Senate
21 May 1965

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1965

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

page 1051

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research. Is it correct to say that in the State of Tasmania since the inauguration of the Commonwealth secondary scholarship scheme advantage has been taken of that scheme by the State Government to withdraw some benefits to pupils which were normally part of its own scholarship system?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– I believe that several benefits are paid or made available by the Tasmanian Government to school children. Some of them are in the form of bursaries or scholarships which are awarded on the results of examinations. As far as I know, these have not been changed in any way by the Tasmanian Government. Although it does make these available to children who have not won a Commonwealth scholarship, nevertheless there are the same number of scholarships, with the same benefits, as there were before. There is, as well, a matriculation allowance which the Tasmanian Government pays to children in the relevant matriculation year, without a means test. This varies according to whether the child lives at home or at school. I understand that the Tasmanian Government has withdrawn this matriculation allowance from any child who has won a Commonwealth secondary scholarship.

page 1051

QUESTION

OIL

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have not seen the statement attributed to Mr. Sprigg in the “Queensland Mining Journal”, but I hasten to assure the honorable senator that the Government is aware of the importance of indigenous oil to Australia and is encouraging the search in many ways. These include the subsidy scheme, geological and geophysical investigations in the field and in the laboratory by the Bureau of Mineral Resources, map preparation toy the Division of National Mapping, taxation concessions and relief from import duties. The sum of £5 million is available for payments under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act during the current financial year and almost £21 million has been committed since the inception of the subsidy scheme.

The Government was very reluctant to impose any restrictions on the operation of the scheme, but when the encouragement from discovery wells resulted in a large increase in the exploration effort it became obvious that some restriction on the scheme was necessary to limit the burden on the Australian taxpayer. Various methods to achieve this were considered, and the most favoured of these was restriction of subsidy in areas where discoveries had been made so that the available funds could be concentrated in other areas where more effort was required to discover oil.

Discovery wells encourage further exploration in the areas around them, and the Government is satisfied that the exclusion of these areas from subsidy is the best method to ensure that subsidy funds are spent to the best advantage.

page 1051

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Housing inform me whether the Minister for Housing has yet issued or made any instrument or instruments in writing under the provisions of the Housing Loans Insurance Act specifying the classes of mortgages which will be insured under that Act?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I do not know the answer. I will obtain it and inform the honorable senator before the Senate adjourns.

page 1052

QUESTION

PETROL

Senator WRIGHT:

– My question to the Minister for Customs and Excise follows the debate in this place in the early hours of this morning on the important Bill designed to provide such assistance as will enable petroleum products to be sold in areas outside capital cities at not more than 4d. a gallon above the city prices. Having regard to the disclosure made in the debate that it is proposed to fix the prices for petrol in the Australian Capital Territory by ordinance and to relate those prices to Sydney prices, will the Minister arrange for honorable senators to be advised of the ordinance in a special way lest it escape our attention?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As Canberra, from the distribution centre point of view, will be based on Sydney it may well be that an Australian Capital Territory ordinance will notbe necessary. The point of claim will be in Sydney, not in Canberra. However, I will examine the honorable senator’s question at a later hour of the day and communicate a reply to him.

page 1052

QUESTION

GRANTS FOR SCIENCE LABORATORIES

(Question No. 442.)

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What total amounts of money have been (a) approved for grants to, and (b) actually paid in grants to (i) State secondary schools, (ii) Catholic secondary schools, and (iii) other secondary schools, under the States Grants (Science Laboratories and Technical Training) Act 1964?
  2. In respect of what individual schools have grants been approved, and what have been the amounts (a) granted, and (b) actually paid, in each case?
Senator GORTON:
LP

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

  1. The individual independent schools in respect of which grants have been approved, with details of payments made to date, are given below. For completeness details of amounts appropriated in the Budget for schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are also given.

Attached to the answer is a schedule of individual independent schools setting out the grants that have been approved.

page 1056

QUESTION

ABORIGINES AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS

(Question No. 454.)

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General upon notice -

In what respects are Australian Aborigines and/ or Torres Strait Islanders subject to disability or discrimination to which other Australian citizens are not subject under Commonwealth Acts, Regulations or Ordinances or in the course of Commonwealth administration?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer -

The honorable senator’s question involves an examination of the present position under Commonwealth acts, ordinances and regulations which in the main are administered by other Ministers and it would therefore be necessary for each of those Ministers to be consulted before a detailed reply could be given to the question. So far as my own Department is concerned, the only provision that might be thought to come within the purview of the question is section 5 of the Juries Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory, as to which action is in train for its amendment to remove the present racial disqualification.

page 1056

QUESTION

HEALTH

(Question No. 466.)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What benefits and services does the Commonwealth provide for the treatment, care or main tenance in institutions of sub-normal children, in particular those commonly known as mongoloid?
  2. What benefits or services are provided by each of the States for such children?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. The problems associated with mentally retarded children, whether they are of an educational or health nature, are the responsibility of the respective State Governments. The Commonwealth at present, however, accepts responsibility for a significant proportion of the capital cost of building and equipping mental health institutions and has been accepting this responsibility since 1955 under the States Grants (Mental Institutions) Act 1955. The financial asistance to the States in connection with buildings and equipment of mental health institutions has been extended for a further three years under the provisions of the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act 1964. This Act continued the Commonwealth contribution on a £1 for £2 basis, but the ceiling of £10,000,000 provided for in the 1955 Act has been abolished as a further step towards assisting the States in their programme for expanding and modernising mental health institutions. In the case of a number of institutions which provide nursing home care as defined in the National Health Act and which do not receive an annual subsidy from the State Government or capital subsidy under the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act, the Commonwealth provides assistance in the form of a nursing home benefit of £1 a day. In addition, research work is being carried out at the Institute of Child Health into the medical aspects of mongolism.
  2. A publication issued by the Handicapped Children’s Association A.C.T. (Inc.), entitled “ Directory of Educational and Training Centres for Mentally Handicapped Children in Australia” gives information about the education and training facilities available to parents of mentally retarded children. I have forwarded a copy of this publication to the honorable senator.

page 1057

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS

(Question No. 475.)

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Did the Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission invite the Australian Government in July 1963 to send a group of technical officers to the United States to examine the technical status of the work on the use of underground nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes?
  2. Was a group of Commonwealth officers sent to California and other places in the United States of America in 1963 to study the possibilities of underground nuclear explosions?
  3. Was a report made to the Department of National Development about the subject, and if there is such a report where may it be examined?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions - 1 and 2. In July 1963 the Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission invited the Australian Government to send a group of technical officers to the United States to examine the evidence relating to the use of underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. The group, comprising representatives of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Snowy Mountains Authority and the Bureau of Mineral Resources, left Sydney on 1stSeptember 1963 and returned on 26th October 1963. The group visited Washington, D.C., Virginia and Nevada in addition to California.

  1. The report of the group, titled “ Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosives - An Evaluation for Australian Purposes of Proposed Civil Engineering and Mining Applications “, has been published and widely distributed to libraries and relevant organisations. A limited number of copies is still available from the Secretary, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, P.O. Box 41, Coogee, New South Wales.

page 1057

QUESTION

MENTAL HEALTH

(Question No. 483.)

Senator TANGNEY:
through Senator Poke

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

In view of the improved methods of treating mental illness will the Minister review the system under which medical and hospital benefits and invalid pensions are paid for the mentally ill so that their rehabilitation can be more readily achieved or assisted by an improvement in their economic condition?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

The conditions governing the payment of invalid pensions are the same for mentally ill persons not in mental hospitals as for other members of the community. The Social Services Act, however, provides for the suspension of pension when an invalid pensioner enters a mental hospital. Successive Commonwealth Governments have always taken the view that the maintenance and care of mentally afflicted persons in State mental hospitals is the responsibility of the respective State Governments. The present Government has not seen fit to depart from this traditional attitude. The authority for the medical and hospital benefits scheme is the National Health Act which is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Health, to whom inquiries about the scheme should be directed.

page 1057

QUESTION

HOMES FOR THE AGED

(Question No. 491.)

Senator WRIGHT:

asked the Minister re presenting the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. Does the Aged Persons’ Homes Act preclude from eligibility for assistance under the Act homes for totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen by reason of the fact that there may be a small percentage of the persons in those homes under the age of 65 years?
  2. If the answer is in the affirmative, has any consideration been given to the possibility of amending the Act to make such homes eligible? If not, will the Government give consideration to this matter?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

The Aged Persons’ Homes Act does not preclude assistance to homes for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen who fall within the requirements of the Act. An aged person is defined as a man who has attained the age of 65 years or a woman the age of 60 years. It includes the wife or husband of an eligible aged person irrespective of age. Special conditions, normally relating to an eligible resident’s need for some special care or assistance, may also be taken into account to permit the residence in an aged persons’ home of other persons under the statutory age. A grant would not be approved to an organisation that proposed, as a matter of general policy, to provide accommodation for persons under the eligible age.

page 1057

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Monday next at 2.30 p.m.

page 1058

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 1041), on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- Mr. President, the Bill before the Senate relates to duties of Customs, and comprises 528 pages. It has 4 schedules, 99 chapters, and 29 clauses. It is a monumental piece of legislation. I pay a compliment to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) and his departmental officers on the drafting of this Bill and its presentation to the Senate. The purpose of the Bill is to translate and recast the Australian tariff into the internationally recognised language of the Brussels Nomenclature.

The Minister and people engaged in the importing business and industry have stressed that the Bill does not make any significant change in tariff levels. A study of the Bill shows that this is true. The Senate has also been assured that the levels of tariff protection and the areas of non-protection remain the same.

Some attention should be given to the reason for the preparation of this legislation. To do that, I intend to recall some of the events that have led up to the introduction of this Bill into the Senate. It is conceded that everyone concerned in international trade is aware of the difficulties which arise by reason of national customs tariffs, as they are based on fundamentally different systems of classification and naming of goods. The Brussels Nomenclature has been formulated as a result of negotiation and arrangements over the years. Various attempts were made before the Second World War to solve such problems. The Draft Customs Nomenclature was prepared under the influence of the League of Nations in 1931. This was revised in 1937 and became known as the Geneva Nomenclature. But it was found to be unsuitable. It was not until 1948 that an organisation known as the European Customs Study Group was formed for the purpose of establishing uniform customs tariffs for use by all the countries in the union. The Group made considerable use of the Geneva Nomenclature and produced a draft of items. This was considered so valuable that it was decided to establish it on a firm international basis and to draw up a convention for that purpose. On 15th December 1950 the Convention on Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs was signed in Brussels.

The aims of the Customs Co-operation Council which was one of the bodies formed were to secure the highest degree of harmony and uniformity in customs systems and especially to study the problems inherent in the development and improvement of customs techniques and customs legislation in connection therewith. The Council was required to make recommendations to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of the Valuation and Nomenclature conventions. Subsequently the Belgian Government offered Brussels as ‘the site for the headquarters of the Council. The Convention came into force on 4th November 1952 and the inaugural session was opened in Brussels on 26th January 1953.

The preamble to the Convention which was signed in Brussels on 15th December 1950 is as follows -

The Governments signatory to the present convention, desiring to facilitate international trade, observing that the progressive removal of quantitative restrictions results in customs tariffs becoming an increasingly important factor in international trade, desiring to simplify international customs tariff negotiations and to facilitate the comparison of trade statistics so far as the data for such statistics are based on the classification of goods in customs tariffs; being convinced that the adoption of a common basis for the classification of goods in customs tariffs constitutes an important step towards attaining all these important objects; having administrative work already accomplished in Brussels in this sphere by the European Customs Union Study Group, and considering that the best way of achieving results in this respect is to conclude an international convention . . .

The Convention was then drawn up. It is outlined in a number of articles which are more or less incorporated in principle in the Bill that we have before us at the present time.

The official languages of the Customs Cooperation Council are English and French. We in Australia have an advantage in that respect because the fact that English is one of the official languages means that people associated with the importation, manufacture and distribution of articles subject to tariff are able to have ready access to the Convention and are thus able to know the international interpretation of items subject to tariff. The Convention has as its aim the securing of uniformity in denning value, for the purpose of facilitating international trade and simplifying customs tariff negotiations and the comparison of foreign trade statistics. It is quite obvious that statistics that are issued in various countries annually or monthly could be of great value in international trade. In my view, achieving uniformity in that respect is a great advance upon the practices of the past. This is part of the -whole pattern of simplication. 1 mentioned that the Convention, which brought about the Customs Co-operation Council, directed, its attention to providing a systematic and logical classification of all goods that enter into international trade, to classifying each product suitably and uniformly in the tariffs of all contracting parties, and to providing a simply and precisely worded nomenclature using terms and phrases that are comprehensible to experts and laymen alike. A close study of the Bill and the information that has been circulated reveals that that objective has been achieved. I am most impressed by the neatness of the schedules. The infinite variety of articles that are covered fit neatly into 99 categories. Those who study the Bill will find that the First Schedule commences with chapter 1 of Division and that the first item - live horses, asses, mules and hinnies- bears the reference number 01.01. For the purposes of international trade, those who did not know what a hinny was could easily refer to item 01.01 and all countries that subscribe to the arrangement would know what was meant.

Senator Morris:

– What is a hinny?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– A hinny is a neuter animal.

Senator Cormack:

– Really it is a jenny.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It is referred to as a hinny, but really it is a jenny. We have the ass and the hinny, and the donkey and the mule. The mule is included in the classification, but a mule is only a first cousin to the ass or the donkey. The relatives spread out into the horse field. I say that in passing. I am merely giving an illustration of the scope of the document. The Brussels Nomenclature for these items of great variety will be readily understandable in the countries that subscribe to the Convention. I believe that some of the conditions that have been laid down in an effort to clarify and to simplify the whole matter to the greatest possible extent have been observed and that a great advantage must accrue to people who deal with imports and tariffs.

