign it approaches representatives of the industry, obtains their comments and listens to any criticisms they have to make of its pro- 1posals. Therefore, any one who criticizes the bureau is criticizing also the people who are in the industry - the men who should know best how to conduct such campaigns.

Only recently I heard criticism of the system that the bureau started to operate this year - the system of mix and match. Under this system, the spinners and the , knitters have agreed to prepare their pro- ducts in accordance with the same colour system. I believe that is a very good idea. , I think most women would agree with me. There is nothing more frustrating than to * buy a garment and then find that you can-‘ not buy something to match it later on. This year the bureau has called its colour system the bon-bon system. All the colours are in the bon-bon. From inquiries I have made, I believe this is proving very popular amongst our customers.

Another innovation, of which mention was made during the course of this debate, is the training of the salesmen and sales- . women in the shops. I think all of us have often had the experience of going into a , shop, asking for a woollen garment and . finding that the person serving us could not care less whether he sold us a woollen garment or one made of synthetic fibres. In many cases a salesman will say, “ We have not a woollen garment “, and will try to sell us something that contains 90 per cent, or 80 per cent, of a synthetic material. For some time the bureau has been conducting training courses for men and women who work in shops. At the end of a course, it gives them a badge which indicates that they are persons who have had this training and who know what they are talking about when they talk about woollen garments.

During the debate mention was made of 1 people going into shops and being unable to obtain woollen garments. I do not think that the blame for this can be laid at the door of the Australian Wool Bureau, although perhaps it could have pressed the matter much harder than it has done. The non-crease and siroset processes have been mentioned. The laboratories at Geelong study these matters. On discovering a process which they believe will be useful in the processing of wool, they make an announcement of the discovery to the trade. The formula is available to the trade, provided that firms will abide by it. I think that in many cases the blame for the nonavailability of woollen garments in shops can be laid at the door of the manufacturers themselves, because they have not taken the opportunity to make full use of the results of the experiments that have been carried out by the Geelong laboratories.

I want to turn to another subject that has been mentioned - the preparation of the Australian wool clip. For some time past considerable space has been devoted by the press to criticism of the preparation of the Australian wool clip. 1 do not know where a lot of the criticism comes from, but it is nothing new. While I have been engaged in the wool industry I have heard from time to time criticism of the types of wool coming from Australia. I think all honorable senators remember the criticism that arose concerning the use of tar brands, as they were called. That criticism continued for years. The Australian Wool Bureau made films showing cloth as it came from the processing mills, with black blobs in the middle. It was said that the blobs were caused by tar brands in the wool when it was sold.

I do not doubt that a considerable quantity of wool and cloth was wasted because of tar brands, but let me recount an experience we had in Western Australia when this controversy was at its height. The Farmers Union of Western Australia approached the government of the day and asked it to prohibit the use of black branding fluid in Western Australia, in an endeavour to eliminate tar brands. Legislation was passed by the State Parliament. A year or two later I saw in the press a statement to the effect that the Australian wool clip generally had improved so far as tar brands were concerned. Therefore, it seemed to me that Western Australia had been the culprit in that respect. Yet, when we consider the legislation dealing with branding in the eastern States, we find that wool-growers in some of those States do not have to brand at all. Therefore, there is no restriction on the kind of fluid that may be used. If honorable senators go to sale yards in the eastern States they will see sheep branded on the shoulders, on the head and on the rump, with paint, not just tar. Apparently, the complaint about tar brands originated with the wool-buyers.

Senator Dittmer:

– The C.S.I.R.O. has devised a branding material that does not affect the wool adversely, has it not?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes, I know, but every State is not compelled to use it.

I come now to the old complaint about doggy wool. Wool prices reached phenomenal heights in 1951. At that time, buyers sought wool of all descriptions. The stronger wools brought fantastic prices. In fact, the strong wools brought much better prices, relatively, than our fine merino wools. Is it any wonder that the average grower, who is trying to get the best economic value from his property, grows wool of that kind? I believe that the complaint in this respect can be traced to the buyers. If they wish to get over this difficulty, let them give a better premium for the finer types of wool. At the present time, there is criticism of the method of classing the clips. I cannot quite agree with the criticism, although I must admit, Sir, that there is always room for improvement in whatever activity you undertake. If we look at the bigger wool clips, we find that in most cases, they are classed by professional men who learned the trade in their early youth and have been at it for years. That is true of wool-growers down to the middle group of growers. I am not a big wool-grower. When I went to have a look at my wool in the stores and asked the brokers for criticism of the way in which the clip had been classed, they said there was nothing wrong with it. I am not the only grower who has been told that story. The brokers say that they are always prepared to tell a grower when his clip is not well classed.

Some people blame the small growers for the bad classing, but in most cases, if a man who has only about half a dozen bales of wool is not sure of the way he should class his wool and feels that he can not do it well enough, he sends it to the brokers and has it classed in bulk. That being so, where does the criticism come in? There is only one feature of the matter about which I have criticism to make, and that relates to the classing of skirtings. In this case the trouble lies with careless buying by buyers of wool rather than with bad classing. I say that from experience. On many occasions on my farm the pieces have been classed into two categories - the best pieces and the second-best pieces. We have sent them down to the brokers, and at sale after sale there has been only a halfpenny difference in price. I ask honorable senators whether they think it likely that a grower would be prepared to have a man picking pieces, day in and day out, for a difference of a halfpenny per lb. in the price. Until such time as wool-buyers are prepared to pay a premium on pieces, I cannot see that any alteration will be made in this aspect of the wool industry, the aspect which, I believe, is causing most criticism.

What are the growers doing to solve this problem? Because of criticism, the Wool Bureau recently considered the matter. Representatives of all sections of the industry were called into conference. The matter was discussed, and a committee to examine methods of preparation of the wool clip was appointed. That committee consists of representatives of the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, the Australian Wool Growers and Graziers Council, the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers, the Association of Independent Central Classing Houses, an organization which functions in the eastern States of the Commonwealth, the Australian Council of Woolbuyers, the Textile Manufacturers Association, and the Woolclassers Association of Australia. I hope that something will be done, as a result of suggestions made by that committee, to improve the wool classing position, if it is as unsatisfactory as some people think it is at the moment. Like many others, however, I am of the opinion that people who are interviewed on their arrival in Australia and are asked- questions about the wool industry are not always asked the right questions. I remind honorable senators that many of the people who come to this country have an axe to grind so far as the wool industry is concerned. Too often we see statements published on the front pages of the newspapers which give a wrong impression of the industry.

I am very happy to support this bill, because I believe that everything possible has to be done to ensure that the wool industry, on which every man, woman and child in Australia is so dependent, goes forward.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- The purpose of this bill is to permit continuation of the payment of a levy of 10s. a bale on wool. Having read the bill and listened to the second-reading speech of the Minister for Health (Senator Wade), I recalled a story that I once read in “ Pickwick Papers “, concerning a meeting of the Pickwick Club. A motion was brought forward to allow Mr. Pickwick to pay the whole of the accounts relating to a certain matter. When the motion was put to the meeting it was carried with loud acclamation and great enthusiasm. I have no objection at all to this bill, Mr. President, because on my reading of it, the levy is to come from the pockets of the wool-growers of the Commonwealth. It is their money that will have to be paid. Senator DrakeBrockman outlined certain things which the different organizations closely associated with the wool industry in the Commonwealth over a number of years proposed to do. I would not object to anything that they proposed to do with their own money. Wool-growers have their own representatives on these associations and the executive positions are elective. The growers have elected men to undertake certain tasks and they must trust these men to do the right thing.

Whilst listening to the debate I wondered to myself who would benefit most from this legislation. Will it not be the woolgrowers who will gain, and if so how will they gain? I remember very well speaking in this chamber when high-grade fleece was selling for more than £1 a pound. There was no question then about bringing- down legislation to impose a levy to promote the sale of wool. Although this measure is known as a wool promotion bill, its purpose is to promote the sale of greasy wool and not of processed wool. Clearly, the wool-growers stand to gain most from these proposals. They will not make money directly from the payment of the levy. They will be unable to write into their cost structures the amount of the levies paid, but they will recoup themselves if the result of the levy is that greater quantities of wool are sold. I feel sure that intelligent wool-growers understand this position, particularly if they review the entire wool situation at the present time. When wool-growers understand clearly the impact of man-made fibres in the manufacture of wearing apparel and other goods used in homes, they must realize that the demand for wool is gradually decreasing. For the promotion scheme to be successful, a greater demand for wool must be created, and 1 am certain that that is the objective of the various associations charged with looking after the business affairs of woolgrowers. Unless a greater demand for wool is created, it seems to me that their actions in sponsoring a levy will fail.

I have given this matter some consideration whilst listening to other speakers in this debate. Supposing some benefit is gained from the payment of the levy; how long will that benefit last? After the last war, the price of wool soared to undreamt of heights. Fleeces of fine Merino wool brought more than £1 a pound, and that state of affairs continued for quite some time. When one examines why that situation existed one finds that during the period of the war production of non-military fabrics was at a very low ebb in the Commonwealth of Australia and in other countries. Consequently, after the war there was a worldwide demand for wool to be used in the manufacture of furnishing fabrics, wearing apparel and so forth. Overseas textile companies had exhausted their supplies of wool and had to replenish stocks. As a result, we witnessed one of the greatest demands for Australian wool the Commonwealth has ever experienced.

Since that period the demand for wool has gradually fallen and so has the price. Some years ago, I spoke upon a somewhat similar bill to the one being debated at present and I prophesied then that the price of wool would fall and would settle at a level between Ss. and 6s. a pound. My prediction has been proved to be fairly accurate, but I am hopeful that the present price will be maintained. Nevertheless, there is a constant danger to the price level of wool. It could drop even further and bring chaos to the entire woollen industry. Those associated in an official capacity with organizations functioning within the woollen industry are aware of this possibility.