On 4th January 1961 Australia deposited her instrument of accession to the Convention which established the Customs Co-operation Council. It was formally accepted as a member country at the Council’s 18th session on 8th June 1961. Membership of the Council does not carry any obligation to accede to the Valuation and Nomenclature Conventions. However, accession to the Nomenclature Convention will be a matter for consideration when the Australian Customs Tariff in Brussels becomes operative. This Bill will enable the official sanctioning by Parliament of the background work that has been done. When it is passed we shall become a fully fledged member of the Convention. At the time of the preparation of this statement, 19 countries were members of the Nomenclature Convention and 71 countries had adopted the Brussels Nomenclature as the basis of their national tariff. An addition 17, including Australia, are doing so. The fact that Australia is doing so is indicated by the introduction of this Bill. The Council estimates that 70 per cent, of international export-import trade is conducted by countries using the Brussels type tariffs. This is an advancement of international trade, which honorable senators will agree is the life blood of the nation. The wider we can spread international trade and the greater the exchange of goods between countries, the greater will be the prosperity that accrues to those countries, and the greater will be the increase in international understanding.

The grouping of the various items is interesting. There is an overlapping problem, with goods falling under two or more items. This problem has been overcome by the careful drafting of items and the addition of legal notes to aid classification. Interpretative rules are introduced. The Minister outlined the history of tariffs in Australia. It is interesting to recall that on 8th October 1901 the first tariff was introduced as a budget measure. In August 1908 tariff proposals were introduced, also as a budget measure. The next development was on 24th March 1920, with the introduction of a three column tariff, providing for British and dominion preferential tariffs, an intermediate ‘tariff and a general tariff. In each division we have the simplification of a reference column which shows the goods, the general rate, the preferential rate and such information as rates applicable to most favoured nations, Canada and New Zealand and the British preferential rate. The older and more cumbersome method of presentation is greatly simplified.

A change of this nature means that the main burden of its interpretation falls on those people who have active tariff interests. The Minister and the Department have given advance information to the various chambers of commerce in anticipation of the change over on 1st July. Perhaps we could call it T - for tariff-day. One can imagine the confusion which would have existed in the business world of this country if suddenly a document of such a massive character were placed in the hands of the various organisations, customs agents and other people dealing with these matters and they had to readjust the office routines and their files and records. There would be utter confusion. To avoid this, the various chambers of commerce and other interested people and organisations have been supplied with advance information. In fact, schools have been conducted which customs agents could attend to be briefed on the implications of the legislation now before us. The schools gave the interested people an outline of how to interpret the rules and the legal notes. Those who attended the schools have complimented the officers of the Department of Customs and Excise for the assistance they gave in the schools to importers, manufacturers and all concerned with imports and rates of duty.

In his second reading speech the Minister referred to the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce publication of February 1965 in which attention was directed to this document. It mentioned that the document lays down a format of a customs tariff, the exact wording of all the tariff items, the rules of interpretation and a definition of the terms and expressions incorporated in it. The Chamber accentuated the point that the document does not incorporate any changes in the rates of duty. It went on to point out that the adoption by Australia of a tariff incorporating the Brussels Nomenclature will mean that all imports into Aus tralia will be classifiable under the same tariff item as they would be in the tariffs of all countries which have adopted the Nomenclature.

Referring to a statement by the Minister for Customs and Excise the Chamber said that the new tariff presents a logical and systematic approach to the classification of all duties and is in the same form as is used in most of the major trading countries. It also mentioned that the changeover will undoubtedly confer benefits on the Australian public, particularly after users become familiar with its provisions. In addition, consideration benefits are to be gained in the international sphere in respect of trade agreements and trade statistics by adoption of common nomenclature. The article also stated that although the new tariff is not expected to become operative until 1st July - and after the passage of the measure both here and in another place - the Department made certain that customs agents and importers had a good knowledge of the background of the Brussels Nomenclature tariff items. The Chamber of Commerce added that it supports the Government in its move to bring the Australian tariff into line with that of all major trading countries. This indicates ‘that the people who have the responsibility of interpretation of the Brussels Nomenclature and of the schedules incorporated in the Bill when it becomes law have been well briefed in its contents and give it support.

The details of the Bill have been explored by the Minister. The measure is of such a technical nature that to understand it fully requires very close study. Those who regarded it as reading material would find it rather dry, but customs agents whose business it is to act as the liaison between the general public and the Government’s policy - and this also applies to the shipping people and all the way along the line - now have a common language which they can readily understand and interpret. This is of great importance to them. Although the document has a rather forbidding appearance I am sure it will be of great assistance.

Ample time has been given for the changover. Notice has been issued that the measure will become operative from 1st July next, thus ensuring that there will be no dislocation of other activities such as the issuing of annual reports by the Bureau of

Census and Statistics. This course is preferable to introducing the legislation in an intermediate period so that the change would take place in part of each of two years, thereby disturbing the statistics for two years. The operative date of 1st July has been set deliberately for this purpose and, at the same time, allows an ample period of time for customs agents and other people associated with importing to make a proper study of the proposed legislation.

Another aspect to be considered is the blending of the old legislation into the new legislation. The advice o, various people associated with customs, imports and exports was sought. Discrepancies due to clerical or typographical errors have been noted. In his second reading speech the Minister stated that, where possible, discrepancies had been rectified in the Bill. Others will be adjusted by gazettal and will be corrected in any future printing of the measure. This indicates the close attention that has been given to detail.

Those associated with this completely new phase of the administration of our economic life have had an onerous and complicated task. The Bill deals with tariffs on all kinds of imports and exports involving a great variety of rates and definitions of various commodities. Great credit is due to those concerned for making this transfer possible with such a minimum of error. It says much for the administration of the Minister for Customs and Excise and the efficiency of the officers of the Department.

The subject matter of the Bill can be absorbed only as a result of a close study of the range of commodities and the associated activities it covers. A perusal of this document is most educational. It gives a clear idea of the volume and variety of goods that make up trade between countries. I have referred to the categories covered, such as live animals, but other chapters deal with a variety of meats, edible offal, fish, dairy produce, honey and a great number of other products of animal origin. Other categories cover vegetable products and. in all, the Bill demonstrates how technical the collection of revenue through customs is and can be. Customs tariffs have become a most important factor in the administration and financing of Commonwealth activities. The average layman has only a vague concept of the amount of revenue that flows to the Treasury from customs and excise duties. It represents a substantial portion of Commonwealth revenue.

As an illustration of the complexities of classifications I was interested in the apparently simple matter of glass and glassware. There is glass of the variety known as enamel glass, in the mass, rods and tubes, and there is glass in balls, rods and tubes, unworked, not being optical glass. In Chapter 70 - Glass and Glassware - I also rind these items - Figured rolled, cathedral, milled rolled or rough cast glass; unworked drawn or blown glass; clear glass, cast, rolled, drawn or blown glass in rectangular shapes; X-ray protective glass; float glass less than 3/16 inch in thickness; glass in sheets not exceeding 25 square feet; cast, rolled, drawn or blown glass, cut to shape other than a rectangular shape; stained glass windows for installation in churches or public institutions; glass, surface ground or polished; glass mirrors, including rear view mirrors; vanity mirrors; carboys, bottles, jars, pots, stoppers, siphon vases, glass envelopes, glass vacuum flasks, and numerous other categories of glass. It is most educational to peruse a document of this nature because one realises how wide the field of imports and exports is and how much our everyday lives depend on the commodities I have mentioned. We should think of the amount of work that has been put into the manufacture or those goods and then consider their transportation and, eventually, their distribution. We should consider also the amount of work that has gone into the classification of them. All those goods are kept under close supervision and control through the Department of Customs and Excise.

Mr. Deputy President, the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. The Minister has assured us that the main schedule has been translated from the existing -Tariff Act in accordance with the Government’s decision or direction that any changes in the level of duty should be minimal but that a rationalisation should be made to produce a workable document. I venture to say that there are reports from people who are actively engaged in and associated with customs and related activities to the effect that this is a workable document. I have already referred to the timing factor. The commencing date, 1st July next, will give those interested in the legislation ample time to study it. The Commonwealth Statistician is geared for the changeover from 1st July.

Another interesting point associated with this Bill is that the transition to a similar tariff to that adopted by the European community, and many African and Asian nations, is in the process of being, or already has been, accomplished. That, in my view, will be a great advantage which will open up and expedite our communications with other countries throughout the world. The Minister for Customs and Excise, in presenting the Bill to the Senate, quoted the following passage from a circular letter sent out by the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce -

An Australian tariff with a common nomenclature to that used by many other countries and one which presents a more logical and systematic approach to tariff classification, will be a benefit to all concerned with imports.

I believe that that is true. The administration of customs and tariffs on an international level in the future will be made simpler and the areas of misunderstanding that aTe so common in other fields of international communication will be still further reduced. The items in the customs schedules deal with material things, with objects that can be seen, handled and classified. As I remarked previously, the neatness of the classifications has impressed me very much. It is perhaps rather a pity that in our international dealings generally we are not able to do something like this with more abstract problems such as the adoption of an international language, differing ideologies and religions, and so many of the other things that are disturbing the minds of men throughout the world.

Senator Wright:

– Should they be put in a customs schedule?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No, I do not mean that, but at some time in the future I think there will be an international language. I believe that the lack of an international language accentuates and perpetuates racial differences. National boundaries create jealousies and differences which keep people apart. In matters such as customs tariffs we see a great number of countries agreeing on a common objective for their mutual benefit. They agree to have a document which makes it possible, for instance, for a man to know that, when someone refers to Item 69.12.1, he is referring to “ pudding basins; lipped bowls “. That, to my way of thinking, is a great advance in international understanding.

Perhaps I have not dealt adequately with this subject. It really calls for a long term of experience in the Department of Customs and Excise and a tremendous amount of research if one is to deal adequately with such a complex and technical matter. However, I am sure that people of goodwill have throughout the years realized the importance of the co-ordination of customs activities, and in doing so they have made a great breakthrough. I hope that the nations which have not yet become signatories to the Convention or which have not yet given legislative effect to the Brussels Nomenclature will do so. As we have become a signatory to the Convention, and since we have by means of this legislation shown that we appreciate the advantages of being a signatory to it and have undertaken all the groundwork that is necessary, we can look forward to a period of greater international understanding in this field.

I wish again to express the view of the Opposition that great credit is due to the Minister for Customs and Excise and his Departmental officers for having presented to the Senate in what is virtually a concise form such a vast field of activities and responsibilities covered by the Department. We wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - 1 thank Senator O’Byrne for his contribution to the debate. In a very short time he has come to grips with the legislation and has given a fine exposition of the Bill and its purpose. He has done so well in that regard that I feel it is not necessary for me to cover points with which he has dealt so ably. We have before us a Bill on which all the political parties in this Parliament are agreed. Therefore, I feel that further explanation of a great many of its features would scarcely be appropriate. I think it is true to say that this is the biggest Bill that has ever been before the Parliament. It excites some pride in me to be the Minister in charge of the Department which has brought down such a Bill. I do not mean that it excites pride in me for anything that I have done myself, but because of the tremendous volume of work that has been done by the officers of my Department. They have worked on this legislation for a long time. Officers of other departments, such as the Department of Trade and Industry and the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, who had a big measure of responsibility to ensure that it was in a suitable form, also were concerned with its presentation.

Senator O’Byrne referred to an item in the Schedule relating to live horses, asses, mules and hinnies. I am able to assure him that a hinny is the progeny of a female donkey and a stallion. That information will not be found in the classifications. The item has been included because it comes within the international tariffs. There are in the Schedules some 4,500 classifications, which is an increase of approximately 1,000 on the previous number.

A great effort has been made to ensure that there is an absence of error in the transposition. As I stated in my second reading speech, the Bill embodies the international tariffs provided for under the Brussels Nomenclature, but in truth it represents a change in wording without a change in rates. As Senator O’Byrne has said, a great effort was made to ensure that people for whom tariffs are a part of their daily lives were given every opportunity to examine the draft schedules, because new tariff schedules of this magnitude could not be introduced overnight. Over a period of time errors of rationalisation and errors of form have been sought I am quite certain that when this Tariff comes into operation on 1st July it will be completely effective.

As Senator O’Byrne pointed out, it is desirable that those people who make daily use of the Tariff should be aware of the procedures that are involved. Accordingly, over quite a long period officers of my Department have been giving lectures right across Australia so that when the Tariff becomes law on 1st July those people will be competent to operate under it.

The importance of this Tariff to Australia’s negotiations with other countries cannot be stressed too much. In its new form it will be of tremendous advantage to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr.