I remember examining shirting material consisting of 60 per cent. Egyptian cotton and 40 per cent, nylon. In fact I acquired a couple of shirts made from this material and wore them for a number of years. They were easily washed, and I obtained remarkable service from” them. They were of light weight - as light or even lighter than silk. I feel that I should point out that I am a person who likes to use as much wool as possible. I wear woollen suits in Queensland throughout the whole of the year, even on election campaigns which take me up the hot northern coast. I can do this because textile manufacturers have found ways of manufacturing wool into light-weight fabrics suitable for tropical wear. Although the suit I am wearing at the present time has somewhat the appearance of a sugar bag, I can assure honorable senators that it is made of the finest merino wool. It is not shoddy or made of jute. I mention that only in passing and as evidence that woollen materials can be1 worn in any part of the Commonwealth.

I am aware that climate has a great deal to do with the wearing of woollen apparel, and I am certain that woolgrowers are conscious of this fact. For instance, if we had a temperate climate all over the Commonwealth, the demand for wool would be greater than it is. Also, if certain Asiatic countries enjoyed a colder climate than they do at present, there would be a greater demand for wool from them.

The wool-growers have agreed to the payment of the levy that is to be imposed by this legislation. The measure will give lawful effect to the levy and will provide the means by which the money can be collected. The Minister told us in his secondreading speech that approximately £3,100,000 was spent last year in promoting the sale of wool. I now propose to touch on an aspect that is perhaps a fetish of mine. I have always held that woolgrowers’ organizations should have been more progressive 60 or 70 years ago or even earlier when although we were able to produce the finest merino wool in the world, we had no alternative but to sell it for treatment and manufacture overseas. Things have been done wrong from the very beginning. A move should have been made in those days to introduce textile machinery into the Commonwealth so that we could manufacture textile goods and export them. We could have given overseas countries a choice of materials, colours and other things. We could have recruited the technical assistance necessary to achieve such a result. If we had done that we would have the whole market of the world in our hands, but at the present time we are in a very weak position.

Wool-growers sell their wool on the open market. They do not know what they will get for their product from week to week. I have looked at sales in only a cursory way but it certainly would not satisfy me to find a group of wool-buyers going to a sale to bid for a certain quantity of wool. What is wrong with them having a brief caucus meeting before the sale and making their allocations and fixing the price? It would be the easiest thing in the world for them to do that and they could do it as honest men while the victim is the innocent woolgrower who is out tending his flocks and doing the many chores that have to be done to produce his product.

After the sale ships take greasy wool away to be manufactured into textiles and we have the spectacle of manufactured textiles being returned to Australia for sale to the public. I know most of the textile factories in the Commonwealth, where they operate and the class of goods they manufacture. Few of them are in a healthy financial condition at the present time. Some are unable to pay even a meagre dividend. Their £1 soares are being offered on the share market at a price as low as 7s. or 8s. This indicates that those engaged in the textile industry manufacturing woollen goods are not finding things fine and dandy. We think the price of blankets is high because we are still inclined to think back to the pre-war years when you could buy high-grade blankets at £4 or £5 a pair. To-day is a different story altogether. While I am dealing with that matter let me say that over the years a large quantity of wool has been used in the manufacture of blankets for those countries which have customarily used Australian* woo). Now we find- those countries have other techniques. They have air-conditioning, and people sleep in beds in their hotels with only a light coverlet over them at night, instead of using, as we do at the Kurrajong and some other hotels in Canberra, three or four blankets, and then feeling slightly cold. Things are changing. We live in a world of change.

Senator Maher:

– For the worst, in that respect.

Senator BENN:

– Of course, we cannot do anything about that these days because it is so easy to become very old fashioned in a week. I sincerely hope that the wool industry will go on to greater prosperity because of those who gain a livelihood from it. A number of workers, growers and others are engaged in the industry doing their best to promote a high-quality product.

The levy may have to be increased. I think nearly every wool-grower is conscious that wool prices could easily toboggan down. If that situation does eventuate the growers will be required to pay more pending a move to obtain an increase in price. What can be achieved by mixing wool with some man-made fibre? I do not know whether that has been fully explored - mixing a percentage of nylon with wool so that shirts can be made.

Senator Kennelly:

– What do you want to mix them for?

Senator BENN:

– You have asked me a question so I will give you a reply. You want to do that to promote the sale of wool.

Senator Kennelly:

– We do not want any of these synthetics in at all.

Senator BENN:

– If you do not have synthetics in your woollen shirts it might mean that you will not have woollen shirts.

Senator Kennelly:

– Why?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKellar).- Order!

Senator BENN:

– I do not mind questions. I claim to know much more about this than Senator Kennelly would know if he lived to be a thousand. He was not here when I mentioned that I had an opportunity of examining shirts which contained 60 per cent. Egyptian cotton and 40 per cent, nylon. I outlined the service that those’ shirts gave. They were beautiful shirts and by mixing cotton with nylon the Egyptians were able to dispose of their cotton. My point is that if it is possible to mix nylon with wool you will be able to manufacture a shirt which will command respect and will find a sale. At the present time very little wool is being used in the manufacture of shirts.

Senator Kennelly:

– What?

Senator BENN:

– I say that positively. You have probably not worn a woollen shirt, or even a woollen night-shirt, in the State of Victoria.

Senator Wood:

– Woollen shirts are being made.

Senator Kennelly:

– Of course, they are. Senator Benn might know a lot about sugar, but he knows nothing about wool.

Senator BENN:

Senator Mattner is not in the chamber at present. I noticed that the other day he asked an honorable senator on this side if he knew what was the meaning of a fifty-six. When Senator Kennelly speaks on this measure he can tell me the meaning of the term sixty.

Senator Kennelly:

– I have already spoken. You should have asked me that question earlier.

Senator BENN:

– Apparently that is why you are engaging in this ignorant chit-chat at the present time. You will not be required to make any explanation.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Can you tell me how many yards of fifty-six wool there are in a hank?

Senator BENN:

– Those in the wool industry have that knowledge. I cannot give you that information while I am making this speech, but I will give it to you outside the chamber afterwards, if necessary.

Senator Maher:

– There seems to be a lot of bull’s wool about to-day.

Senator BENN:

– There always is when Senator Maher is sitting about. As I pointed out a while ago it is the woolgrowers’ money that will have to pay the levy.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– in reply- at the outset I take the opportunity to remind the Senate sud the wool industry itself that the sup port received by this measure in the Parliament is further proof, if proof were necessary, that when the leaders of the industry speak with one voice they speak with a powerful and impelling voice and merit the support of Government and Opposition alike. I hope that those people who are endeavouring to make their best contribution to this great industry will take note of the fact that the Senate and the Parliament generally are prepared to act without delay when a well-founded, unanimous request in the best interests of the industry is placed before them.

It is appropriate to recall that while this measure was being debated and accepted by Government and Opposition senators, the International Wool Secretariat, at its annual meeting in Melbourne, was drawing up its budget for 1962-63. The significance of that is that this Parliament has indicated to the other two great wool-producing countries - New Zealand and South Africa - that Australia is vitally interested in this great industry. We have shown that we are prepared to take whatever action the growers think is necessary to encourage and develop this great industry.

This bill enjoys the support of the Opposition, so my remarks at this stage will be limited to replying to constructive criticisms and to emphasizing some of what I consider to be the more valuable contributions, in the interests of the industry, made in the course of the debate. First, I can tell honorable senators that 70 copies of the report of the Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry have been made available for their use. Copies may be obtained from the Clerk of the Papers. Copies of the report are available also to other interested persons at a charge of 7s. each, post free. There was some suggestion during the debate that copies of the report had not been freely made available. The report is most voluminous. The first few copies were roneoed copies, and there was a limit to the numbers that could be made available. However, I reiterate that the report is now available to honorable senators and, at a cost of 7s., post free, to those people in the industry who would like a copy.

Senator O’Byrne, who led for the Opposition, made a constructive speech. He expressed concern because the levy was to operate for a period of twelve months only.

He contended - with some justification, I believe - that the best interests of the industry would be served if this legislation were on a long-term basis. However, I hope to prove to him in the few minutes at my disposal that a new era is dawning as far as promotion is concerned. I take the Senate back to 1960, when the International Wool Secretariat was reconstituted. On that occasion the membership of the governing board of the secretariat was increased to thirteen members - seven from Australia and three each from South Africa and New Zealand. Australia, therefore, has a majority representation on the board. I do not claim that that majority is the salvation of the International Wool Secretariat, but I remind the Senate that the composition of the reconstituted governing board indicates an awareness of the contribution that Australia is making to promotion.

The greatest strength emanating from the reconstituted board is the fact that from now on all decisions, with one exception, may be taken by a simple majority. The exception is that decisions relating to the financial contributions that each country shall make to the secretariat must be unanimous. Nobody can quarrel with that provision, because who would suggest that a country with a majority representation on the board of the secretariat should lay down a hard and fast undertaking as to what some other country should contribute? However, on all other matters decisions may be taken on a simple majority. That in itself indicates that the International Wool Secretariat is aware of the great problems that confront it. Let me put it this way: Could you imagine local government authorities being obliged to have all their decisions made unanimously before they could take any action necessary to the fulfilment of their duties? Could you imagine a board of directors being tied to the extent that it could not make any decisions in the interests of its company unless those decisions were unanimous? So I believe that this factor indicates that the International Wool Secretariat is alive to its responsibilities. It is now in a position to make decisions without having its hands tied by a lack of unanimity.

It is interesting to note that the New Zealand growers recently increased their levy from 5s. to 7s. 6d. a bale, with an equal contribution coming from the New Zealand Wool Commission, making a levy equivalent to 18s. 9d. a bale in Australian currency. Likewise, the South African growers have agreed to pay a levy equal to 12s. 6d. a bale in Australian currency. The significant point as far as levies are concerned is that South Africa and New Zealand have announced that they will be prepared to consider increasing their levies even further if Australia should agree to do likewise. That, again, is an indication that not only the International Wool Secretariat but also the growers and the wool boards of New Zealand and South Africa realize that here is a field that they must explore. They realize that they must press on vigorously with promotion. That, I believe, shows that at last the secretariat is engaging in some long-term thinking and planning.

Senator Cant referred to a decision taken by the Farmers Union of Western Australia prior to the conference of the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation that was held in Melbourne in April last. I understood him to claim that the Farmers Union of Western Australia would be opposed to increasing the levy until such time as a marketing system was introduced. I remind the Senate that this legislation is directed wholly and solely towards promotion. I know that it may be argued that in order to promote wool you must improve your clip, improve your marketing methods and do many other things. I do not argue against that, but what I do say is that the Farmers Union of Western Australia is affiliated with the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, which, on 5th April, decided, by a majority decision, that it would increase promotion as from that time.

Even Senator Cant, when he was stating the case for the Western Australian growers, said that promotion must go on. He said that they agreed that promotion must go on. The question I ask is: When does it go on? Does it go on from 1st July as it will under this legislation, or from some distant time which a section of the industry thinks is appropriate? The federation, which agreed to support increased promotion, was realistic enough to know that, having set the wheels in motion for an increased promotion campaign, it would . have been fatal to the industry to say, “ We will shelve this matter until we have settled other issues with which we are concerned “. I commend the federation for being brave enough, even while some of its affiliated bodies dissented, to say, “ This is a matter that brooks no delay and we are prepared to go on with it now “. Senator Cant suggested that the Western Australian growers might challenge the validity of the levy. Let me say this to my Western Australian friends: No one can quarrel with or challenge their right to test the validity of any legislation. God help this country if we ever move away from that position. But I hope that the Western Australian growers, in the interests of the industry, will have second thoughts on that matter. To-day, efforts to make promotion really work are being made on a very wide scale, and nothing will make it work more effectively than the people who have an interest in the industry getting behind it and making it effective.

I was also interested in a comment that Senator Cant made about promotion in Japan, China and India. He referred to a recent wool auction sale, to use his words, at which, according to his contention, the Japanese walked out and there was a fall in price of 2i per cent. It is true that there was a fall of 2i per cent, in wool prices; but I do not know how one could say that the Japanese walked out of that sale when they were the principal buyers at it. I refer to that matter only to take me to the next point I want to make. Senator Cant said that he believes it is not wise to have all your eggs in one basket He means that if the time ever arrived when one nation was dominating the purchase of the Australian wool clip and that nation suddenly decided to forsake the market, the industry would be in difficulties. That is perfectly true.

I believe that the obligation of the International Wool Secretariat is to promote, in the first instance, our established markets which have been of great assistance to the industry right down the years. If that is done, our promotion and selling will be on a sound foundation. If great caution is not exercised when promoting wool ia new and powerful countries, a walk-out could be disastrous to the industry.

Those people who, with good intent, advocate that we should do our utmost to explore the possibilities of increased wool consumption in red China - just to quote one Communist country - must always bear in mind that if that is taken to the ultimate and that country becomes the largest purchaser of our wool clip it might well be in a position, at any time that suits its policy, to vacate our market. Then we would be in great trouble. I want to issue this note of warning in that connexion: People who advocate tapping the potential of that vast country must always remember that if that policy is successfully pursued to the ultimate it could finally react against our wool industry. So, I come back to where I started: I believe that the International Wool Secretariat should concentrate on our established markets. It should endeavour to gain new markets in order to create competition. It should always plan its activities to make it possible for as many competing nations as possible to come into our markets.

Senator Wardlaw made some very interesting comments about the promotion of blends. I would like to have heard more on this very interesting subject. The International Wool Secretariat has been criticized for its policy of promoting only pure woollen articles. It has been argued with some justification that articles containing a mixture of wool and synthetics have found general acceptance with the buying public and are here to stay. It is untrue to say that the secretariat has not reviewed its policy from time to time. Up to the present it has come down on the side of promoting pure woollen articles. I think the reasoning it offers is valid and logical. The secretariat says that it and the Australian Wool Bureau are financed by wool-growers’ funds; so how can it suggest to a wool-grower that he make a contribution to promote any article other than wool. It is true that that is not a far-sighted policy. But it can be argued logically and with justification that, if a wool-grower is contributing funds for promotion, those funds should be spent entirely on the promotion of woollen articles.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You should never give your opponents any publicity, either politically or commercially.

Senator WADE:

– That is a very good point, which I was about to make. The advertising of any commodity is based on stressing the superiority of that commodity. I think that is the point the honorable senator wanted to make, and it is very true. If we say that our woollen garments or woollen articles are made from the best fibre that can be produced, bow can we say, “ Let us have a blend and get the perfect article”? If we claim, in our publicity, that the woollen garment is the ideal, it is rather facetious to argue that we should have a blend and advertise that as the perfect article.

Even if that policy were changed to permit the promotion of garments containing a blend of synthetics and wool, who would say what was the ideal blend? The commercial interests in the synthetics field might say that a blend of 40 per cent, wool and 60 per cent, synthetics is the ideal. They have a vested interest in achieving a blend with a percentage of synthetics that suits their requirements. I believe that the time is coming when the wool industry might well endeavour to get an independent authority to do some really worthwhile research into garments containing a blend of wool and synthetics. The only way for us to ascertain the ideal blend for the garments we wear is for such an independent authority, after exhaustive tests, to decide that a certain percentage of wool and a certain percentage of synthetic material makes an ideal sock and another blend makes an ideal jumper. Until such time as that research has been done and those conclusions have been reached, the International Wool Secretariat is on very safe ground when it contends that its responsibility is to promote the sale of pure woollen articles.

I believe that Senator McKellar summed up the situation when he said that the problem is not to sell wool but to sell it at a price that is profitable to the grower. One honorable senator argued that there was no need for promotion because we could sell all the wool that we grew. It is true that we sell it all but at what price? Another honorable senator, citing superphosphate, suggested that subsidies were the answer to the problem. They would help, but until we increase the demand for our wool, we have we have not solved the basic problem. All the subsidies in the world could be made available but unless the de mand were there when the wool was auctioned the subsidies would not achieve the desired objective.

Senator Sheehan:

– There is no carryover.

Senator WADE:

– That is so, but I am sure the honorable senator would sooner be the seller at an auction sale where two people wanted the one article than at an auction sale where there was only one buyer, although in both instances the article would be sold. When there are two or more people at an auction eager to buy, we get competition. Therefore, the secretariat has an obligation to promote wool in all those countries where we can find people who can use our product and can pay for it. The secretariat is an autonomous body. It receives no funds from governments. It is controlled by the growers. It has a great responsibility. It is tackling the problem with a realistic approach, and I am confident that when this legislation comes before the Parliament in twelve months’ time, it will be revealed that the secretariat has played a well worthwhile part in promoting the sale of our wool.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1191

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1st May (vide page 995), on motion by Senator Wade -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- This bill is complementary to the bill that has just been passed. The Opposition supports it, as it supported the previous bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1191

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1st May (vide page 996), on motion by Senator Wade - That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- This bill is complementary to the previous one and is not opposed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1192

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION BILL 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2nd May (vide page 1050), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– The Opposition does not intend to oppose the bill. We welcome it, but while only a few words are needed to express our support, it is only fair that at this stage something should be said on behalf of the Opposition about the composition of the Australian Universities Commission and the work that has been done by that body over the past three years. Yesterday, it was just three years since the bill creating the commission Received the Royal Assent. To-day it is exactly three years since that body began lis existence, and the’ work that it has been able to do in those three years has been of outstanding importance not only to the universities of Australia but to Australia as a whole. Therefore, I think that we, the Senate of the Commonwealth Parlia-ment, owe a great debt of gratitude to the men who comprise the commission and who have given so unstintingly of their time and their talents over the past three years in order to help in the development of our universities.

Although the original recommendation f the Murray committee was that a commission comprising seven part-time members and one full-time chairman should be established, it was eventually decided by the Government that the commission should consist of a full-time chairman and not more than four, or fewer than two, art-time members. The amendment before the Senate to-night is to increase le maximum number of part-time members from four to six. This was the only respect in which the recommendation of the Murray committee was departed from.

The five men who, during the past three years, have comprised the commission, have done an exceptional job. I should therefore like to refer to them by name in order that the Senate, and the people of Australia generally, may know what a great deal we owe to them. As the chairman, we have Sir Leslie Martin. The part-time members are Professor Bayliss, who comes from Western Australia, who worked for many years in the University of Western Australia and is very well known; Professor Trendall, the Master of University House at the Australian National University; Sir Kenneth Wills, from Adelaide; and Dr. Vernon, from New South Wales. These very busy and highly talented men have given a great deal of their time - it could hardly be called spare time - to this great job of national importance, and the Senate should be extremely grateful to them.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that their work during the next three years will be lightened a little, and it is proposed that two members shall be added to the commission. Because of the great importance of medical research at this stage, and because of the need for Australia to have the very best that medical research and medical science can give, the Government proposes, I understand, that one of the new members to be appointed to the commission shall be a medical man. Because of the necessity to ensure that there will be no undue extravagance, it is proposed also, I believe, that a businessman shall be the sixth part-time member of the commission. We do not know for certain that those are the Government’s intentions, but I am confident that the men who will be appointed to the commission pursuant to the passage of this bill will do in the next three years, as the other members of the commission have already done over the past three years, the very best that they can do, in the interests of our universities and of the community as a whole.