McEwen) in bearing his heavy burden of responsibility when negotiating trade with other countries. The fact that he is using a tariff with nomenclature that some 70 other countries will be using, and which many more are about to embrace, will be of great assistance to him. I am thankful to the Senate for the support it has given to the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1063

CUSTOMS BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 1042), on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- This Bill is designed to amend the Customs Act 1901-1963. It contains amendments which are consequential upon the principal change that was effected in the Customs Tariff Bill 1965. The amendments are technical in nature. One repeals section 131, which relates to the exemption of goods which are the property of the Commonwealth from liability to customs duty. Another repeals section 138, which directs that the higher rate of duty is to be charged whenever goods are classifiable under two tariff items. A further amendment repeals section 139, which provides that substitutes may by ministerial notice be chargeable with duty at the rate applicable to the goods for which they are substitutes. Section 140, which makes provision for the Minister to vary the duties on parts in approved circumstances - this principle is carried forward in clause 22 of the Customs Tariff Bill - is to be repealed. As I said earlier, the measure is consequential upon the Customs Tariff Bill 1965, which provided for the changeover to the Brussels Nomenclature. We give this Bill the same support that we accorded to the earlier measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1064

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 196S

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 1042), on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This measure, too, is consequential upon the Customs Tariff Bill 1965. The schedule of sales tax exemptions contains certain provisions applicable to imported goods which are complementary to provisions in the Customs Tariff. It maintains the link with the Customs Tariff and provides for a continuance of the relevant sales tax exemptions after the new Tariff comes into force. We offer no objection to the legislation and wish it a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1064

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 1042), on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- This Bill provides for the validation until 30th June 1965 of the collection of duties that were introduced by Customs Tariff Proposals during March, April and May of this year. Those proposals conformed to the legal tariff as at that date and are required to continue in operation on and after 1st July. The language used in the proposals, but not the rates, needs to be changed to conform to the new tariff for imports after 30th June 1965. The Act to which these proposals relate is to be repealed after 30th June 1965. The proposals would lapse at that date, but in addition the duties collected would not have been legally imposed without! the enactment of this Bill. It can be seen that this is complementary legislation, to tidy up matters arising out of the Tariff Bill. The changes contained in the proposals covered by this Bill will be reintroduced by notice in the Commonwealth “ Gazette “ to operate on and from 1st July 1965, which is the date when the new Tariff Act will come into operation. The Senate will have an opportunity to debate those proposals further. Until that time comes, the Opposition is prepared to pass the measure without objection.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1064

STATE GRANTS (SCIENCE LABORATORIES) BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 1044), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

– I propose to the Senate that at the second reading stage this Bill be taken with the Universities (Financial Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill, so that reference may be made to each of them during the debate. I had a conversation yesterday with the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research (Senator Gorton), in the course of which he agreed to the adoption of this procedure, if the Senate were prepared to accept it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman). - There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I begin my speech by referring to the constitutional power of the Commonwealth in the field of education. For many years education was traditionally an activity reserved to the States, in relation to which they jealously expressed their rights and resented interference. The position has changed a little down the years, in that the Commonwealth has now come to use the enormous power under section 96 of the Constitution, whereby it may make grants to the States with or without conditions. That section has been invoked very heavily in recent years to make grants to the States to aid education. The money, of course, must go through the States. Particular purposes can be specified by the Commonwealth. These operate only if they are acceptable to the States. Hitherto there has been no question about the acceptability to the States of the grants with the conditions.

What is often overlooked is that the Commonwealth has an enormous direct power, which was written into the Constitution in 1946 in the new placitum 23a which, amongst other things, gave to the Federal Parliament express power to legislate to make provision for benefits to students. I am not attempting to embark upon any discourse on the full extent and scope of that power, lt is undeniable that it does confer direct power on the Commonwealth. In the view that I put. it also imposes on the Commonwealth a very great responsibility, lt has not been used to any great extent, but it lies there as a reserve power which would enable the Commonwealth, if it wished, to make a different type of approach and to play a most potent part in influencing the educational development of the Commonwealth.

The first Bill to which I refer is the one to provide financial assistance to the States for science laboratories and equipment in schools. The grant is made to a State on condition that the State expends it upon the establishment of laboratories and equipment for use in the teaching of science in schools at the secondary level of education. The second Bill deals with technical training. It. too. proposes the making of grants to the States, on condition that they be expended on projects approved by the appropriate Commonwealth Minister, on buildings and equipment for use in the training in State schools of persons for employment in trades and technical occupations. The third Bill revises the three-year programme set up in 1963 for university aid. It proposes the addition to the amount to be expended of a total sum of £6.9 million over the three calendar years 1964, 1965 and 1966. The amounts paid to technical schools and secondary schools in relation to science are to be spread over three years. Each of the Bills relating to science laboratories and technical training seeks a direct appropriation of the sum of £15 million. However, it provides that it be expended over a three year period in equal amounts. When we add to those two sums the amount of £6.9 million for additional- assistance for universities we find ourselves called upon to approve the appropriation of the very considerable sum of £36.9 million for the three purposes of this Bill.

Broadly, I indicate at once that the Opposition does not oppose the Bills. However, to the Bill relating to the establishment of science laboratories and the provision of equipment we will propose an amendment to express the Opposition’s point of view, which is completely fundamental and vital to the structure of education in the Commonwealth.

Senator Wright:

– Can the honorable senator give us an idea of it, in just a few words for the present?

Senator McKENNA:

– lt is very short, so I will state it now in order that it may be circulated to honorable senators. I move -

That the following words be added to the motion: “ but the Senate is of opinion that the scheme proposed by the Bill is inadequate as science education cannot bc divorced from the need to advance and improve education at all levels and in all fields and will suffer unless an immediate inquiry into all aspects of education is instituted “.

Senator Gorton__ Is the honorable senator proposing that amendment to the Bill relating to technical schools?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, but it applies to technical schools. I am proposing an amendment to the Bill which is immediately before us, but the Minister will notice that in applying it to the Bill relating to science laboratories I indicate in my motion that there is a need to advance and improve education at all levels, which includes the technical level, and in all fields, and that even science will suffer unless an immediate inquiry into all aspects of education is instituted.

I will return to the terms of the proposed amendment at a later stage, but I indicate now that after reviewing briefly Commonwealth activity in the field of education I will press to the conclusion that the Commonwealth, under this Government in particular, has continued putting patches on a leaking edifice instead of starting at the foundations and going through the structure from bottom to top. We so regard the approach which has been made by this Government.

I should like to deal with the history of the matter before returning to that theme. I have indicated that for decades education was traditionally a State responsibility. Probably the first real Commonwealth activity in this field was in the post-war period when the Labour Government had responsibility for the administration of the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme. That directed the attention of the Commonwealth Government of the day to the grave defects in the universities in the provision of accommodation, qualified teachers and adequate facilities.

We embarked - very successfully - upon the task of honouring our obligation to exservicemen who wished to be trained at university level. The Commonwealth came generously to the aid of the universities in providing buildings, maybe of a temporary nature, and facilities, and in helping exservicemen to acquire academic qualifications, professional and otherwise. I would say that for the first time in any substantial way that directed the mind of the Commonwealth to what was happening in the field of education.

The next step was taken in 1949 when, just prior to the defeat of the Labour Government, a system of Commonwealth university scholarships was set up. The sum of £1 million was allocated for that purpose. The scheme was not in active operation when the Labour Government was defeated, but it was picked up and carried on by the succeeding Government. They were the first steps. Then the Commonwealth came into the field of university education. It addressed itself to the pyramid. It went to the top of the structure first and did the wise thing in obtaining a comprehensive report - the Murray report - which has been of tremendous assistance to the Government and the Parliament in addressing their minds to the problems of universities.

We acknowledge that what was done was good. We have supported it. We give generous acknowledgement of the fact that the Commonwealth has done so much in that field. Leaving aside the physical aspect of what was done, it is interesting simply to record the expenditure in the present triennium, the three years 1964 to 1966 both inclusive. There have been additions to the amounts appropriated for the universities in those three years since the first Bill was passed in October 1963. There was a provision in 1964 increasing the amount, and we now have before us a Bill to provide an additional £6.9 million. As the Minister has indicated, in all £64 million, or more than £21 million a year for each of the three years, is to be provided by the Commonwealth through the States to the universities.

By all standards that is a very substantial and generous contribution. It is one which will not remain static. As needs increase and the universities have to expand and as more universities are required, it is inevitable that this Parliament, now committed in this important field, will have to be ready and willing to make additional financial contributions through the States.

Following the election at the end of 1963 the Commonwealth embarked for the first time in the fields of secondary and technical education when it promised scholarships in those spheres. That really was the first venture by the Commonwealth into the field of secondary education. In 1964 we had a bill which dealt with the provision of science laboratories in secondary schools and gave assistance regarding the construction and equipping of technical schools. That was the first tentative step.

When that scheme was announced Senator Gorton, the Minister in charge of the Bill today, rather tentatively stated that we might expect the announcement of provision over a triennium to operate from the end of the financial year 1964-65. But there was no promise, so those who obtained the benefit of the new approach to the provision of science and technical facilities could only plan, when they began upon this scheme, on the basis of the £5 million grant for those facilities last year. It is not surprising, therefore, that in those circumstances, as the Minister has told us, a good deal of the allocation was not expended. The money has been paid over but it takes time to gather momentum in attending to these projects and in sorting out one from the other.

As a further indication of the inadequacies of the grant - already evidenced by the fact that it is to be repeated for another three years - the Minister stated that 189 secondary schools had received aid for science facilities and 708 secondary schools had registered for assistance. Even at the tempo of 1 89 schools a year, the whole field would not be covered - even in the area of independent schools - in three years. Obviously a mammoth attack has not been made upon the provision of science facilities in any one year, lt is the sort of assistance that must be spread over a three year period.

As members of the Opposition see it, the Commonwealth Government has been righting a rearguard action. It has been reluctant to enter the terrifically important field of education. It has yielded only after pressure. First, enormous pressure was exerted in relation to universities and then in relation to additional scholarships followed by pressure in other areas of the tertiary field. Recently we debated in the Senate aspects of tertiary education following the presentation of the report of the Martin Committee. In that debate, which proved to be most interesting, Senator Cohen led for the Opposition. Decisions made by the Government in relation to the recommendations in the report and aspects of the report that the Government did not adopt provoked a most informative discussion.

It seems to me that the Commonwealth traditionally has been reluctant to enter the field of education. Yet education is fundamental to all activities of the Commonwealth. It is fundamental to our development, our rate of progress and our defence. It is fundamental also to our international stature and in that respect we have a deficiency of teachers, scientists and other trained personnel, whereas a nation such as Australia in the midst of under developed nations should regard as one of its prime responsibilities meeting the great and urgent needs of those nations for education and additional know-how. Perhaps no greater avenue is open to Australia to win goodwill amongst our under developed neighbours than to provide them with teachers to raise their educational standards. No true progress can be achieved without those personnel and, in fact, no stability. I believe that the higher the level of education is raised, the saner the world becomes and the quicker is our progress. I should like to see our own educational standards raised to a point where one of our most priceless exports would be trained personnel and scientists to teach people in the under developed countries immediately in our vicinity. The standards of our under developed neighbours could be raised to those we would like to set for ourselves.

Although education may be primarily committed to the States, it is a matter of fundamental importance to every activity in the Commonwealth. Education affects the economic development of the nation and has the very important international aspect that I have put. The Commonwealth has rather reluctantly and tentatively entered the field of education. It moved in last year with £5 million for the two types of assistance given to technical and secondary schools. It was a nervous and tentative approach which only broadly recognised that difficulties existed. No prior examination was made of the needs or the expected trends during the years ahead.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator McKENNA:

– On looking at the second reading speech of the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) on the Stares Grants (Technical Training) Bill 1965 I note that he stated -

It has become clear in the course of the first year’s administration of the scheme that equipment has neither been adequate nor up to date.

I understand that that statement is not repeated in the second reading speech on the Bill dealing with science laboratories, but I have no doubt that it would have equal application there. There is no information from the Minister as to the nature or extent of the inadequacies that were discovered. There is no indication from the Government as to when these defects or deficiencies will be cured. There is no statement as to what is contemplated for the period ahead as our population expands. I hope that the Minister in replying will convey to the Senate more information on these particular points. After some 15 years the Government has taken the first effective steps to assist technical schools and secondary schools in the matter of science equipment. I doubt very much whether that would have been done but for the dynamic nature of Labour’s proposals at the federal elections in 1963. I have before me the speech made by the Leader of the Australian Labour Party, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) on that occasion. Our proposals were set out in that policy speech. I do not propose to take the Senate through all of them, but from the viewpoint of their relevance to the amendment I have moved I want to quote a few brief extracts. The extracts I have selected are not those dealing with our individual proposals but rather show the spirit that underlies our thinking in the matter of education. Under the heading of education the Leader of the Opposition stated-

Education is one of the neglected tasks facing the governments of Australia today. It has been said and truly said, that education is the most important activity of civilised nations. Labor puts education at the centre of its current thinking. An educated domecracy is a . powerful democracy, and for a nation as small as Australia, education is the key to our survival.

After setting out our specific proposals, Mr. Calwell concluded -

We further propose to set up an inquiry into all aspects of education in Australia.

Similar in its aims, and equal in its importance to the Murray Commission of Inquiry into Universities, this inquiry will invite evidence from all groups and competent persons interested in all aspects of education, State and private alike, in primary, secondary, technical and teacher training schools. A Labor Government will expect that inquiry to provide a blueprint for education in Australia for the next decade. We will act on the report when we receive it.

In short, Labor will plan education as a major task facing the nation.

The question is not just how much we can afford to spend; Australia just cannot afford the waste of not investing heavily in education now.

Mr. Calwell then passed on to deal with science and I shall quote a few short extracts. He said -

As I have said, Labor is determined that there shall be a revolution in Australia’s approach to education. We are equally determined that Australia shall play its full part in the revolution that is going on in the world around us - the revolution in science, technology and automation. We propose to harness these great forces of change and progress to the development and prosperity of Australia.

The Leader of the Australian Labour Party then set out four proposals, only the first of which I shall quote. He said -

We therefore propose -

To establish a National Science Foundation to expand, organise and co-ordinate scientific education and research.

Mr. Calwell indicated that in the early stages of the programme £10 million would be spent in this field and he concluded -

Unless we take urgent steps now to place Australia in the forefront of the scientific revolution, we are doomed to be a nation of borrowers and imitators, living precariously on the fruits of foreign research. This is completely contrary to our national traditions.