It is rather interesting to note that this commission was established, because of the terrific growth of the university population during the past three or four decades. From 1939 to 1946, the university population in Australia more than doubled. Of course, quite a few of the people who came into the university population then were ex-service men and women who were returning to civilian life, for whom the Commonwealth

Government felt a certain degree of responsibility and whom it helped through its reconstruction training programme. That was one of the first occasions when the Commonwealth Government was able to assist university students in that way. However, because of the conditions existing then it was not possible for the universities to expand at the same rate as their student bodies. Naturally, there was a great need for improvement in the facilities and the size of the teaching staffs available. It is no good providing buildings and opening a new university with a great deal of ceremony if the facilities available will not attract the very best teachers that are available - the best people for the job. We cannot afford to have second-rate universities within the community. We know that in this regard we have been particularly fortunate, in that every one of our universities has been able to attract some of the very best brains available for this purpose, because of governmental action in assisting the universities on the financial side. The Murray committee, recommending the need for an Australian University Grants Committee, stated in its report -

It is certain, however, that resources of manpower and of money, both capital and recurrent, will be fully taxed to meet the accepted demands of a rapidly developing country such as Australia, and the need for economy in their allocation and distribution among the universities will be as urgent as in other branches of national life. There must be collaboration, co-operation and coordination between the universities, the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments if unnecessary duplication and wastage of scarce resources are to be avoided, particularly in certain specialist branches of undergraduate teaching and in the post-graduate and research activities of universities.

When Sir Keith Murray, the chairman of the Universities Grants Commission of Great Britain, assumed the chairmanship of what became the Murray committee, he was immediately struck by the differences between the conditions existing in Britain and Australia. That is something we must bear in mind. Whereas the Universities Grants Commission in Britain had to deal with only one government, in Australia, of course, we have seven different governments - six State governments and the Commonwealth Government. It is much more difficult and complicated to deal with seven governments than with one central government, as is the case in Great Britain.

A point that may have escaped notice is that the university population of Australia, compared with the total population, is two and a half times greater than is the case in the Old Country. In other words, comparatively speaking, we have two and a half times more students taking university courses than is the case in Great Britain. About 62,000 students are enrolled in our universities now, and it is considered that this number could rise to 100,000 within the next five years. Although this is not a very large number compared with the number of children seeking admission to our ordinary schools, it represents a very great increase at the university level, where teaching standards must be so much higher. The facilities required for a full university education are much more complex than those which are required at the lower levels of education.

The tasks which we have set the commission for the next three years are not light. At one time we said we would prefer the commission to be, as it were, on a five-year basis. We stated that at the time the commission was appointed. Provision was made for a three-year term of membership and so on, and we took the view that the commission should look further ahead - say, for five years. However, having seen the answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) when this matter was raised in the House of Representatives, and having given the matter some thought in the interim, I agree with the right honorable gentleman that, in view of the ever-changing and quickly changing standards and numbers at our universities, it is perhaps better to base any amendments to the principal act on a term of three years, not five years.

Dealing with the actual aims of the Universities Commission, it is the responsibility of the commission to encourage a national approach to university problems. Of course, that is beset with obvious difficulties. I think a great many people are inclined to base their ideas of universities and to make their evaluation of the position of universities in the community only on what they see the students doing in public places - perhaps on commencement days. I do not agree with many of the students’ pranks on such occasions, but I regard them as being due to exuberance. Such people do not realize the great amount of hard work that is done so anonymously within the walls of our universities. The extension of this work is of great national import. Therefore, the work of the commission is not only in the financial field. Some people seem to think that its real purpose is to watch the spending of money, to be a kind of financial watchdog, because professors and other persons associated with universities are not supposed to be very practical in regard to the expenditure of money. They do not want to waste money, but financial considerations do not enter much into their thoughts. They expend their energy and time so willingly in research and in other aspects of university work that the question of who is to pay does not enter their minds. However, that is not at all the real or the only function of the Australian Universities Commission. Its proper function is to see that a due balance is kept between what the community can afford to spend on its universities and the return which the universities are giving to the community. It is also a part of its function to ensure that no university in the Commonwealth is put at a disadvantage in comparison with other universities because of lack of funds or lack of assistance from the Universities Commission.

The following passage from the report of the Murray committee bears out that point: -

Many problems which confront universities to-day are the result of the policies and financial inadequacies of the past ten or twenty years. They cannot be put right overnight. Some problems to be solved are more urgent in some universities than in others. There would not be sufficient resources available either in terms of money or academic man-power to make good all deficiencies in the course of a short time. The universities and individual members within them will have to gain for themselves the facilities which they feel they need to play the part which the country expects of them.

That, I think, is of paramount importance. What actually does the community expect of its universities? What have we the right to expect from them?

Unfortunately, in my own State over the last couple of years we have seen the rapid transition from a free university, of which we were all very proud and where many people, myself included, received the benefits of a university education because it was free, to a fee-paying university. The impact on the community has been softened a little by the extent of Commonwealth scholarships which are available to students. There is still, however, a great disadvantage for those who are not academically brilliant enough to obtain such scholarships but who could gain much from a university education and return a great deal to the community. After all, it is not always the most brilliant person who gives back the most in service to the community. It is often found that the plodder, or the average student, is more aware of his duties to the community than is, perhaps, the brilliant person to whom learning comes more easily.

Senator Dittmer:

– That is not necessarily so.

Senator TANGNEY:

– It is not necessarily so. but I think that at present some people are being deprived of a university education because of the high fees involved. That is why I want to make a special plea to-night for the part-time student.

I have noticed that in the report of the Murray committee and in other reports part-time students are more or less brushed aside as being bread-and-butter students. I do not mind saying that I was a breadandbutter student. I was a part-time student doing a university course at night. It really did mean my bread and butter. I do not think that that made me any the less appreciative of the advantages which a university can bestow. I am always only too eager to help those who have the opportunity to pursue a full-time university education, where that is possible, because I realize that I, and many others like me, missed a great deal by not having the opportunity to participate fully in university life.

We on this side of the chamber are in accord with the real purpose of this bill, which is to enlarge the membership of the Australian Universities Commission from a maximum of four members to a maximum of six, in addition to the chairman. We should like to see the Government agree to appoint the number of members recommended in the Murray committee report, but pending that step we are glad that (he Government considers that the commission already has done such worth-while work that the membership should be increased. There are other problems remaining to be solved. The commission already has in hand a report on tertiary education in general, and there are many other aspects of education, apart altogether from university education, with which the commission is empowered to deal and to give some direction to the rest of the community.

The Opposition, Mr. Acting Deputy President, is pleased to support this bill. We hope that the members who are to be appointed to the commission will be not only happy in the job that they are called upon to do, but also as successful in the work they do for the community as are the present members of the commission, to whom we of the Australffian Labour Party extend our most grateful thanks.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– 1 also support with enthusiasm the bill before the Senate. I thank Senator Tangney for her remarks. I did not agree with all of them, but I am very glad indeed that the Australian Labour Party is not pressing for the five-year period which it appeared to favour when the bill was being discussed in another place. I personally think that a three-year period of consideration, or a triennium as it is called, which is the period set by the Australian Universities Commission for its task, is the right one.

I wish to congratulate the commission on the self-sacrificing work it has been doing. Apart from making recommendations to the Government regarding the amount of money that should be expended on universities in Australia, the commission has given an entirely new look to university structures in this country. I have always been conscious that the Australian universities have been built on the pattern of the nineteenth century university of the United Kingdom. The Australian Universities Commission, in the three years in which it has been operative, seems to have adopted a new approach. Let me illustrate what I mean. Here in Canberra we have the base, as it were, of the Australian National University. About two years ago legislation was passed by this Parliament with the purpose of integrating the research university that had been founded in the days of the late Mr. Curtin, and the Canberra University College, which was really an annexe of the University of Melbourne. Because of the sympathetic understanding of the Australian Universities Commission, the body with which we are dealing to-night, that integration has been a magnificent success. By way of illustration, I point to the residential hall known as Bruce Hall, which provides accommodation for 100 or more undegraduate students who are drawn from all the States of Australia. In that way, young men and women are able to enjoy the experience of university study and university residence. This principle of co-education at the university level is an entirely new concept in Australia. I can say, from knowledge gained as a member of the university council, that Bruce Hall is working extraordinarily well. I have no doubt that it will be the pattern for future residential halls in other universities.

Let me now turn to the gentlemen who have graced this commission in the last three years. I am very glad to know that the two professorial gentlemen, Professor Bayliss, from Western Australia, and Professor Trendall, the Master of University House, are continuing as members. So too are Sir Kenneth Wills, from South Australia, a distinguished soldier and a prominent businessman in Adelaide circles. He is also Pro-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. Then there is Dr. Vernon, who is associated with the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited. He is one of the greatest research chemists in Australia and is a member of the Council of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Finally there is the honoured chairman of the commission, Sir Leslie Martin. To this team will be added two other men, one with medical qualifications and the other a businessman, to advise the Government in its forward-looking plan of providing finance for our teaching hospitals. I have great regard for the severity - if I may use the word - of the work of the commission. As I have indicated, I have the honour to be a member of the Australian National University Council as the Senate representative, so I have some knowledge of the requirements of the Australian Universities Commission. I can testify that it requires the most detailed information and undertakes the most searching inquiries into the budget requirements of each university. I compliment the commission for its work and I also compliment the Government on its wisdom in choosing the men it has selected to form the first universities commission in this country. From time to time there has been some criticism of the recommendations of the commission. Moving as I do from State to State I sometimes hear of some dissatisfaction, but my observations lead me to the belief that the commission is entirely impartial, and I often wonder whether the State universities or the State governments behind those universities submit their requirements in the detail that the commission requires before it is able to make an assessment. The blame might well be laid at the door of the respective State universities which complain that they have not received adequate consideration from the commission.

I am very pleased to support this bill. I congratulate the gentlemen concerned on the work they have done during the last three years and I am certain that with the addition of more members the commission will go from strength to strength.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– It is with some hesitancy that I rise to speak because this bill, which appears to be so non-contentious, went through the other place in less than half an hour and extraordinarily brilliant men dealt with it. I will not traverse the ground covered by Senator Tangney, but I must say that I have no quarrel with the composition of the Australian Universities Commission. Nor have I any quarrel with the proposal to increase its membership. The Murray committee originally recommended that the commission should comprise eight members. The Government, in its wisdom, thought that five would be sufficient. Now the Government has seen fit to increase the number to seven, and it has proposed, justifiably I think, that one of the additional members should be a distinguished medical man and the other a businessman.

We must realize that education in Australia is being challenged in the eyes of the world. We boast that we are amongst the ten great trading nations of the world, yet we spend on education a low percentage of our national income. I hope that this bill will open wide the field of education for our children, the future leaders of the nation. It should improve their well-being and enable them to attain happiness. In passing, may I say that I intended no offence when I made an interjection during the course of Senator Tangney’s speech. I have nothing but the greatest of respect for those part-time students who attend night lectures at universities. I may be wrong, but I think Queensland was the first State in Australia and possibly the first part of the world to provide for external students at universities. Part-time students are prepared to deprive themselves of money, time, comfort and enjoyment in order to obtain the benefits of education, not necessarily for themselves alone, but often in order that they may impart it to others. These students usually have- not had the opportunity of enjoying full-time education at a university, but are prepared to make sacrifices in order to attain university qualifications.

The purpose of this comparatively simple measure is to increase the number of members of the commission from five to seven. This is not being done to comply with the Murray committee’s report, because the Government did not see fit to follow that report, not only in regard to this matter but also in regard to the selection of members of the commission from the universities. I have no quarrel with the present members of the commission as these men have done an excellent job. They are particularly brilliant men and have contributed substantially to university education in Australia. However, when one realizes that the nation, under the present Government and under previous governments, has not faced its real responsibilities for some considerable time, particularly since 10th December, 1949, one is entitled to have another look at the bill. There is no reason why we should not traverse the field of tertiary education in debating this bill.

The 1959 legislation gave almost allembracing authority to the Australian Universities Commission. Power was given to the commission not only to recommend grants of money to universities but also to determine the conditions under which the grants should be made. It is to the credit of the Menzies Government that it realized that universities could not survive unless some positive action was taken. Obviously, buildings and other facilities were not suitable and insufficient staff was available. The Commonwealth Government realized that unless something was done at State level university education throughout the country would be a complete failure.

I realize that a committee has been appointed to inquire into and report to the Government on the entire field of tertiary education, and I understand that the report will be tendered next year. I know that the members of the Australian Universities Commission are brilliant men and they have done an excellent job, but their reports are not beyond criticism. I shall deal with this matter in a measure of detail in the time available to me. I want to deal with the subject in a serious fashion because the future of not only Australia but also our children depends on this.

When we consider the findings of the Australian Universities Commission we see that it dealt with numbers in relation to university requirements, but it did not delve below the surface. The commission found that 95,000 students would be desirous of entering a university by 1966. Past figures would suggest that its estimate is relatively conservative and that probably more than 100,000 would want to enter a university by that time. There will not be sufficient universities. However, I wish to consider the matter from the angle of failures among those who attend universities. The commission has never delved into the question of why students fail and why there is this wastage and economic sacrifice by parents. I think that I was one of the first to direct attention to this problem when I was a member of the senate of a university. I was interested in the lads and lasses who went there. Their parents assumed that they had the necessary credentials as a result of fulfilling the matriculation requirements. They had matriculated in engineering, arts, science, medicine and so on. Their parents were entitled to assume that these young people had the credentials. They are little more than children. I know university students themselves would disagree with me when I say that, but I have a particularly sympathetic approach to their problems. The parents were entitled to assume that their children, having matriculated in a particular faculty, if they worked reasonably hard, would have a reasonable expectation of obtaining a degree.

What do we find on investigation? Only 35 per cent, of students obtained a degree in the time allotted to them. I know that the figures have changed over the last year. Overall, 55 per cent, of students obtained a degree. That to me seems to be an extraordinary waste. Psychologically, it is not good for the students who fail. Economically it is a tragedy for the parents who make the sacrifice to send their children to university. The commission has not seen fit to determine that there should be a real investigation into this aspect of university education. I know there are certain issues involved. Many students are not qualified academically and have not the mental capacity to absorb a university training. Many lecturers are not capable of imparting knowledge irrespective of whether they have obtained first or second class honours. Brilliance does not necessarily make a person a teacher. University senates when appointing lecturers and professors over recent years have not looked at this particular aspect. Applications come in from persons who have obtained first-class honours at Bristol, Cambridge, Oxford, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne or elsewhere. Many have obtained high distinction, but they have not the capacity to impart knowledge. I think it is just as important for a university lecturer or professor to have this knowledge as it is for a primary or secondary school teacher to have it. In Queensland a small measure of endeavour has been made to encourage lecturers to learn the art of teaching and imparting knowledge.

Then again in Australia we have the worst student-staff ratio of all the modern nations. I think it is the responsibility of the commission to deal with this problem, considering so much money is being spent by it. I pay a tribute to the Government because it has advanced £55,000,000 to the commission during the first three years of its existence, and in the next couple of years intends to spend over £100,000,000. That is essential. For that reason I pay a tribute to the Government. As every one on the Government side knows, I am extraordinarily fair even to the extent of bending over backwards to pay a tribute when it is deserved. However, I feel that the commission has a responsibility up to which it has not faced.

Senator Tangney:

– It has had only three years.

Senator DITTMER:

– I know; but three years is a fairly reasonable time within which to submit a report, and the members of this commission are brilliant men. They can gather facts and arrive at conclusions in a matter of weeks. These men are university men, most of them graduates with brilliant intellects. They should be able to grasp facts and arrive at conclusions very quickly. If 1 were as brilliant as they are I would make decisions extraordinarily quickly. They know the way to gather facts.

It is a tragedy that the Australian National University has become a teaching university. The Government had a unique opportunity to retain the Australian National University for research and postgraduate teaching. I am not quarrelling with the establishment of a university in Canberra. I think it is desirable that in a capital so attractive as Canberra there should be a university.

Senator Wright:

– Do you think that under - graduates contaminate research students?

Senator DITTMER:

– I do not say that. I am not used to the word contaminate and I have never contaminated any one. However, I think that teaching and research are two different functions; and as we had a university in Australia that was unique in that it was engaged in research and post-graduate teaching, we should have kept it that way. I think that men who accepted appointments for the purpose of research should continue to carry out that work.

Senator Laught:

– The original professors are still being engaged in research work.

Senator DITTMER:

– Most of them are only part-time because they are obliged to teach under-graduates.

Senator Wright:

– That is completely incorrect.

Senator DITTMER:

– Many of them are; I may be partly incorrect. I know that many professors are engaged on research work, but many of them are expected to lecture under-graduates as well. I thought that we had something unique in Canberra.

The point is that as a nation among the so-called modern nations of the world we have to face up to the need for greater tertiary education. You must have material to fashion. You cannot mould unless you have suitable material with which to work. Unless the Government is prepared to face up to its financial responsibilities as far as primary and secondary education are concerned, we cannot have efficient and satisfactory tertiary education. This matter has been ventilated by teachers’ organizations, parents’ associations and by committees of inquiry in almost every State.

The Australian Universities Commission has never defined the purpose of the university in relation to environmental conditions in Australia. We know that some of the universities in the United Kingdom have been established for hundreds of years. The United Kingdom is small in .area and has a large population. We know that the universities there pay regard to the humanities; we know that they recognize increasingly the need for scientific and technological advancement. But the real purpose of Australian universities in relation to Australian requirements has never been defined. There has been no real recognition in this country, so largely dependent upon primary production, of the value of, say, the veterinary and agricultural sciences, socalled. That is one of the tasks of the commission. Under the 1959 legislation, the commission has an all-embracing authority. I pay a tribute to the Government for having spent so much money on universities. That is one of the few actions that stand, to its credit, although I cannot understand why it took such efficient action. Perhaps Senator Spooner was responsible, because he would recognize the justice of paying tribute to brains, possessing some himself. However, I cannot understand why there has been no recognition of the faculties I refer to, not necessarily at the university level, but at the tertiary level. I acknowledge the wisdom of appointing an eminent medical man to the commission. That discharges one responsibility to human beings, but when you think in terms of the standards of living of the human beings in Australia, you have got to recognize the importance of primary production.

In its report the commission refers to overseas students. I have made inquiries of university lecturers, who have told me that many of these students are not qualified to absorb a university education. In many cases - I will not say in most cases, because I do not want to be unfair - their failure to pass examinations is due to the fact that they are not qualified to absorb a university education. I think it is the responsiblity of the commission, after studying the academic careers of these students, to say that it does not think we are justified in spending money on them in this way. Then an alternative would have to be found. I do not suggest that overseas students should not attend our universities. In particular, I am referring to Colombo Plan students. It is interesting to note that the students from Asia who come to this country under their own steam seem to do better than other Asian students. 1 do not know why this is so. Perhaps the former are more brilliant than the latter. Perhaps they are more adaptable and better qualified to absorb a university education. I am posing these questions in order to help the Government, but I say that it must face up to its responsibilities. According to a story circulating in Brisbane, the son of an eminent public figure in South-East Asia failed in his university examinations. I almost said that there was hell to pay as a result, but I would not dare to use that phrase in the sanctity of this chamber. However, there was a fuss, and ultimately the student passed. This has not left a very pleasant taste in the mouths of other students at the university in Brisbane.

I have always maintained that the names of university students should not appear on their examination papers and that students should be identified by numbers, as is the case in most school examinations. But for some reason lecturers and professors insist that the names of students appear on their papers. I do not suggest for a moment that lecturers or professors would victimize any student. I would not dare to suggest that.

Senator McCallum:

– The lecturer would probably know the writing of his students.

Senator DITTMER:

– Not necessarily, but Senator McCallum would know more about that than I would. In school examinations, at any rate, the identity of the candidates is not easily known. Of course, if a student obtains 49.5 per cent, in a paper, the examiner may ascertain his name in order to see what his attendance record is like in order to assess the value of his practical work. I do not like the idea of a student’s name appearing on the top of his papers. Undoubtedly, my children would get on well with their lecturers, because everybody knows that I never fall out with anybody.