That is the type of thinking that has motivated us in pressing, down the years, for the type of inquiry we have proposed again in our amendment. Ours is not a lone voice in this field. I have before me a submission by Mr. Heffron, who was then Premier of New South Wales, on behalf of his State and the Premiers of four other States at a Premiers’ Conference in Canberra in June 1960. Mr. Heffron then drew attention to the very great difficulties facing the States in education. He spoke of the shortage of school buildings, the insufficient number of adequately trained teachers and the limitations in the provision of equipment. Mr. Heffron developed the theme that education was a national problem and not merely a matter for the States alone. He pointed to the inter-relationship of one aspect of education with another. That, too, is an element that the Opposition has included in the amendment that I have put before the Senate. On behalf of the five Premiers, including himself, Mr. Heffron said -

I would ask at this stage that the Commonwealth agree to establish a committee to investigate” and make an up to date assessment of the needs of primary, secondary and technical education on a national basis and to suggest a long term basis of assistance.

That approach has been supported too by those who are very knowledgeable in the field of education - the Teachers Federation of Australia.

Senator Wright:

– Who were the four other Premiers for whom Mr. Heffron spoke?

Senator McKENNA:

– He spoke for himself and all the other Premiers except the Premier of South Australia. I am not aware whether the Premier of South Australia joined in the submissions subsequently. My information does not go to that point. Initially, five of the State Premiers subscribed to this proposition.

Senator Wright:

– What was the date of the submission?

Senator McKENNA:

– I have to rely on my memory but I believe it was 15th June 1960.

Senator Gorton:

– To what particular submission is the honorable senator referring?

Senator McKENNA:

– A submission at the Premiers’ Conference made by Mr.

Heffron, who was then the Premier of New South Wales, on behalf of himself and the Premiers of four other States. We take the view that research is needed into the needs of education and all the trends in this field. It means research, and surely this should be the beginning of any intelligent approach to the problem. The first thing to do is to tease out the problem. Once that is done, tremendous progress will have been made.

I realise that education has pressing needs and that these are important. 1 face the fact also that there are needs in fields other than education and that their urgency fluctuates from time to time. You cannot deal with all the problems of education at one time. The only intelligent approach is to recognise that every aspect of education is connected or interrelated with another aspect of education and that all the defects in one aspect will have repercussions on other aspects along the line. The need is to begin at the bottom with primary education and to move through each aspect of education rectifying each one as we go through. This is in complete contradistinction to the approach the Government is making. It has done various things. In itself each of them is good. We have applauded them. But until the Government can align these moves and have them correlated one with the other in the various fields, and until it sees the problem as one project extending over at least a decade, then no intelligent and efficent approach will be made to this matter.

We find even at this late stage the Government resisting proposals in the field of private training. When we had the Tertiary Education Committee’s report before us quite recently, a great deal of controversy surrounded the fact that the Government did not adopt the recommendation of that Committee in relation to this all important field. The Opposition, as I have indicated, supports the three Bills. We support the Universities (Financial Assistance) Bill 1965 without reservation of any kind; the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill 1965 is subject to the amendment that I have moved; and the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill 1965 is also supported without a formal amendment, but as I have already explained to the Minister, that is covered not only by what I have said in developing my arguments in the Senate but also in the expressed terms of the amendment I have moved to the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill 1965 indicating that the Opposition wants the affairs of education looked at.

In conclusion, I ask the Government - in fact I beg the Government - to look at this problem as a truly national one in which, in partnership with the States, the Government should give leadership, one of its purposes being to provide the requisite finance. This is not necessarily the dominant purpose because the element of leadership and co-ordination of the States in a national effort is equally important as providing finance. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom at least of not making an ad hoc approach to aspects of the problem of education. The Government should see education as one unit all the parts of which must be co-ordinated adequately and properly. I commend the amendment to the Senate for its consideration.

Senator LAUGHT (South Australia) [2.281. - I rise to support the three Bills which are being taken together and to indicate that I will vote against the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Mckenna). In supporting these Bills, I would like personally to congratulate the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research (Senator Gorton) and also offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) for this dynamic and earnest approach that they are making with regard to education on the tertiary, technical and, in certain cases, the secondary levels. I think that the Government has approached this matter with great care. It is receiving, of course, pressure from the States and from representatives interested in education in the States for a great handout of money to the States for the purpose of development of educational matters. But I think the Government is very wise in keeping its own control and administrative technique on the moneys that it is providing by this legislation.

It was only a year ago that we were debating the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill 1964. Honorable senators will recall that there was enthusiastic opposition from the Australian Labour Party at that time to what the Government was then doing. At the moment, there is no enthusiasm on the Opposition side at all either for or against these three Bills. I think that the change in the attitude of the Opposition within the space of 12 months clearly shows that the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill 1964 has been a great success amongst the people who are interested in education in the States. Briefly the position is that through the Bill I have just mentioned the Government provided in my State of South Australia £337,000 for science blocks and technical equipment in government schools. Independent schools received £124,000. This amount is to be divided, with £60,000 being shared amongst the Roman Catholic schools and £64,000 being shared amongst the other independent schools in that State. From my own observation and contacts with a number of these independent schools in South Australia, I have come to the conclusion that this money was very much appreciated and has already been applied for the purposes provided.

I was interested to hear the Minister reply to a question submitted by Senator Cohen in the Senate this morning. In reply to this question which was upon notice, the Minister set out in a schedule the precise figures that were allocated in the various States and the schools which received those sums of money. In South Australia, the Roman Catholic schools divided their share into eight unequal parts. The recommention from the Roman Catholic authorities to the Minister showed the following allocation of moneys - Blackfriars Priory, Prospect, £1,750; Christian Brothers’ College, Adelaide, £1,750; Christian Brothers’ School St. Paul’s, Strathmont, £15,874; Loreto Convent School, Marryatville, £800; Rostrevor College, Magill, £1,500; St. Dominic’s Priory, North Adelaide, £5,876; St. Joseph’s Girls’ High School, Kensington, £1,750; and St. Mary’s Dominican Convent School, Cabra, £3,000. So, the Roman Catholic authorities decided to divide their £60,000 into eight parts. Payments have been made to all these schools, some in full and other in part. No doubt, within the next few months, the remaining amounts which have been granted will be actually paid.

The independent schools in South Australia, other than Roman Catholic schools, divided the amount granted into four equal sums into £16,050. This amount was distributed to the following schools - Girton, Kensington Park, Westminster School, Marion; Wilderness School, Medindie; and

Woodlands, Church of England Girls Grammar School, Glenelg. All the amounts have been paid. From my knowledge of visiting some of these schools, I have actually seen work in progress. I am sure that in a few months time the schools will actually be giving science lessons as a result of the money that this Parliament provided less than a year ago. Because of the vigour of the Minister this scheme has got under way. The people were ready for it. The committees in charge of the schools were prepared, and already the results are to hand. Consequently that is an excellent reason why the scheme should be continued. I am glad that it is being continued and I am also glad that it is being continued for a triennium. The schools in South Australia which have not received assistance under the scheme will now feel that their turn is coming within the foreseeable future and will be able to go ahead with their plans.

In addition to providing this money the Government has, I think, done a very sensible thing in providing know-how to schools which wish to improve their science teaching facilities. The Advisory Committee on Standards has developed a series of laboratory plants. The members of the Committee, all of whom have had much experience in science teaching, visit applicant schools and give advice on the most suitable laboratories to meet their individual needs. I can assure the Senate that this service which is provided with Government help by skilled former teachers of science has been much availed of in South Australia and is much appreciated. Principals of schools have telephoned me to find out when the gentleman from Melbourne - I think he was a master at Melbourne Grammar School - would be visiting South Australia because schools desiring to improve their science teaching facilities required his services.

I think it should be mentioned in the Senate that the scheme does not provide only money. It also provides interest and know-how in science teaching. The work that is being done in South Australia under the scheme is greatly appreciated in that State, particularly by schools that have battled on for the best part of a century without any Government interest whatsoever being evinced in their work. Now in 1965 the Government is providing first the money and secondly the know-how. I hope that the Minister will see to it that knowhow is provided for the schools that will be assisted in the triennium. I think that this scheme is one of the most brilliant moves made by the Gvernment in recent times. I am glad that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill. The amendment moved by Senator McKenna on behalf of the Opposition is really only a form of words. It does not in any way oppose the allotment of money for the next three years.

The States have been great recipients of bounty under the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill. For instance, South Australia has received £330,000 and I understand that a number of schools which otherwise would not have been assisted have received assistance. In South Australia 18 State schools have been able to improve their science laboratories and equipment because of this legislation. In addition, 12 non-State schools have been helped. I understand that because of the requirements of -departmental regulations, by and large the State schools have not got on to the job as quickly as have the independent schools. Nevertheless, the State Departments of Education are enthusiastically taking up the matter and I can see that there will be great improvements in this respect in the future.

T come now to the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill. In the field of technical training the money to be provided will go entirely to the State schools because 1 understand that there are no independent schools that conduct technical training classes. I believe that this is an important aspect of education. While there is a great need for trained scientists and technologists, we must also realise that many persons must be trained as skilled technicians and tradesmen. It is hoped that the technical training schools which the Government proposes to assist to the extent of £5 million a year for the next three years will be able to train the tradesmen and technicians that we need. There will be trade schools, improved schools of automotive engineering, printing schools, and schools which will teach carpentry, joinery and many other skills.

I was interested to note that in South Australia grants have already been made in the 1964-65 financial year for Department of Education establishments, to the South Australian Institute of Technology and

Roseworthy Agricultural College, and that the proposals for the forthcoming three years include substantial expenditure on an automotive trades school and further expenditure on engineering and food technology courses at Roseworthy Agricultural College. This College, about 35 miles north of Adelaide, was established about 80 years ago and has done splendid work in training young men in viticulture, agriculture,, pasture management and other matters connected with rural industry. I think it is of great importance to provide training in farm engineering for the young men who are attending the College, many of whom will become farmers. I commend the Government for its interest in this respect. I believe that the Government of South Australia will be the first to acknowledge the benefits that will come from the passing of this legislation.

In my short remarks I wish to compliment the Government also on what it is doing with regard to the provision of financial assistance to universities. As is well known, the increase in the number of university students in the last decade has been phenomenal. The Eggleston report indicated that academic salaries should be raised. The increased salaries, plus a number of other additional costs, have to be met by the universities. Some of those costs will be met by the finance to be provided under the Universities (Financial Assistance) Bill now before the Senate. I was interested to see that the grants for recurrent expenditure for the year 1966 are quite substantial so far as South Australia is concerned. It is also interesting to note that the grants are to be made for individual establishments in that State. In this respect I point out that the university at Bedford Park, the new South Australian university, is to be assisted to the extent of £1,417,000. I am very glad that £121,000 is to be provided for the erection of a building for the Faculty of Technology at Whyalla. I am pleased to note that the Government is looking beyond the old established university in Adelaide and is looking at institutions in other regions of South Australia. As I have pointed out, interest is being displayed in the institution at Bedford Park, the South Australian Institute of Technology, and the Whyalla section of the South Australian Institute of Technology. All in all, the Government is to be commended for its interest in education. I believe that in the forthcoming three years Australia will reap great benefit from the provisions of these Bills. I support the Bills and oppose the amendment.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I should like to deal first with some remarks made by Senator Laught. The honorable senator suggested that last year enthusiastic opposition was displayed by members of Her Majesty’s Opposition in this place to the granting of financial assistance to the States for science laboratories and equipment in schools. Actually, we did not oppose the granting of a miserable, parsimonious sum of £5 million. What we did object to - we did so vehemently - was the completely callous disregard of the Government to the educational needs of the children of this country and its willingness, in order to obtain a maximum number of votes, to prostitute its political power by endeavouring to lead people to believe that it was granting a minimum sum.

The honorable senator then mentioned what he liked about the Government’s scheme. Whatever might be the likes of the Government as expressed in its schemes for the granting of assistance in the establishment of science laboratories and the provision of buildings and equipment for technical training, it is providing only a minimal sum of money for a maximum period. In other words, it would seem that the Government is satisfied in this particular case to provide a maximum sum of £5 million for the next three years. Nowhere has it been suggested that this will be a minimal sum and that, as so often happens in relation to Commonwealth grants to the States, at the end of 12 months the position will be reviewed with a view to increasing the sum. It seems that the Government and ils supporters are prepared to adopt a lethargic approach to the problem and to be satisfied to make available a sum of £5 million for the next year and the two subsequent years.

Senator Laught referred to the Government’s education proposals as being one of its brilliant acts. Of course, the Government considered that the proposals it advanced the year before last were brilliant. A person would have to be an idiot not to realise that the Government’s education proposals announced before the last election were designed to win votes and that in fact the Government did attain its objective. The Government cold bloodedly, callously, and with indifference to the rights of our children, has been motivated by the same thought in introducing the Bills now before us.

What is wrong with what we suggested last year and what we again suggest now - an inquiry into all forms of education in Australia? 1 suppose supporters of the Government in this chamber and in another place will hold up the present leader of the Government, who controls the activities of every member of his party and of the parasitic group who sit beside them, as being a great builder in the education sphere. While speaking of building, let us consider our education system as being in the nature of a two-storey structure. First we have the foundations, then the ground floor, and on top of that the first floor. The foundations consist of our primary education system. The ground floor consists of academic secondary education and technical training, and the first floor consists of tertiary education which is now to be widened to include the field of technology and what are referred to as the liberal arts at a standard lower than that taught within the various universities.

At no stage has any representative of the Government suggested that any interest should be taken in, let alone an inquiry being made into, the needs of primary education. We have been told ad nauseam that the Commonwealth has no real authority in the field of education, that education is a State responsibility. But that did not stop the present Government or its predecessors from displaying an interest in tertiary education and appointing the Murray committee to conduct an inquiry. As is characteristic of mc, I graciously admit that to a degree the Government adopted a liberal approach to the needs of tertiary education, although it was not as liberal as the needs would have justified. Nonetheless, the approach was exextraordinarily liberal when we think of the parsimonious, miserly approach to such problems in the past by successive Governments led by the present Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies).