I congratulate the Government on increasing the membership of the Australian Universities Commission. I emphasize the need for tertiary education in this country. The Government faces a challenge, lt must pay regard to the failure rate amongst students, many of whom attend universities in the expectation of obtaining a degree but are sadly disappointed. The fact that students fail is not always their own fault. Let me illustrate what can happen. At one time I asked for some examination results and they were given to me, but only in part. University staffs, like the staffs of government departments, have a flair for frustration. I was told that in the first and second years a certain number of students had failed. I said that was not enough and that I wanted to know the results in the various subjects. On going through the results in a particular faculty, I discovered that although the boys and girls had obtained distinctions and credits in some subjects, only two of eighteen students had passed in surveying. Those results suggested to me that possibly the students were not at fault. Either the standard was too high in that particular subject, or the lecturer was extraordinarily incompetent.

Under this bill the membership of the Australian Universities Commission will be increased from five to seven. In its report the Murray committee suggested that the membership of the commission should be eight, including, I think university personnel. I take it that that means active university personnel. I suggest that that emphasizes that the people who will be appointed, and the people who have already been appointed and whom the Government proposes to re-appoint, should have real authority under the act of 1959.

A recent figure that I saw showed that we spent approximately 2.8 per cent, of the national income on education. There may have been a change in that percentage since that time. When we realize that the future of the world lies in education, that as elders we have a responsibility to the young people, that the modern nations are prepared to spend more and more on education and that the group of nations opposed to us is prepared to spend no end of money on education, surely the Government must face up to its responsibility, however unjustified its tenure of the treasury bench may be. 1 suggest that this is an occasion on which the Government might give real consideration not only to tertiary education but also to the real fundamentals on which the future of this nation depends and by which its future is moulded - namely, primary and secondary education.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- The Australian Democratic Labour Party supports this bill and congratulates the Government upon the increased assistance which, under the bill, is proposed for university education and teaching hospitals.

Senator Dittmer:

– There is no increased assistance to teaching hospitals under this bill; that is being provided under another bill.

Senator McMANUS:

– Improved assistance is proposed under the general measures brought forward by the Government. I think Senator Dittmer will agree with that.

Senator Dittmer:

– Yes, I agree with that.

Senator McMANUS:

– That is what I was suggesting. However, I regret that in the community there appears to be an impression that the facilities for university education in Australia can be improved merely by making available more money for buildings and equipment. I repeat what I have said in this chamber previously. We have no hope of establishing and building up more universities - particularly to the extent that some people suggest - until we are able to provide the necessary teaching staffs. To anybody who suggests that our problem to-day is merely the provision of buildings, equipment and money, I simply say that in the advertising columns of the great capital city newspapers week after week we see advertisements for skilled staff to fill vacancies which obviously it is becoming almost impossible to fill. The first thing that must be done by people who want to improve the facilities for university education in Australia is to ensure that trained staffs to teach in the universities are available.

We must realize that the number of people who qualify in our universities is necessarily limited. Quite a number of the more brilliant products of our universities are drained off by big business which is able to offer higher salaries than our universities can offer. Quite a number of the best products of our universities are drained off for overseas where better salaries and better opportunities for research are offered to them. I do not think that can be emphasized too much to people who suggest that we should have universities here and there. It is useless to suggest that we can provide unlimited tertiary education until we solve the big human problem of getting the trained people to teach in our universities. That is the first problem that we have to solve if we want to get anywhere.

I believe that in this country there is a tendency to regard tertiary education purely from the full university course point of view. There is an increasing belief among educationists in Australia that we will have to adopt a system similar to that which exists in the United States of America. That country has what are called junior colleges for the less qualified people who do not want to complete full university degrees. It also has universities for the people who want to do full courses. I believe that one of the reasons for the considerable failure rate in Australian universities to-day is that many people who should not attend them do so. I agree entirely with the opinion of Sir John Medley, a former vice-chancellor of the University of Melbourne, that Australia should have a system of junior colleges, with courses not equivalent to full university courses, to which people who are not fully qualified for a full university training can go.

Senator Dittmer:

– Do you not think that a student is justified in assuming that if he matriculates he should be able to go to a university and obtain a degree if he works reasonably hard?

Senator McMANUS:

Senator Dittmer is quite right in saying that some people who go to our universities and fail have merely matriculated and believe that because they have attained the matriculation standard they are fully qualified to undertake the university course. However, I hope that Senator Dittmer will agree with me that no boy or girl should be permitted to go to a university until he or she has done at least a two-year matriculation course. That is the principle that I have adopted for members of my own family. 1 insisted that any member of my family who intended to undertake tertiary education should do a two-year matriculation course; that is an extra year.

Senator Tangney:

– Is it a five-year or sixyear course?

Senator McMANUS:

– The course in Victoria is intermediate, leaving, matriculation, and first-year and second-year matriculation. If we had a system of junior colleges for people who proceeded to the leaving or first-year matriculation standard, and allowed only those people who did a twoyear matriculation course to go to the universities, I believe that we would have fewer failures, a higher standard and fewer problems for the people who teach in our universities.

Senator Benn:

– Would you mind telling me the result of your ideas for your own family?

Senator McMANUS:

– For my own family, I insisted that the two boys should do the two-year matriculation course. One is doing engineering and the other is doing pharmacy, and each of them has passed in every year. I am absolutely confident that they would not have passed had they not done the two-year matriculation course. I know that a committee has been appointed in Victoria to examine the reasons for failure in university courses. I believe that the main reason is that too many inadequately equipped students go to universities. Many of our young people are being unfairly treated. They are being accepted at a university on the basis of first-year matriculation. Apart altogether from passing an examination, a young person going to university needs a certain maturity of mind. Many of our young people are failing at universities because they have passed an examination permitting them to go to universities without doing an extra year’s study to attain not only a higher education standard but also a certain maturity of mind to equip them to undertake university education.

Senator Vincent:

– What you are suggesting is an application of the English system of preparation for university education?

Senator McMANUS:

Senator Vincent probably has a good point there. The average student who goes to an English university is better equipped than the average student who goes to an Australian university.

Senator Tangney:

– Do you not think that although university teachers may be brilliant, not all are adequately trained as teachers.

Senator McMANUS:

– I agree with Senator Tangney that in England a greater reservoir of high quality university lecturers and professors is available. With higher quality people available, better results will be achieved. People who are complaining about the incidence of failures at Australian universities should be blaming the fact that so many students are not properly equipped to go to universities. In some cases this may be for financial reasons. When a youngster reaches first-year matriculation standard, the parents may be having a very hard struggle, and they may say, “ You have attained the standard which the university says will equip you to undertake a course. Therefore, you had better go to the university, and you will save us the cost of your maintenance for twelve months.” One of the tragedies in Australia to-day is that so many young people are, for financial reasons, forced to go to university twelve months earlier than they should.

Senator Dittmer:

– You are not suggesting that students can live on Commonwealth scholarships?

Senator McMANUS:

– I was one who raised the question of those scholarships some years ago. I was very pleased that the Government increased the number of scholarships and the amount that parents of a Commonwealth scholarship holder were permitted to earn in order to qualify the student for some assistance at the university. I should like to see that amount further increased. Anybody who has a youngster at a university must acknowledge the immense expense that is thereby entailed. 1 should like the Government to be even more liberal than it has been in making concessions in regard to the income that may be received by parents of scholarship holders. I think that the amount is still too low.

I do not lay the failures of our university system entirely at the door of the Commonwealth Government. In other countries one finds that industry is justifiably grateful to the universities for providing it with a pool of trained scientists, teachers and engineers. One has only to examine what is happening in Great Britain or the United States to find that big business firms are making available large sums of money for foundations to assist the universities to train the engineers and scientists that industry will require. I realize that we have not in this country the wide range of big business that exists elsewhere, but I still maintain that business organizations here are not pulling their weight in making money available to assist in the training of scientists and engineers. Big business in this country could do a lot more. I regret that its attitude is that the matter should be left entirely at the Government’s door. A great deal more could be done to encourage business organizations that are making big profits to accept their responsibility to assist by grants to universities for the training of scientists and engineers. I do not think that we are grappling with the problem of university education when we say that we shall make more money available or erect some more buildings. I do not think that we have really worked out what ought to be done from the point of view of university education. There is scope for a survey.

Senator Tangney:

– Is that not what the commission is going to do?

Senator McMANUS:

– The commission is going to do it, but the commission has been in existence for several years. I should like it to have gone further than it has gone. We still tend to think that if we can only provide a few hundred thousand pounds more the problem will be solved. It will never be solved until we work out the system that we want. We must take the universities as they stand for the brilliant, the outstanding, and the wellqualified students. Under the universities we should have junior colleges for the students who do not intend to go so far and for the students who go to university and probably fail in their first or second years. We must set to work on some system that will provide us with the trained staffs that will teach in our universities. Until we make up our minds what we shall do, there will always be dissatisfaction.

I do not agree that we should lay all the responsibility at the door of the Government. There is too much of a tendency to say that the Government ought to look after university education. It is the problem of business organizations and the problem of the universities. There is considerable disagreement among professors as to the way in which our university system should work in future. Some would support the system of junior colleges that I suggest and some would be strongly opposed to such a system. The university people themselves must decide where they are going. In this country there is a tremendous need for skilled, trained, and educated people. I hope that we shall not go completely overboard, as some people would wish, in the direction of purely technical education. I have been very pleased in recent years to see the content of the humanities that has been injected into many technical courses. It is a splendid thing that such courses as engineering and chemistry include some training in the humanities. I think that the university people have been very wise in that respect.

Senator Vincent:

– Where would you put the classics?

Senator McMANUS:

– I have a soft spot for the classics, because I was a teacher of classics years ago. They have their place in the humanities courses. I realize that the humanities have a place in many other courses to-day. I conclude by saying that the Government is showing sympathy and is giving vital assistance to tertiary education, but it is not a job completely for the Government. I do not think our universities have yet decided where they want to go. I believe there must be a system which will provide for junior colleges for the students who fail in the first or second years at universities. I understand that such a scheme has been worked out in the United States of America with success.