It is all very well for Senator Laught to speak about the last decade. We have not reached the end of the first decade of the Government’s interest in the field of tertiary education. At the end of the decade we shall see just what has happened, not so much in terms of what has been provided as in terms of what has been provided in relation to the needs of the time.

The proposed provision of £5 million for science laboratories is a miserable approach to the problem. When we think of the buildings, equipment and amenities that have been provided in the field of primary education, it will be seen that the States, because of inadequate finances or the lack of a sense of responsibility, have made inadequate provision for scientific and technical training. It is quite evident that, because of its callous disregard, the Government here in Canberra proposes to do nothing in the field of primary education. How can you have success in the field of secondary academic or technical education, and in turn in the field of tertiary education whether at the university level or the technological training institute level, if attention is not given to education at the primary level? A child must be trained to think. If children are to be taught to learn by memory at the primary level they will be as automatons as the secondary level and inevitably there will be an extraordinarily large wastage at the tertiary level.

That is what we are experiencing in Australia today. This Government and its immediate predecessors have done nothing about this. As regards education, it has been accepted in this modern era that apart from the contribution that can be made to the development of the country and the well being of its citizens collectively, it is the basic right of every individual child to be provided with opportunities to develop to maximum the talents with which he is endowed. We know that under our economic system there are many limiting factors as regards parents, environment, occupation, distance and sparsity of population. These are all limiting factors in the provision of adequate opportunities. It should be the sincere and serious endeavour of the central government to provide those facilities which will make for the maximum development and utilisation of the talents with which each child is endowed. There is no endeavour to do this.

This question has been identified in some measure, more particularly in the provision of scientific laboratories and equipment, with the question of aid for independent schools. If we accept the basis that the child has an inherent right, this means that every child has the basic inherent right. If this Government is in favour of aid to independent schools, why does it not provide adequately to meet the needs of individual children? It has been said that my party is opposed to aid to independent schools. Let us traverse the story. It is important to get this clearly once and for all. There has been enough confusion associated with it. This confusion has been associated with it intentionally, I should say, be many opponents of Labour, but out of ignorance in the case of others, who do not see fit to learn the story properly.

What happened in 1951? The Labour Party decided that it would aid all forms of education. This was a general statement. Ideally, it sounded all right, but it had no practical effect, it mean, nothing. No real aid was given from a national point of view. In 1957 an endeavour was made, more particularly in the field of secondary education. I personally felt that we should start in the field of primary education, because ultimately from the children in the primary schools come the scholars of the secondary and technical schools, and from those come the university students. We said that we would provide scholarships and bursaries. If in 1958 we had won the election, that system would have been in existence today. Almost certainly, having established that system successfully, we would now have been in the field of primary education.

There was never any suggestion that children should be forced, under a State or national system, to undergo a one system education. That was never visualised. I do not know of any party in Australia that would attempt to impose on the people of Australia a one system education. We would have had today a relatively prosperous State system and a relative prosperous independent system. If children had to pay fees, it would have been the responsibility of the Government after 1958 to meet those fees in an endeavour to provide that which the Labour Party has always sought, the provision of equal opportunities for all children, within the limits of the environmental circumstances that I previously outlined, in an endeavour to cultivate to the maximum the talents with which each child is endowed.

We would almost certainly have moved by now into the field of primary education. We are credited with being socialistic. Many would say that we were accused of it. For practical political purposes, our opponents accuse us of being Socialists, but we are entitled to the credit of accepting a platform and policy of social responsibility. It is extraordinary, whether in the field of education of in any other arena of human endeavour, how quickly the Prime Minister sees fit to hang his hat on our hook and at least utilise so much of our policy as he, with his political astuteness, visualises will be sufficient to lull the public into a sense of security. He assures the public of something. As representative of the political party from which he comes, he sees fit to grant not the maximum but just the minimum that will assure him of political control.

Senator Laught is a great friend of mine. He has had a long association with the Australian National University. There are not many who are more versed than Senator Laught in the requirements of tertiary education. But when it comes to the field of secondary education, more particularly in the field of scientific endeavour, he seems to be particularly easily satisfied, with the provision of about £300,000. Let us not forget that from the facilities that are provided will come the students who will go into our technological institutes and universities to do various courses and to serve industry and the nation. For training students in secondary education, more particularly in science, an amount of £5 million. a year is to be provided. An amount of £1,334,000 will go to the independent schools. This nation and all other nations are urgently in need of scientifically and technologically trained personnel. In terms of the rapidly increasing numbers being trained, does anyone think that this is an adequate amount?

You, Mr. Deputy President, above all, because of your close association with primary industry and commerce, realise that the nation is crying out for adequately trained personnel. We lag behind almost every other modern nation in the proportion of national income devoted to education. We are amongst the lowest spenders. How many other countries, which by no stretch of the imagination could be termed modern, which possibly do not even desire to take a place in the modern world on modern standards, expend a lower percentage of their national income on education than we do? When we consider the sparsity of our population in relation to a relatively large area, our case appears worse. How can the present Government be termed a great building organisation? It will not face up to its fundamental responsibilities, whether these are in the field of education, development, financial adjustment or trade. It falls down on every issue other than one particular issue. It is a past master at political chicanery. I do not suppose that this country has ever witnessed a series of governments more astute at handling the affairs of the nation not in the interests of the nation or its people but in the interests of their political survival. There can be very little dispute about that. All members on the Government side paid tribute to their leader for his political astuteness in handling issues In a way which has paid regard not to the requirements of the people of this country but to their own individual and collective survival.

Let us consider the training of scientists, about which some small tribute is being paid. We can see throughout the world today the phenomenon of the works of science and of scientists. Sometimes I wonder - certainly the Government does nothing to stop me wondering - at the minimum regard that the Government pays to its responsibilities to the humanities. I realise that it is absolutely essential that we have adequately trained scientists and technologists but, after all, they do not point the way of life. They may show ways in which standards of living can be improved. As I have said before, we have learned to kill by means of nuclear weapons but we have not yet learned to live with them. In establishing an aristocracy in the field of science do not let us kid ourselves or even think seriously that we are necessarily entering the kingdom of wisdom.

The Government pays no regard to history, more particularly in the field of tertiary education. It pays only a mimimum regard financially and politically to the requirements of the humanities yet, as we traverse the pages of history, we must realise that there are few contemporary events that do not have a parallel in history - keeping in mind, of course, the differences arising from the environmental circumstances existing at a particular time. It is interesting to see, from history, that the people who point the way to how to live with scientific and engineering advances have not been scientists or engineers. In a period when we boast of our wide recognition of the need for better educational facilities, amenities and qualifications, we do little or nothing about them.

I have spoken in terms of buildings. I want now to deal with the aspect of time. Do not forget that there is another dimension besides length, breadth and depth. It is the dimension of time. The introduction of these three Bills which are now before the Senate, emanating from the great builder and sponsored by a lethargic government, occupied exactly 18 minutes in another place. Surely it was the responsibility of the Prime Minister, as it was the responsibility of the Leader of the Government in this Senate, to elaborate on what the Government was planning and not to take the attitude: “ Well, we have to feed this to the public in the dying hours of this session “. How characteristic of the Government’s callous, careless disregard of the people of this country; how extraordinarily characteristic of this Government, which has been in office since 10th December 1949? The Government does not care one whit about requirements at the secondary level, whether in the field of academic or technical training, and it certainly is not interested in the field of primary education.

I have paid a measure of regard on other occasions to the Prime Minister for the interest that he has taken in the field of university education. Perhaps I can be a little sympathetic towards him because, after all, brilliant as he was, he had the benefit of a tertiary education. Subsequently he has associated with graduates. He has mixed with people who have attained such financial success in commerce and industry that they too can associate with graduates. Perhaps it is because his vision has been limited by environment that we on this side of the chamber are so sympathetic towards the Prime Minister. No-one on this side of the Senate has ever hesitated to pay tribute for what little he has done in the field of university education, but we condemn the Government for the minimum that it is providing in the field of secondary educa tion and we totally and absolutely condemn it for its callous disregard of the requirements of primary education.

We live in a country with an area of about 2i million square miles. We have a population of about 11,200,000. I accept that the future of Australia will lie in the hands of one or other of the major political parties. Unfortunately, for the present it is in the hands of the Conservatives. We have accepted in this country a double system of education - State and independent. Many of the people who are coming to Australia from other countries have never known the obligation to make a contribution to the upkeep of schools, irrespective of whether they be State or independent. Consequently, they do not realise that they have a responsibility to provide for their own children in the independent system of education which we in this country have accepted. If this Government is sincere in its espousal of the retention of an independent system of education travelling in parallel with a State system of education, it has a much greater responsibility to contribute to the wellbeing of each individual child irrespective of the school he or she attends, whether it be at the tertiary, the academic, the secondary, the technical or the primary level. The Government, completely indifferent, does nothing to establish a sound basis, a solid foundation, on which the children of this nation may develop to the maximum the talents with which they, by God and by nature, have been endowed. It is obvious that through the development and utilisation of their talents they will be able to develop this country to the maximum, both in their own interests and in the interests of the community.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works and Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research · Victoria · LP

– in reply - We are discussing Bills that have been brought into the chamber so that financial assistance may be provided to universities, secondary schools and technical schools throughout Australia. As to the speech of Senator Dittmer, I can only say that I was most interested in his observation about three quarters of the way through that it was wrong that only about 20 minutes was taken to introduce the Bills. I gather that to the honorable senator what is said does not matter so much as does the time taken to say it. I am bound to say that this explains to me a great deal about the approach that the honorable senator makes to the speeches he delivers in the Senate.

The real theme of the Bills before us is financial assistance in the educational field. I shall deal first with assistance to universities. The Bill to make this possible is, of course, a perfectly simple bill which will increase the money already voted from Commonwealth sources for universities in order to take into account the increases in academic salaries which the Commonwealth is willing to support, the capital which is being made available as a result of the Martin Report, and increases in part time academic salaries which the Commonwealth is willing to support.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) pointed out, I thought with some fairness, that over this triennium £6.9 million additional Commonwealth aid will be paid to universities, bringing the total direct Commonwealth contributions to universities for this triennium to £64 million. I said “ direct “ Commonwealth contributions, because half the Commonwealth contributions for capital expenditure are matched by the States, and the Commonwealth contributions towards recurring expenses are more than matched by the States. The general grants made to the States also assist indirectly towards payment of recurring expenses. The direct contribution, I repeat, is £64 million. Contemplation of figures of this magnitude emphasises the realisation that more than half the universities which have been established in Australia since Australia’s history began have been established in the period of office of this Government, since 1949, or are in the process of being established.

Senator Ormonde:

– Assisted by the States.

Senator GORTON:

– Indeed, assisted by the States. Obviously. Where before no Commonwealth contribution was made the Commonwealth now contributes £64 million. This contribution indicates how the growth has been made possible, by collaboration between the Commonwealth and the States.

Senator Wright:

– The expression “ universities established “ is a little ambiguous.

Senator GORTON:

– Established, set up, in the process of being built. My reference is to universities which are, for the purposes of the Australian Universities Commission, bodies with their own governing boards which can approach the Commission for support.

Senator Dittmer:

– Are they part of “ The Establishment “?

Senator GORTON:

– The honorable senator might study the Monash University in Melbourne, the Macquarie University and Newcastle University College. Not all the universities I wish to include in my reference are established. Some of them are in the process of establishment, but they are universities which have come into being during the period of office of this Government. The Australian National University was established by the Labour Government led by Mr. Chifley and deserves credit for that accomplishment, but for the greater part of its existence it has been supported and its tasks brought to fruition through the aid of this Government. I have indicated, I suggest, that it is not correct to say that nothing is being done by the Government in the field of education or that its approach is niggardly. I suggest that the approach of the Government to university education has been revolutionary. Those who have eyes to sec can see on all sides examples of the results of the Government’s approach. The statistics of the increased numbers of undergraduates being accommodated at our universities reflects the Government’s effective approach.

I move on now to the Bill providing for assistance for building and equipping of science teaching laboratories in schools throughout Australia. This legislation has operated during this financial year. To give a measure of the contribution which has been made in this field I point out, as I did in the second reading speech, that in one year from the contribution of the States it has been possible to provide or to arrange to provide science teaching laboratories and equipment to 293 government schools which otherwise would not have so benefited. That type of financial assistance is to be extended for a further three years and the value to be gained by the government school system during that period can be judged by the benefits which already have accrued to that system in the first year of operation of the scheme. As to independent schools, 189 have been assisted, some in a small way, some in a large way.

Senator Dittmer:

– Some have received £500.

Senator GORTON:

– Some have received £500, some have received £25,000. I repeat: Some have been assisted in a small way, some in a large way. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has suggested by the terms of his amendment that this is a field into which the Government should not have entered until a survey had been made of the requirements, the results of the survey examined and a general study made of the whole question because this field could be divorced from the field of government schools. However, in this discussion it must be remembered that the great needs for capital by technical schools are to obtain scientific laboratories and equipment. The building and equipping of a science laboratory are much more expensive than the building and furnishing of a lecture room for students of the humanities. A science laboratory requires a great amount of plumbing, gas and electrical fixtures and materials which will not be eroded by chemcials. Highly expensive scientific equipment of all kinds is required. Electricity plants must be installed and it is in this area that the need for assistance to provide capita] is naturally and logically concentrated.

I wish to pay tribute, as Senator Laugh t did, to the Advisory Committee on Standards which has been examining the requirements of and how best to lay out a science laboratory. I shall make a comparison which perhaps will not be so immediately compelling to the men in the Senate as it will be to the half of our population who are women. The layout of a science laboratory is as important for its proper working as is the proper layout of a kitchen to a housewife. To a housewife the arrangement of the kitchen furniture to facilitate movement in the kitchen is most important. So it is that the ease of operation of a science laboratory is vitally affected by its installation and the arrangement of the equipment. The effectiveness of it is further influenced by the positioning of the science teacher in the laboratory so that he can be seen with ease and at no great distance by the pupils. They in turn are comfortably seated with plenty of room to carry out their experiments. They can see what the teacher is doing and he can see what they are doing. Since this Committee is com posed, I believe, of dedicated people actively engaged in science teaching it has been able to perform a terrific service by providing to schools throughout Australia layouts of laboratories, methods of connecting up the service points which are required, suggestions where the teacher should stand and the sort of furniture at which the students can work.

Senator Wright:

– From what fields do the personnel of the Committee come?

Senator GORTON:

– They are practically all science teachers in secondary schools throughout Australia. One or two are from universities but they have been science teachers. By and large, the members are practising science teachers. In moving on, I merely reiterate my belief that we have provided great assistance in this way to independent schools. These layout plans are also available to any government department which wishes to use them. We believe it is right and proper that this assistance should be extended so that all the children in Australia may get the benefits from it without discrimination, as the Prime Minister promised at the last elections.

I move now to the field of assistance to technical schools as opposed to technical colleges. The proposal again is that £5 million a year be voted for the next three years. Here again there are great capital requirements. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) asked for an indication as to exactly where deficiencies might have been found in equipment in the fields in which the equipment to be provided would be used. We are in the process of discussing with the States the detailed propositions they have for the use of this money during the next financial year, but to give an indication of the fields in which assistance is given let me give the details from the speech I made in introducing the States Grants (Science Laboratories and Technical Training) Bill 1964. In Victoria the projects included -

Additions to the Melbourne School of Printing.

A new foundry school at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

New workshops at the Ballarat School of Mines.

Extensions to the diploma block at the Caulfield Technical College, including buildings and the equipment in them.

In New South Wales the projects included -

Improvements to the Sydney Technical College.

General purpose and instructional blocks at Cooma and Parkes.

Workshop and instructional block at Wollongong.

An automotive and panel beating workshop at Newcastle.

I have no doubt that some of these projects will continue to be paid for during the next financial year. The projects submitted in Queensland were -

The Central Technical College in Brisbane and the Gatton Agricultural College.

In Tasmania they included -

Assistance for the technical colleges at Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and Burnie.

In Western Australia the projects included -

Extension to the Carlisle Technical School.

Additional training facilities including a laboratory, a workshop for fitting and machining, linotype machines, process engraving equipment and a cyanide salt furnace for Fremantle Technical School.

In South Australia the projects included -

Assistance to the South Australian Institute of Technology and to the Adelaide Technical College.

That indicates the fields in which this capital is of assistance. The amount that has been made available by the Commonwealth Government has revolutionised the provision of buildings and equipment for government schools throughout the States. There is little more I need say on these Bills and perhaps I might finish on this note: I think Senator Dittmer suggested that overall this was a niggardly project and there was no real indication that this was the sort of grant that was required even in the fields in which it is applied - that is, assistance to provide science laboratories and assistance to technical schools. I refer the honorable senator to the report of the State Ministers of Education which was produced in 1963 and is titled “A Statement of Some Needs of Australian Education “. That report has the imprimatur of all State Ministers for Education and Directors of Education. They indicated in this report that in their view they required over a period of four years additional capital amounting to £98 million in order to bring school requirements throughout Australia up to the standard they would like to see. That meant not only the provision of science laboratories at technical schools but also gymnasiums, playing fields and similar needs. They have said they require £98 million over four years. Let us consider how much we are providing through the Bills that are now before the Senate and the Act now in operation.I shall confine myself to government schools.

Senator Dittmer:

– Three quarters of the school population.

Senator GORTON:

– However that may be, they said they required £98 million. We are providing through these Bills over three years and the current year between £34 million and £35 million of that £98 million. That means that we are providing more than one third of the £98 million additional capital without the States having to increase their share of capital provision.

Senator Dittmer:

– How is the Government providing more than one third of the £98 million? Tell me that.

Senator GORTON:

– I shall be glad to do so. These education authorities have stated that they require new expenditure over the next four years of £98 million. Under the Bills that are before the Senate and the Act that is now in operation, we are providing a total of £20 million for technical schools - that is £5 million a year for four years - and let us say £14 million for science blocks made up of £3.6 million a year for four years. That makes a total amount of £34 million to £35 million which is more than one third of £98 million. This is not a niggardly approach to the needs of education by the Commonwealth Government.

As to the sums that are said to be required for the particular fields of technical education and the provision of science laboratories, there too what is being provided by the Commonwealth Government is much more than one third of what was said by the State Ministers to be required in those fields. They said they required an expenditure of £30 million on technical education, for example. We are supplying two thirds of that amount unmatched over the period to which they referred.

I repeat that this is not niggardly. I emphasise also that the amount provided is to be applied in the areas to which the State Ministers wished to have it applied, or in some of the areas in which they wished to have the money applied, and in the areas where there is the greatest capital requirement. For all these reasons I commend the Bill to the Senate. I believe it will enable all schools to plan for the next three years with some knowledge of when they will get a grant and how much the grant will be. This is another step forward among the many advances the Menzies Government has made in the field of education.

Question put -

That the amendment (Senator McKenna’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1079

UNIVERSITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1965

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 20th May (vide page 1045), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1079

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL TRAINING) BILL 1965

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 20th May (vide page 1046), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1079

DEFENCE (RE-ESTABLISHMENT) BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th May (vide page 1050), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– Mr. President, Opposition members do not oppose the measure because we consider that it is urgent. We also consider that it is a very tentative measure. Much of what has been expressed by the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) in his second reading speech is not contained in the Bill. I want to refer, first of all, to the three principles the Minister laid down in that speech. He said the principles that have guided the Government in considering the form and content of this legislation have been -

We want to avoid, as far as practicable, and certainly to minimise, the possibility that those called upon to serve their country under the national service scheme may be disadvantaged by comparison with those not called up. The character of this current national service scheme is different from its predecessor. A major difference is the length of the period a national serviceman will be away from his civilian employment. This cannot but present for some young men problems of re-establishment. On the other hand the length and character of the service may open up new prospects and opportunities on return to civil life. Many will obviously benefit from this. It seems prudent to draw heavily on the arrangements for protection of rights and re-establishment benefits that were so carefully worked out in respect of men called up during the last war. At the same time it is necessary to remember and take account of the distinctions between that situation and the situation that we confront under this national service scheme.

We think that the third point I read is the reason why the Minister has not in fact established an organisation of the kind which existed during the last war and which we contend should be set up at the present time. The scope of the Bill does not meet our ideas, but we do not intend to oppose it.

The Opposition suggests that there should be a scheme similar to the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme, organised as a result of co-operation between management and labour, which could deal with the re-establishment and retraining problems of young men whose employment might be disturbed because of their service in the Defence forces. At the present time the Department of Labour and National Service is coping with that work. The Department has a branch which deals with apprenticeship problems and, according to the Minister, it will attempt to handle matters of rehabilitation and retraining of young men returning to employment after their period of national service. If a young man finds that his job is not available when he returns to civil life the services of the Department of Labour and National Service will be available to him to enable him to take action against his employer. It is claimed that the Department will provide facilities to a person who is unable to find employment or who needs to be retrained. We of the Opposition suggest that basically this organisation will not be suitable because in dealing with young men who are returning to civil life after their period of national service training, the Department will be meeting problems which are different from those encountered in the ordinary employment services that it provides.

We should be working towards the establishment of an organisation which will be able to do the things that were done by the appropriate bodies after the last war and also after the Korean War. In that respect, the bodies concerned were established after discussions with the trade union movement. There were discussions between representatives of the Government, the employer organisations and the trade unions as a preliminary to their establishment. As a result they were tripartite bodies which accepted the responsibility of training and the protecton of reestablishment rights. Apparently the only argument which the Government has against the establishment of such an organisation is that the situation now is different so far as numbers are concerned in that from 1st July next there will be about 4,500 national service trainees a year and perhaps after two years there will be approximately 6,500 young men coming back on to the labour market.

I suggest as the central point of the Labour Party’s objection to the Government’s scheme that there should be a separation of the normal services of the Department of Labour and National Service in respect of employment, training and rehabilitation, from the employment training and rehabilitation of young men who have completed their national service in a period of national emergency although that period may not be so defined under the Defence Act. Let us consider the position of a young man who serves his period of national service in an area which is not a specified area or, as we said during the last war, an operational area. Let us suppose that he serves in Australia. His position will be different from that of the young man who serves in an operational area and whose rights will be secured under the Repatriation Act. While we of the Opposition have stated frequently that the provisions of the Repatriation Act could be improved, there is no doubt that they provide for fairly good standards. A young man who has served his period of training in an operational area will have recourse to many organisations and there will be many methods by which he may seek to compensate himself for any disability which he may have suffered because of his service to the nation. The young man who serves in other than a prescribed area will have no such rights. He will be obliged to fall back on the ordinary services provided by the Department of Labour and National Service.

It is true that clause 12 of the Bill provides for certain re-establishment rights to be available on discharge after two years national service training. Let us suppose that a young man’s employer does not give him his job back. He is able, in the terms of clause 14, to apply for action to be taken against the employer, and a penalty of £100 may be imposed on an employer who is in breach of the act. Under the legislation, certain defences are open to an employer to justify his failure to re-employ a person on his return from national service. In this respect the Minister has said that the officers of the Department will be available to assist the young man. I again suggest that there should be a separate organisation to deal with cases such as that. We believe that the departmental officers who handle such matters should be separate from those who deal with the ordinary run of applications made to the Department in respect of civil employment, the requirements of the work force and so on. We are of the opinion that for this reason there should be a reappraisal of the Bill by the Government.

Perhaps the Government will argue that this is a temporary measure. We are putting forward these suggestions because we think they are the kind of preliminaries which should have been considered before the organisation was set up. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that the Government had written into the Bill the usual clauses providing protection for the employee who wants to get his job back. We suggest that these clauses are very wide and that unless the Department is specially equipped and has a specific task imposed on it by the Parliament and the Minister to protect the persons concerned it is going to be a long process for a man who wants to get his job back and encounters difficulty. Assume, for instance, that a young man is told by his boss: “We have reorganised the factory. The industry is different now. We have put in six new machines. You were a third-class machinist before, but we have no position for a third-class machinist now.” That young man must resort to the processes provided for in clause 12 of the Bill in order to establish his right to reemployment. It seems to me that that is a good reason why we should have a separate organisation to deal with cases such as that and that they should not be dealt with by the present organisation within the Department of Labour and National Service.

In saying that, I do not want it to be thought that I am reflecting on the officers of the Department. I know from first hand experience that they are expert in their job and are performing in a first class manner the work of the Department and the mission which the Government has given them. I know they are very capable, but I think there is a substantial case for the establishment of an organisation of the kind that we had during the war. In fact, I think we still have in operation the main regional body of the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme. I was connected with the scheme for many years. The important thing was that there was complete agreement between government, management and labour that persons accepted for retraining because of disabilities would be absorbed into industry and would be under no responsibility in that regard. The Government must organise the economy to provide for this sort of situation.

Another difficulty that will not be overcome by the Bill nor, I think, by any regulation, is that which will confront a young person who, when he comes out of the services, finds that he cannot be retrained. In the Services he may have been engaged in manual work and when he is discharged may find that the factory or undertaking at which he was employed has ceased operations. That young person will find himself in exactly the same position as an ordinary civilian who was not called up. He may be asked to nominate a job, or his chances of employment may be canvassed by the Department. This sort of thing seems to us to run counter to the sort of presciption to which the Minister referred - that is, that a young person should not be disadvantaged as compared with those who do not go away. We appeal to the Government to give very strong consideration to this difficulty.

I come now to the position of a young person who goes into what I refer to as an operational area but which the Bill refers to as a prescribed area, and who when he is discharged is suffering from some disability. That disability may not have been caused by actual war; he may have been run over by a tractor or struck by a motor vehicle. That young person will come under the provisions of the Repatriation Act. He will have records and so on to establish his claim. But a person who does not serve in a prescribed area will be covered by the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act, unless within the terms of this Bill he remains on Service pay until he is well again In any case, when he is discharged he will come under the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act, which I suggest are by no means good. Although he was recruited into the defence forces at the demand of the Government in order to defend his country, this person will be treated in exactly the same way as a person who remained at home. He should not be disadvantaged but should be treated as well as would any other serviceman.

It has been stated that the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act are much the same as those of other compensation Acts within the Commonwealth, but that is not so. Under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act, Service entitlements may be used to make up a man’s entitlement while he is on injury pay. No other compensation legislation in Australia contains such a provision. Under the South Australian compensation Act, an employee of the Government in that State who is injured receives injury pay. While he is receiving that compensation he may also receive any other benefits to which he is entitled, such as superannuation. I repeat that under the Commonwealth legislation such benefits may be used to make up the amount to which a man is entitled. I know that rates of compensation were increased in November last, but the Commonwealth Act is still not as good as the State Acts.

A striking feature of the administration of the Commonwealth legislation is that there is a great deal of delay in settling claims. I suppose either the Department of the Army or the Department of Labour and National Service will process claims for compensation. I do not know whether they will be able to obtain quicker action than can be obtained at the present time. I know of my own experience - I think it is well known within the Department concerned - that many claims for ordinary compensation take from 12 to 18 months to settle. That is much longer than is taken in private industry. So the young person who is discharged from the Services and to whom I have referred will be disadvantaged in this respect, too.

A young person who, at the completion of his training period, finds that his employer’s enterprise has folded up should not have to apply for unemployment benefit but should be able to obtain special payments while he is waiting to be re-employed. He should be able to continue to draw pay in the same way as a person who is sick at the expiration of his term of service. That sick person remains on Service pay. A young person who cannot immediately be re-employed should not have to fall back upon social service benefits but should be entitled to something better.