Senator Tangney:

– Do they get degrees or diplomas?

Senator McMANUS:

– A type of degree.

Senator Tangney:

– Do they have secondclass and first-class degrees?

Senator McMANUS:

– I would not say that the degree is a degree in the sense of that obtainable at a conventional Australian university to-day, but it is a qualification which is recognized in the United States. I emphasize that it is not a degree of the same standard as that granted after successfully taking a university course in Australia to-day. I think many of the students who go to our universities are not fully equipped to do so. I should like to see a system whereby every student would have to do a two-year matriculation course before being permitted to enter a university.

The only other thing I want to say is that I am very pleased indeed at the assistance the Government is giving to our teaching hospitals. In my opinion, they have had a rather rough passage over the years. I think this recognition by the Government of the needs of the teaching hospitals will hearten them and will be some recompense to them for the very fine work they have done. I hope the Government will give more and more assistance. The teaching hospitals do a magnificent job, and the extension of the assistance that the Government is giving them pleases me greatly.

I have very much pleasure in supporting the bill. I support it because it is a step in the right direction, but I still think that we must get away from the idea that the Government has to do everything. Private enterprise has a part to play, and the people who run our universities must make up their minds as to where they want university education to go.

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · LP

– in reply - Mr. President, 1 have been entrusted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) with the comparatively simple measure that is before the Senate to-night, which empowers an increase in the membership of the Australian Universities Commission. A .number of thoughtful speeches have been made. I suppose that at any stage during the debate 1 could have taken a point of order and submitted that the speakers were ranging far beyond the scope of the bill, but I realize that had I done so I would have been a very unpopular Minister indeed. I have been most interested in the debate.

I am not equipped and am not prepared to answer the many points that have been made. One has personal opinions and per sonal views on various matters, but my task to-night is that of steering the bill through the Senate, not of giving a dissertation to explain my own views on some of the points that have been made. We expected good contributions to the debate from the Senate’s representatives on the Council of the Australian National University, and we were not disappointed, lt is an honour to represent the Senate on that council, and I was glad that our two representatives entered the debate and expressed their views.

Like Senator Tangney, I served my time as an evening student. I look back on the four years when I spent my evenings doing a course at the University of Sydney after working during the daytime - the fees were paid by the Repatriation Department - as being one of the really formative periods in my life. I think the work I did then was the foundation of careful and logical thinking and of such success as I have had. However, I would strongly repudiate Senator McManus’s suggestion that a condition precedent to university work should be matriculation. 1 remember my sweat and tears as I tried simultaneously to matriculate without success. I admit, however, that there is a difference between a young lad or lass going from school to a university and some one of more mature years undertaking a course after experiencing service conditions.

I think one gets some sort of a picture of the importance of the work of the Australian Universities Commission from the expenditure that has been incurred and the way in which it has increased. I pay a tribute to the Prime Minister. As every one knows, this is one of the schemes in which he takes a great personal interest. This has been his “ baby “. He is continually in touch with it, and is concerned with each move and each development that occurs. In the first triennium - from 1958 to 1960 - the Commonwealth contribution to universities was £20,500,000, and for the current triennium - 1961 to 1963 - it will be £41,000,000. Thus the Commonwealth contribution has doubled. I think that is an indication of what is to come. I have somewhere in my notes a reference to the recent recommendation and decision concerning the teaching hospitals. The Commonwealth contribution to that will be another £1,500,000 for capital expenditure only. Senator McManus and Senator Dittmer have said that one cannot judge university progress merely in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, and that many things have to be done, such as the enlargement of the teaching staffs available to the universities, Without doubt, there is a great deal of substance in that view, but the sinews of war are needed before one can develop any programme of consequence.

I did not take a note because I did not anticipate that I would need to speak in reply. I do not remember who made it, but the point was made that the Australian Universities Commission should delve closely into staff arrangements and standards of examinations. I express a personal opinion when perhaps I should not. I think there would be great danger in this commission going too far into what I call the internal management of the respective universities. The universities should, as I am sure they will, shoulder their own responsibilities, fix their own standards and look after their own affairs.

Senator Tangney:

– They would resent too much interference.

Senator SPOONER:

– I should hope so. Senator Dittmer made the point that we are not spending the proportion of our national income that we should be spending on education. I am indebted to the officer instructing me for sending me a note to the effect that we need to be careful in making comparisons of expenditure on education in Australia, as expressed in terms of percentages of the national income, because there is in Australia a greater proportion of private schools than there is in most other countries. The figures that I have been given show that only 75 per cent, of children in Australia are educated by the State, whereas the number receiving State education in other countries may be as high as 90 per cent.

Debate interrupted.

page 1204

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! I have to advise the Senate that the Right Honorable K. J. Holyoake, M.P., Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs in the New

Zealand Government, is in the precincts. With the concurrence of honorable senators, I propose to offer him a seat on the floor of the Senate.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear! (Mr. Holyoake thereupon entered the Senate, and was seated accordingly.)

page 1204

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION BILL

Debate resumed.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I was making the point, Mr. President, I hope correctly - I noticed Senator Tangney waving a warning finger at me - that we need to be careful in making statistical comparisons of the extent of education in Australia, because we have in this country a greater proportion of children receiving private education than is the case in most other countries.

I wish to reply to the criticism inherent in Senator Dittmer’s comments on our total expenditure on education generally. I doubt whether there is sufficient appreciation of the way in which expenditure on education has increased during the last decade or so. I have in front of me figures which indicate that expenditure on education by the State governments of Australia in the financial year 1960-61 was £184,000,000. To those who say, “Not enough, not enough “, let me compare that expenditure with the expenditure in 1949, a decade earlier. At that time, total expenditure on education was £29,100,000. Whatever may be the deficiencies of the present situation, there has been a substantial increase in expenditure between 1949 and 1961. Of course, that again is only a part of the story. If we add to that expenditure Commonwealth expenditure on universities and the cost of the income tax concessions that are allowed for education, a much larger figure is arrived at.

The income tax concessions which relate to children attending school and to school fees at the present time are costing the Commonwealth no less than £14,500,000 a year.

Senator Vincent:

– Do you know whether that figure includes expenditure relative to the post-war reconstruction training scheme?

Senator SPOONER:

– I could not say. Let me make another comparison. I have given the figures for the grants to the universities, which are now averaging about fi 3,000,000 a year for the present triennium.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Is that the direct federal contribution?

Senator SPOONER:

– That is the contribution allied to this legislation. A decade ago, in 1950, the expenditure was £560,000. It has now increased from that figure to £11,200,000 a year. Commonwealth scholarships, which are a charge on the Commonwealth Budget, cost £219,000 in 1948-49 and now cost £2,551,000. Outgoings for the Australian National University, which includes the School of Social Studies, were £126,000 in 194S-49 and £3,500,000 in 1960-61. In 1961-62, they will be £5,250,000.

It is easy to say, of course, that the Commonwealth should be providing more funds for education, that it should extend its activities in this direction, and that it should do this and do that for education. So infrequently are such statements accompanied by an acknowledgment of what the Commonwealth is already doing, and of the extent to which the Commonwealth has increased its responsibilities in recent years. I again express my thanks to the Senate for its friendly reception of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator Sir NEIL O’SULLIVAN (Queensland) [9.58]. - I do not think that any government in Australia has done so much for tertiary education by way of encouragement of university studies and assistance to university students, as this Government has done. Nevertheless, Mr. Temporary Chairman, 1 feel that we are building a magnificent university structure, speaking generally, at a place which is rather unapproachable in the sense that a structure for tertiary education must be founded upon primary and secondary education. I do not think the Government is giving sufficient thought to the foundations of this university which it is establishing across the river, as it were, and which is more or less unapproachable to so many who desire to attend a university.

When I say that the Government has been generous it must be understood that governments do not make money. They spend the taxpayers’ money. This Government has been very wise in encouraging tertiary education Australia, but it must be realized that thorough tertiary education cannot be provided unless there is a good basis of primary and secondary education.

Senator Benn:

– We agree with that.

Senator Sir NEIL O’SULLIVAN:

– I am glad to have that support from a foreign quarter. I am aware that approaches have been made to the Commonwealth Government to institute an inquiry into primary and secondary education in Australia on the lines on which the Murray committee inquired into tertiary education. I understand that the Premiers of most of the States have made representations to the Government on this matter, but that the Government does not feel inclined to yield to those representations. However, I do urge, for what it is worth, that very serious thought be given to the fact that it is impossible to provide successful university or other tertiary education unless there is a sound basis of primary and secondary teaching. It is all very well to say that education is primarily a matter for the States. We are all aware that that is true. Nevertheless, whether a child happens to be born in Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland or any other State, he or she is an Australian child and has a claim on the consideration of the Commonwealth Government for educational opportunities. No student can weave his way over the almost impossible track to our magnificent universities unless he has a sound basis of primary and secondary training.

This Government has done much more than any other government in the history of the Commonwealth for the encouragement of university education and tertiary education generally. However, a start cannot be made at the top. Solid and firm foundations of proper primary and secondary education must be laid. Upon that universities can be built. I do not think that any government which makes substantial contributions out of the taxpayers’ money towards the encouragement of tertiary education and the expansion of our universities is sound in saying that primary and secondary education are essentially matters for the

States. I do think the Government might reconsider its decision and appoint a committee similar to the Murray committee to examine primary and secondary education systems throughout the Commonwealth. If they are sound and solid, Australia will get a much better return from its universities and other tertiary education establishments. Generally, I support the bill.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I feel that I owe an apology to my colleagues in the Opposition. When I led for the Opposition in this debate I thought the matter to be discussed was solely the purpose of the bill, which is to increase the membership of the Australian Universities Commission from five to seven. I feel that had I known that speakers in the debate would be free to range over the field of education generally, and of university education in particular, I could have put forward a much better case for the Opposition because so much has been said with which we are in full agreement. I thought that the next opportunity for a full debate on university education would arrive when the annual measure covering university grants was before us. I believe, therefore, that I do owe an apology to my colleagues for letting them down on this occasion as I discussed only the provisions of this bill.