Of course, the central point of our argument is that there should be established, in association with the State Governments, the employers and the unions, a separate organisation like the original Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme. The Minister has stated that the Commonwealth will take up with the State Governments and other authorities the matter of providing training facilities. Special consideration should be given to the provision of training establishments. In some States such training facilities just do not exist. In South Australia, for example, a special benefit was extended to an apprentice who had passed certain subjects at the Leaving examination. His period of apprenticeship was shortened. But we cannot accommodate electrical apprentices in South Australia who fall into this category, simply because we have not the facilities with which to do so. The Department will have to face up to that sort of situation. In our opinion, whilst this Bill does make provision for the reestablishment of ex-servicemen, not sufficient consideration has been given to the establishment of a wide, positive organisation. I hope the Government will direct its attention to this matter.

I now want to refer to what seems to me to be the situation in relation to a disabled person who has not served in a prescribed area. Under the terms of clause 48, that person would get nothing more or less than would a civilian. The clause reads -

While a disabled person is receiving treatment under Part VIII of the Social Services Act 1947-1964 in its operation as extended by this Part, he shall be paid -

a rehabilitation allowance at the same rate of the invalid pension that would for the time being be payable to him under PartIII of that Act if he were in receipt of that pension; and

an amount equal to the rate of any wife’s allowance and child’s allowance that would, if he were in receipt of that pension, be payable to his wife under that Part.

I repeat that it would seem that such an ex-serviceman will be no better off than if he were a disabled civilian.

I have outlined our main views on the Bill. They are not objections but are warnings to the Government about the need to adopt a more positive approach to reestablishment. We do not oppose the Bill, but we suggest that this emergency legislation, which it seems will be supplemented by regulations, will not be adequate to meet the situation even though only small numbers of persons will be coming on to the labour market. To counter the argument that only a small number of persons will be involved and that we can cope with them, I suggest that it is possible that we may have a situation in which the employment market is not good. Then the problems associated with re-establishing these young people will be much greater, and as the numbers increase the position will be aggravated. It seems to us that the central point is that the Government must move towards the sort of organisation that we had during the last war, which proved so effective in discharging our obligations to those young people who served. Our obligations are growing more urgent, because on 1st July 4,500 young people will be going into the Services, so the Government should now announce its intention to canvas this field with labour.

It is of no use to suggest that a section of the Department of Labour and National Service, however dedicated it may be, however aware of the position in industry, however great its facilities to contact employers, can discharge this duty by its ordinary processes. There must be a system, such as is applied to the apprenticeship scheme, whereby a separate composite section is established in the Department with the strong backing of the sections of the community of which I have spoken. As far as I know, there have been no discussions. There has simply been a decision by the Government, no doubt after consultation with the Army and the Department of Labour and National Service. There has been no wide canvas of the situation with management, with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and with the various State Governments, all of which bodies will be involved in re-establishment, re-employment, retraining, rehabilitation, and provision of the training facilities which must be obtained if the purposes of the Bill are to be achieved. I suggest that these are urgent considerations to which the Government ought to direct its mind. It seems to me that the matter cannot be left for expression in regulations, without being covered by legislation. The obligations ought to be clearly shown for everybody to see. The young person who goes into one of the Services should know exactly the sort of advantages that he can obtain upon discharge.

In view of the level of costs today, we think that the amount of gratuity is small. The amount to be provided is £40 for two years, or £20 a year, which is not much more than ls. a day. It is not enough, when considered in relation to the payments made during the First World War. I do not care whether this amount is the same as that which is applicable to members of the Australian Regular Army. We believe that it is insufficient. It is equivalent to the amount of about 4d. a day, which applied during the last war.

It seems to me that the discharge leave to be provided is too small. A person who is discharged will receive only seven days leave. He will receive ordinary service pay while he is in the Service. If a young fellow is discharged after giving two years service he should receive longer discharge leave than seven days. Most of us used the period immediately after discharge from the Services in trying to become assimilated into the community again. This takes time. One needs adequate time to share again with his family and friends the conditions which he lost during service.

I leave these submissions to the Senate. The Government ought to consider them seriously. If it cannot act on them at this stage, it ought to set about discussions and negotiations to do the sort of things that were done during World War II and which are still being done for former members of the Korean force.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I express my appreciation of both the content and the spirit of Senator Bishop’s speech on what I believe is a very important national question. I think that the nation is becoming increasingly conscious of the need that the Government has seen to develop the strength of our defence forces and the defence mechanism generally. I believe that this Bill is one of the important bills associated with the mere legal definition of rights in that connection, but it should be uppermost in the minds of all that in a matter such as this the legal mechanics are the least important. Tt is the work that is done in the administration of this defence effort that will appeal to the spirit of the servicemen and the nation in support of them. I wish particularly to express appreciation of Senator Bishop’s method of address, the respectful way in which he referred to the units of the Army, and the earnest concern that he showed for matters which are important to them individually.

This Defence (Re-establishment) Bill concerns itself with the protection of servicemen in relation to their civil employment once the demands of service cause the dislocation in that civil employment. Provision is made for a moratorium, that is, for protection of national servicemen in respect of civil obligations under mortgages, agreements for purchase of land, hire purchase agreements, and the like. It is essential to recognise that servicemen come into a special category, once the demands of service abstract them from civil occupations. Part IV deals with vocational training, in regard to which Senator Bishop called upon his own special experience to give us an insight into what is really required. That was undoubtedly in line with my theme, but I speak without the specialised knowledge upon which Senator Bishop can draw. It is most important, I believe, that these men should have ac assurance from the country, whose Parliament has taken the serious step of imposing on them a compulsory obligation to serve for two years and, if there is war, longer, at home 01 abroad. It is important that we should guarantee them such rights as will give them a sense of justice, and this question of vocational training is most important.

I was pleased to hear the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton), when introducing the Bill, acknowledge the great success that attended the reconstruction training scheme when members of the forces were discharged after World War II. That scheme provided many grand opportunities for exservicemen who were willing to take advantage of it. The succeeding provisions of the Bill relate to the rehabilitation of disabled persons, the provision of re-establishment loans and a few miscellaneous matters.

From its structure, it is obvious that the Bill covers only some of the matters that must be associated with defence if we are to have a properly integrated defence force which will be successful for its purposes. It is most important that these men be recognised by every section of the com munity, and especially by the Parliament as the national army. I recommend for the specific consideration of the Minister the importance of passing a law designed to protect these servicemen from insults and offensive expressions in the discharge of their duty, just as any public servant or any police officer has a law to protect him from insulting behaviour or insulting language in the discharge of his duty. Having regard to what has been said here, my meaning is quite plain. I do not mean to put a further edge on it, in deference to the very worthy speech made by Senator Bishop who, I believe, recognised this point.

The other all-important matter in relation to this Bill is to ensure that we recognise the nature of this service in regard to conditions of pay and leave and compensation payments for any injury sustained during service. We must have a proper outlook on this. I venture to suggest to the Minister that we are all too likely to hark back to the two world wars for our precedent on these things. In Australia, our outlook and our duties have been reorientated so much in the 20 years which have followed the Second World War. The fact that the sphere in which we are asking these men to discharge their duty is now in the Pacific area divorces this service altogether from the distinction previously drawn between overseas and home service.

We must consider seriously the difference which is being maintained in the field of compensation as between repatriation benefits and the civil compensation which is paid for injuries which may be sustained during service at home. Some of my colleagues look at me as though that proposal were not acceptable.

Senator Morris:

– Do not read that from my expression.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am sorry. I was referring to Senator Morris, but having regard to his experiences in Tobruk I would be the last to offer a suggestion in relation to war service and these related matters which was not worthy of consideration by him. I will say no more than that.

In a question in the Senate a few days ago, which would not be very elucidating to people who do not follow the legal situation in these matters, I directed attention to questions raised by Mr. Justice Windeyer regarding compensation payable to victims and dependants of victims of the “ Voyager “ disaster. I remind the Senate that service victims of the disaster are not content to accept the scale of compensation provided by the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act and are seeking to have the matter judged on the common law basis of compensation founded upon the condition that if there has been any degree of fault on the part of the service in which they were serving when they were injured and in respect of the dependants of others who lost their lives - they are entitled to common law damages.

Recently a civilian was awarded damages of £12,000 or £13,000 for the loss of a hand, but a serious doubt has been created as to the availability of compensation on that basis to the widow of a serviceman. That raises the fundamental question of the principle upon which we should compensate Australian servicemen serving within Australia. When you compare the civilian road accident rate with the number of injuries sustained on service you must remember that serving members of the Australian Navy, Army and Air Force within Australia are today during training subjected increasingly to an accident risk rate more comparable with that to be expected in forward areas. But bear in mind what has been said about the civilian accident rate compared with the casualty rate in time of war; associate that with the fact that our front line is Vietnam or Malaysia and that our troops are daily undergoing risks in flying, in seagoing and in military manoeuvres in Darwin or North Queensland in proximity to the front line; remember that in our forward areas the enemy may inflict casualties on our servicemen, not only in direct conflict but also while they are servicing our front line, in the course of training and while performing other duties; and remember also that in those circumstances a servicemen who suffers an injury is treated on what we call the repatriation basis. I do not claim that I have sufficient knowledge to know whether it is proper to accept this position but the points (hat 1 have enumerated seem to me to demand that in this defence effort every honorable senator has a duty to yield any suggestion which will give a sense of justice to our troops.

I nin a firm believer in the fact that in time of peace or twilight war, such as we are now engaged in, you will inculcate a proper degree of success in the military service only if you engender in our servicemen the knowledge that they are being dealt with justly by the nation. Having created a unity in the forces, having obliterated the distinction between compulsory and voluntary service and the distinction between service at home and abroad, and having recognised our forces as a unified service, I suggest the Senate consider making proper provision for compensation for disablement or compensation for dependants in case of death.

Even on the basis of our repatriation scheme I want to go a little further than Senator Bishop went. We are a little too niggardly - I will be quite moderate - in the outlook that we, as a country, have towards war service pensions, particularly the pension payable to totally and permanently capacitated ex-servicemen. It is a reflection on our country. I have mentioned it here so that it can be considered because it is by considering a matter like this that we inculcate in the serviceman of today the spirit and the knowledge that the nation appreciates his service and will pay for it if he is disabled.

I pointed out in a question this week that it was as long ago as 1952 that the T.P.I, pension was equivalent to the basic wage. I do not wish to dwell upon this point; I merely wish to bring it into the theme of my speech. The pension is not sufficient recompense to men in all walks of life. Men in the lowest civilian employment who become totally and permanently incapacitated should not have to accept less than the basic wage. The Government pays nothing for the loss of the amenities of life or for the pain and suffering endured. The Government does not recognise that the man who is incapacitated would have had an opportunity to earn a weekly income substantially above that amount.

If we are to inculcate an element of justice into rehabilitation and pay proper compensation for service we must have regard to the incidence of the means test in the social service legislation in relation to war pensions. A man who is entitled to a war pension and retires at 65 loses the whole benefit of the war pension if he accepts the age pension. Such a denial cannot be reconciled with justice. However, I do not want to turn this debate into the channel of war pensions. I put the question to the Minister as a matter for consideration.

The scheme of rehabilitation, as honorable senators are aware, is administered by the Department of Labour and National Service. That Department has given grant service in the field of civilian employment and I am sure that no member of that Department will misunderstand me when I say that military personnel prefer to be dealt with by military personnel. I would not for a moment advocate that these matters should be administered by a defence department. The idea put forward by Senator Bishop is exactly the viewpoint that had suggested itself to me. I believe that a branch of the Department of Labour and National Service should devote its activities exclusively to co-operation in matters of recruitment and the establishment of a proper spirit of relationship with the trainees who have problems of civilian employment, re-establishment and so an. I do not think that a defence department would have the equipment or the contacts so necessary to success in the re-establishment of servicemen. A defence department would not have the contact with the civilian employment field that is held by the Department of Labour and National Service. A branch of that Department could instil in the men a spirit of co-operation and confidence. 1 have noticed that the Bill does not contain a provision for preference in employment. When the Bill reaches the Committee stage I shall have questions to ask in relation to difficulties in reemployment. I believe that preferences should be given to a national serviceman for a limited period, perhaps two years. For the first time a government of this country has imposed an obligation of compulsory service and, as a consequence, the nation must be assured that every right will be conferred upon our servicemen. We must assure the servicemen that upon discharge they will not be disadvantaged in relation to men who have had continuous contact with civil employment.

On discharge after two years service the trainees are to be paid by an administrative arrangement the sum of £40. With all the goodwill in the world and with every desire not to be contentious at this stage, I say that I regard the sum as completely contemptible. I remember when two of my brothers returned home in 1919. They were offered Billy Hughes suits. We were country bred, as honorable senators have noticed, and had no finesse with regard to suits. However, we appreciated that the suits that were offered to returned men then were not fit for dogs to sleep on in their kennels. They were dreadful.

Now we are to offer our discharged servicemen £40 after two years service. If I were a man returning to a municipal job with a pick and shovel, I would regard £40 as contemptible as superannuation or as a retirement benefit after two years national service. It is inadequate to provide all the things that are necessary to a man on his return to civilian life from military service. I plead with the Government: If our servicemen are to believe that we are treating them justly £200 is not a penny too much for even a man who was the most lowly paid worker at the time of his enlistment in the Army. As for the boy whose opportunities are dislocated by his military service and is prevented from earning three times the amount of his service pay, a payment of £40 on discharge is completely inadequate. Pensions are granted to public servants, and members of this Parliament are paid pensions and travelling expenses, but after two years service a man is to receive £40. To me that is a pitiable grant.