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesMinister for National Development · LP

– There is no need for Senator Tangney to apologize. I complimented her for her contribution to the second-reading debate and I repeat the compliment. She played the ball right down the wicket. Subsequent speakers played a few late cuts into the slips and a few snicks across to square leg. I reply to Senator O’sullivan by reminding him that I quoted figures earlier revealing that the Commonwealth was already making a very appreciable contribution to primary and secondary education. That is evidenced by the funds it makes available to the States. The figures quoted showed that State education expenditure had risen from £29,000,000 to £184,000,000. It would be a very grave decision for the Commonwealth to superimpose on its already existing heavy commitments to universities additional expenditure to enable it to enter the field of primary and secondary education with all the responsibilities that would go with such action. It must be remembered that those responsibilities are very material and are basic responsibilities of the States as distinct from the Commonwealth.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1206

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3rd May (vide page 1104), on motion by Senator Wade -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- The purpose of this bill is to re-enact an agreement which is commonly known as the Sugar Agreement. This agreement is well known and has an interesting history. It is one of the most important agreements operating so far as Queensland is concerned. It is something which is not new but has stood the test of time. This agreement has operated for approximately 40 years. At this stage may I say that no political party has done more to further the interests of the sugar industry in Queensland than has the Australian Labour Party. The Sugar Agreement has been supported by it in and out of season. Our main reason for this unswerving support is that the agreement has given the sugar industry protection against the importation of sugar from other countries.

We are now in the stage in our history when we can look around and see for ourselves just what protection means to an industry, because of the intention of the United Kingdom to enter the Common Market. The State of Queensland is suitable for the production of sugar because of its climate and the quality of its soil. It provides almost all the sugar consumed within the Commonwealth. Certainly, a small area of New South Wales is devoted to sugar production, but it is infinitesimal in extent when compared with the areas in Queensland which are under sugar cane. Because of the terms of the agreement, Queensland has been placed in a very favorable position over the years. It has not many other important industries, but the sugar industry does allow it to buttress its economy. Without it the State would be poor indeed. Because of the protection afforded by this agreement Queensland has a local market which is very good in itself, but over the years the State has produced more sugar than can be consumed within the Commonwealth. Fortunately she has been able to sell all the sugar she has produced to the United Kingdom and other countries.

I have gone into the question of what will happen should the United Kingdom join the European Common Market. I find that Australia’s sugar market would be halved if we were unable to sell our sugar to the United Kingdom as we have done regularly over the years. 1 am happy to state that at the present time Queensland is doing very well. The sugar industry is highly organized and has been able to obtain orders for the total production of the current crop. Irrespective of the sugar that the United Kingdom may take several countries have already booked orders for the current crop so the future is not as dim as one might imagine it to be.

I want to stress the importance of the protection that has been granted to the Queensland sugar industry under the agreement. One of the most important parts of the agreement is that, provided the Queensland sugar interests supply sugar at a concessional rate to the fruit-preserving industries of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Government undertakes not to import any sugar. I should have stated at the outset that the agreement is between Queensland - or really the sugar-producing interests of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Government. There are contractual obligations on both sides. Queensland agrees to do certain things under the agreement. The Commonwealth Government agrees to do certain things and the industry is allowed to function as it wishes.

I mentioned a while ago that the Queensland sugar industry is highly organized. This applies to virtually every phase of the industry. The workers who engage in it are highly organized. They have to fulfil certain contracts. The sugar-growers and the mill owners are also highly organized. AH of the mills are not co-operatively owned; some are privately owned. The industry can be said to be one of the most efficient industries in the Commonwealth.

It is not perhaps surprising to learn that the agreement is supported by all political parties. I do not know one member of the Opposition who has an ill word to say about it. If he has he has been very silent during the past 40 years, as the agreement we propose to re-enact is similar to those agreements which have operated over the years.

Speaking as a Queenslander I say that it is most important that we have such an industry operating in the State. The sugar lands extend from Southport in the south to Mossman in the north.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What distance would that be?

Senator BENN:

– Approximately 1,000 miles. I look at this industry from the practical viewpoint as a citizen of the Commonwealth. It might be said that if the sugar industry was not occupying these lands another industry would be. That incites another question. What industry would be there? Certainly some of the sugarproducing lands could produce beef cattle, but you would not have this tract of land with towns and hamlets dotted along the coastline forming, as it were, a line of defence. It is most important from a Commonwealth point of view that the sugar industry of Queensland should be maintained.

Senator Sir Neil O’sullivan:

– Hear, hear! I do not often agree with the honorable senator, but I do in this instance.

Senator BENN:

– We have one-mill sugar towns, two-mill sugar cities and five-mill sugar cities. Honorable senators who come from Queensland know that that is correct. Senator Wood knows that in the hinterland of Mackay there are several sugar mills, and he knows full well that if those mills were not operating there, if there were no sugargrowers out in the rural lands, there would be no city of Mackay.

Senator O’Byrne:

– He would raise Cain.

Senator BENN:

Senator Wood knows that the industries of the city of Mackay are so closely related to the sugar industry, that if the sugar industry were diminished there would be a corresponding diminution in the activities of the other industries of Mackay.

Senator Wood:

– Australia’s sweetest State.

Senator BENN:

– So it goes on right up to Mossman. From the point of view of defence the sugar industry is very important. It gives employment in Queensland to approximately 500,000 people. It is important to our meagre population in Queensland that we keep the industry going.

I do not want to reiterate some of the things 1 have said. 1 know that when the United Kingdom does join the European Common Market it will be supplied with beet sugar from Europe, a sugar that is not comparable in sweetness with the sugar we produce in Queensland.

Senator Tangney:

– Which is the most fattening?

Senator BENN:

– I do not wish to answer that at the moment because sugar is an ingredient which is almost indispensable. For those fond of confectionery it is an indispensable ingredient. For those fond of lager or beer, sugar is indispensable. As a matter of fact sugar is contained in nearly all our foodstuffs.

Senator Spooner:

– Why did you leave rum out?

Senator BENN:

– It is not an ingredient, rum is one of the extractions of sugar. It is a by-product of the sugar industry. Of course, rum has a traditional association with the Navy.

Senator Maher:

– Some people rate the by-product, rum, higher than they rate the sugar itself.

Senator BENN:

– I do not blame them. I have been fishing and I know how welcome is the man who comes around at about midnight with a bottle of rum and hot coffee.

Senator Sandford:

– Do you fish for fish?

Senator BENN:

– In Queensland, along the reef, we fish for and catch coral cod, schnapper and barramundi. We eat those fish. We do not eat shark, as the Victorians do.

In Queensland, about 300,000 acres are devoted to sugar production. It will be readily understood that that land requires a good deal of ploughing and other attention. I can remember the days when horses were used to draw the ploughs and other implements used in the production of sugar, but to-day the implements are drawn by tractors. The point I want to make is that Queenslanders have been lackadaisical. We saw the mechanization of the sugar industry slowly taking place, but nobody was prepared to say, “ The horse is going out and the tractor is coming in. The industry will be mechanized. Let us adapt ourselves to the new conditions and establish our own manufacturing industries.” Many of the tractors that are engaged in the sugar industry in Queensland were made, I am pleased to say, in Western Australia. They are good tractors for use with a light plough and so on, and they are suitable for this work. Certainly they have been produced in the Commonwealth, but, being somewhat parochial and narrow-minded about these things, I would have preferred to see Queenslandbuilt tractors used in the sugar industry.

In the last year for which I have records 8,400,000 tons of sugar cane was produced. Those people who are conversant with the industry will know what that means in terms of refined sugar. About 1,300,000 tons of refined sugar was produced for sale in the shops and elsewhere. The gross value of that sugar to Queensland was approximately £41,200,000, so it will be seen that this is not an unimportant industry to Queensland, or to the Commonwealth.

At times committees have been appointed to investigate the ramifications of the sugar industry. Those committees have acted purposefully. Investigations have been made to ascertain costs of production - wages, transport costs and crushing and refining costs - and to determine whether the domestic price of sugar is a just and economic price. I am pleased to note that the finding of the last committee of inquiry was not what I anticipated. A committee investigates the industry from the point of view of the experts. It then makes recommendations to the Government, and those recommendations come before the Parliament. They come before men who have practical knowledge of Australian affairs generally and who decide whether it would be proper to give effect to the recommendations at that stage. I am pleased to know that the Government has decided not to disturb the present conditions under which the industry operates. I think that is v/ise.

We must remember that if the United Kingdom joins the Common Market, Australia will lose one of her important outlets for sugar and will have to seek other markets. I noticed in the press at the week-end that huge orders for Australian sugar have been booked with Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, New Zealand and South Korea. Those orders are for the 1962 crop. That is very heartening. That sugar has not yet been harvested. Harvesting will commence later this month and will continue until about December, but already substantial orders have been booked. It is good to know that the sugar-growers have been able to obtain markets other than the internal market. Queensland sugar production could be expanded at any time if required. Production could be doubled, if required. It has not been necessary to do that, and the industry has functioned on a restricted basis. It has functioned in this way over the years. One of its obligations is to satisfy the local market, and any surplus is sold overseas. A No. 2 pool for export sugar has operated for a number of years. I can remember when the price obtained for the sugar that went into the No. 2 pool was very disheartening. It was sold then at a price that was almost uneconomic, but that has not been the case in recent years.

This agreement has been examined by the associations interested in sugar production in Queensland and they have not objected to it.

Senator Wright:

– How does it accord with the report of the committee of inquiry?

Senator BENN:

– There is a slight conflict between the terms of this agreement and the findings of that committee. I support the terms of the agreement. This is not the time to tinker with an industry like the sugar industry.

Debate interrupted.

page 1209

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - 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, 8 May 1962, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1962/19620508_senate_24_s21/>.