The provision to pay a discharged serviceman for an extra week upon his discharge after two years service is also completely inadequate and most regrettable. It does not conform to my sense of justice in any way. Through you, Mr. Deputy President, I ask the Senate and the nation whether or not we are in duty bound to attempt to mould opinion within the Returned Servicemen’s League to obliterate the distinction drawn between home and overseas service. If we are to have unity in our Army we must get rid of distinctions that were more appropriate to World War I and World War II. In World War I our troops fought in Europe; in World War II they fought in Europe and Africa and later in the Pacific area. Those servicemen enlisted voluntarily for overseas service. Now our servicemen accept the duty compulsorily imposed upon them to serve wherever they are sent. It may be to Darwin or to Borneo. I have unlimited respect for membership of the Returned Servicemen’s

League. I have such respect for it that I would give my ears to be a member, lt engenders a spirit in the returned servicemen that is equal to the nobility of war service itself. I appeal through this Parliament for acceptance of these men as recognised members of that organisation or a special branch of it. In 20 years a situation will develop in which this organisation has a permanent place in the community. It would be discharging its true function if these men were properly recognised as discharging military service when called upon to do so by the nation.

I have one final point to submit to the Senate. Insofar as defence is a consideration in all these matters, the time has come to establish a system of insurance against war damage to property. When Churchill visited the war ruins of London he said that it was proper to establish a system of mutual insurance against war damage and to exact a premium for that purpose from property owners who were at risk, whether their property was damaged or not. The time has come in the defence of Australia when it is appropriate that finance as required should be made available for a system of war risk insurance. Under this system, owners of property in Australia would pay a proper insurance premium to provide payment for defence services. This would not be a capital levy in any sense. The proposal is not out of line with ordinary thinking on social and national responsibilities. Such a scheme would be a great aid in providing unity of outlook between the commercial, pastoral and civilian sections of the community for whose defence this service is being rendered. It would be a just method of financing a defence effort as an adjunct to present sources of public revenue.

I have spoken in this spirit to aid the passage of the Bill and to secure a substantial measure of recognition of the claims of servicemen. I have directed attention to these matters in an earnest hope that they will receive consideration by the Government. I hope the Government will regard defence as at risk of failure if we express it simply in terms of laws in this Parliament. These matters must be given proper expression through the country so that the people will realise that the Parliament properly evaluates the service that is given and is prepared to take the responsibility of paying for it.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I feel some disquiet about some provisions that I feel the Government cannot write into this legislation. For that reason, I want to put some views on record to show that somebody thinks about these matters. As I have said, I do not think that these provisions could be written into the legislation although I believe that the Government would have written them in if it could have done so. To illustrate the point, I shall refer to the case of a youth who may be called up for national service. This could apply also to girls, but for the moment we are not calling up young women for national service. I take the case of a youth who goes to a university to study law. The case might equally apply to a student of medicine.

After the student had graduated in law, his parents might seek an opening for him to join a law firm. The student might have been called up but his national service would be deferred because he was doing a law course. Provision is made for that. Immediately the student graduates, he is eligible to serve with the forces for two years. The student might have done extremely well for three years at university. In the normal course of events the boy might be accepted into the law firm and enjoy the experience and the income accruing to the position. But, because the student had been called up and his national service had been deferred, the law firm might well say: “ We are terribly sorry. We would like to take you into the firm but you have to do your national service. Come back after you have completed your national service and we will consider taking you into the firm.” Such a boy would lose two years experience in his chosen profession. The same circumstances could apply to a student of medicine or accountancy. This is a penalty that could be inflicted on those who take up a profession. I cannot see any way of writing some provision for these men into the legislation, because the Government cannot demand that a student be taken into a firm.

Senator Henty:

– What does the honorable senator propose? Does he suggest thai such young men should be exempt from national service?

Senator BRANSON:

– No. I have said that I do not see a solution. In time of national emergency somebody must get hurt. But I want to put it on record that somebody realises that this sort of problem could arise.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– in reply - Much of the debate on this Bill has been concerned with matters of high policy. In the case of repatriation benefits, there are matters of policy for the Minister for Repatriation. They are not directly related to the purpose of the Bill which is simply the re-establishment of national service trainees. That is not to say that the debate should not have ranged over this field. The fact is that it has. Of course, it is impossible for me as the representative of the Minister for Labour and National Service in this chamber - as it would be impossible for him - to come to any conclusions on these extremely far reaching matters of policy. For example, there was the matter raised by Senator Wright. He cited the case of a military man who might suffer some accident while obeying the orders of his military superiors. The question was whether such a man should have the right to compensation if he could prove that the orders of his military superiors were nol properly thought out or showed negligence. Clearly such a provision would have such far reaching effects that there is little I can do except note that the point has been raised.

Similarly, the question whether a gratuity of ,£40 after two years service is or is not a proper sort of gratuity to be given to a national service trainee is also a matter of policy. It is, of course, the same gratuity that is given to a member of the Regular Army forces at the present moment who is entitled lo a £40 gratuity after he has completed two years service. To be perfectly accurate, I should point out that the proposition for the national service trainees gives them rather a better entitlement than a soldier in the Regular Army has, because a Regular Army soldier is entitled to a £20 gratuity for each completed year of service. He must complete a year’s service before he receives the £20 gratuity. National service trainees will be entitled to £40 for two years completed service, but £20 will lie paid vo them for a part of a year if they discharged before the full time. This proposition goes to the question of the whole matter of gratuities to members of the forces in the Commonwealth and not just to those people of whom we are speaking now. This is a matter on which, without knowing the full facts, I could have little to say. I will see that these and other suggestions which have been made are brought to the attention of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon), who is responsible for this Bill. No doubt, these suggestions will be discussed by those responsible for policy of this kind.

Senator Bishop raised the question of vocational training. All I can say in reply is that there are many details in regard to this matter which are still being worked out. I assume that the viewpoints of all interested parties will be sought and considered before the details of this matter are finally arrived at, if indeed they are ever finally arrived at. No doubt these matters will be changed from time to time in the light of experience. The question of which Department is responsible for the running of the vocational training side of this scheme is still a matter of discussion. I refer specifically to vocational training and not to the other types of training mentioned in the Bill. These matters, which were causing Senator Bishop some disquiet, will be resolved, I hope, to the satisfaction of all after they have been in operation for a short time. I think that is all that I can say at the present moment on this debate which, I repeat, I have found quite interesting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- Mr. Chairman, in view of the hour, I shall content myself with one inquiry upon this Bill although I have many. I direct the attention of the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) to clause 12 (3.) (c), which relates to “ resumption or reinstatement after defence service “. The provision makes it an offence for an employer, after a national service trainee has been discharged from service, not to re-employ him. But I find this provision in sub-clause (3.) -

In any proceedings for an offence against the last preceding sub-section, it is a defence for the employer to prove -

that, by reason of a change of circumstances since the member was last employed (other than the employment of some other person to replace the member), it was not reasonable or practicable to permit the member to resume work, or to reinstate the member in employment, in accordance with the last preceding sub-section, but that the employer had offered to employ the member in an occupation, and under conditions, that were the most favourable that it was reasonable or practicable to offer him.

Senator Bishop provided by way of illustration the case of the introduction of mechanisation in a factory. In the example the employer said to the trainee: “ No, you are only a third mechanic. 1 have no employment for you.” 1 suggest to the Minister that, in that instance, the Crown should accept liability for the payment of compensation if it was not just that the employer should bear it. It would not be just if men, after discharge from national service training, were not to obtain employment on the ground that their reengagement was impracticable or because arrangements made in the meantime by the former employer were unreasonable. It would be quite in keeping with the spirit of the legislation for the Crown to accept responsibility for compensation, if the responsibility could not justly be visited upon the individual employer.

By way of reinforcing that argument, I say that clause 14 should be borne in mind. A penalty may be imposed upon the employer who sacks a man prematurely, and the employer is required under clause 15 to pay such compensation as the court thinks fit, that is, compensation for the wrongful termination of the right of reinstatement. If it is impracticable to reinstate the trainee, he should not go without compensation. My final point is associated with the observation made by Senator Branson. If I were to cite by way of illustration the case of a law student, as Senator Branson did, it might be considered to have personal connections. Accordingly, I take the case of an accountant who, in his third year, would be employed at perhaps £1,200 a year or £25 a week. He is called up for national service training. On his return to his job he would start off at, say, £500 or £700 a year. He would lose much more than the compensation indicated in this Bill. It is not a question of excluding professional people from national service training. But it is a case of considering whether or not, according to their capacity to earn in civilian employment, they are to receive recompense, if not fully commensurate, then in some degree commensurate, in recognition of that fact.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I support what Senator Wright has said in relation to the point I raised. There is also another point upon which the Minister may be able to comment quickly. That is the case of the young person I mentioned who is not eligible, according to the Department of Labour and National Service, to retrain. That is to say, this person possessed no special qualifications before he joined the Services, or he did not acquire any special qualifications during his national service training. In that case, does he come within the unemployment category or can he demand training rights?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– Mr. Chairman, in view of the hour and the questions which have been raised and others which are to be raised in regard to this Bil], I will move that the Committee report progress.

Progress reported.

page 1089

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1965

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 Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

By this Bill it is proposed to amend the Estate Duty Assessment Act in order to exempt from estate duty gifts made to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. The Government’s intention to do this was announced in a press statement made by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) on 25th February 1965. A gift to the Trust made by a person who dies within three years of making the gift, or a bequest to the Trust, may be liable to estate duty under the existing provisions of the Estate Duty Assessment Act. The amendment will ensure that such gifts or bequests are exempt from estate duty. I would add that gifts to the Trust are exempt from gift duty under the existing provisions of the gift duty law. The estate duty exemption to be granted by this amendment will apply in relation to the estates of persons dying on or after 1st February 1965. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1090

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1965

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 Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act. One amendment extends the income tax deduction for gifts of £1 or more to two further institutions. They are the Winston Churchiil Memorial Trust and the National Trust of Queensland.

The Government’s decision to treat gifts to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust as allowable deductions was announced in a statement made by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) on 25th February last. The listing of the National Trust of Queensland in the gift provisions of the income tax law means that gifts of £1 or more to the National Trusts of all the States and the Northern Territory will be allowable as income tax deductions. The other National Trusts are already listed for this purpose.

The Bill also makes a purely formal amendment in relation to the Tax Agents Board in each of the States. The amendment arises from a change in the designation of the Treasury officers who act as Chairmen of the Boards. The remainder of the amendments relate to income tax aspects of the benefits payable under the Commonwealth’s secondary and technical scholarships scheme. Honorable senators will know of the details of this scheme from the comprehensive statements made about it by my colleague, the Minister for Works and Minister in charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research (Senator Gorton). Because of this I do not think it necessary for me in this speech to describe again the arrangements that have been made for the scheme’s implementation.

A statement of the Government’s proposals in relation to the taxation treatment of benefits payable under the scheme was made by Senator Gorton on 24th November 1964. He intimated that the income tax law would be amended so that payments made under the scheme are exempt from income tax in the hands of the recipients. The Bill gives effect to this proposal. The Bill also contains a consequential amendment foreshadowed by the Minister. This amendment makes it clear that a taxpayer is not entitled to a concessional deduction for the education expenses of a student that are recouped to him by the Commonwealth under the scheme through the payment by it of scholarship benefits for school books and certain school fees. As benefits are already being paid under the scholarships scheme the amendments will be operative for the first time in relation to the current income year 1964-65.

The various clauses of the Bill are explained in an explanatory memorandum being distributed to honorable senators and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into further detail at this stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1090

GOLD MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1965

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 Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators will need no reminder from me of the importance of the gold mining industry in the economy of the Commonwealth, and, in particular, in the economy of the State of Western Australia. The annual value of gold produced in Australia and the Territories is currently about £15 million, practically the whole of which represents an addition to our international reserves. Also, centres of population in outlying areas, particularly in Western Australia, are heavily dependent on gold mining for their continued existence. The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to provide for continued assistance to the industry which at present receives Commonwealth financial assistance under legislation which is due to expire on 30th June 1965.

The gold mining industry in Australia has to contend with two major difficulties. The first, which is shared by gold producers in other countries, is that there has not been any increase in the official price of gold for very many years. The second is that of declining production of gold because of the gradual exhaustion of the better grades of known ore resources and the consequent gradual fall in the average grade of mined ore.

The mines have done much to help themselves. Most mines, including the large Kalgoorlie mines, have been able to offset cost rises to a large extent by increasing efficiency of production. Cost savings have been brought about by increased mechanisation, the introduction of cheaper and more efficient mining aids, and other forms of managerial action. However, despite these cost savings the general trend is one of gradually increasing costs per ounce of gold produced. Indeed, if financial assistance for the industry were withdrawn, there is little doubt that a sharp contraction in gold mining activity would be inevitable on the basis of the present world price of gold. In this situation, the need for the continued provision of financial assistance to the industry is self evident. The Government has given careful consideration to the form the financial assistance should take after the present legislation expires on 30th June next, and in this connection we have had the benefit of consultations with representatives of the industry. The Bill before the Senate embodies and gives effect to the conclusions we have reached.

Before coming to the proposals in the Bill, I believe it will be helpful to honorable senators if I briefly outline the main provisions of the present legislation. The existing legislation takes two forms - a subsidy scheme and a development allowance scheme. The two schemes are alternative means of assistance; a mine may claim either subsidy or development allowance, but not both.

The subsidy scheme, which is embodied in the Gold Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1962, provides broadly that mines with a cost of production of more than £13 10s. per ounce of fine gold are eligible for subsidy equal to three-quarters of the amount by which their average cost of production in a subsidy year exceeds £13 10s. per ounce, subject to a maximum rate of subsidy of £3 5s. per ounce and a 10 per cent, profit limitation test. Small producers generally those with an output of not more than 500 ounces a year - are eligible for a flat rate subsidy of £2 8s. per ounce irrespective of their costs of production and profits.

The development allowance scheme was introduced in 1962 and is embodied in the Gold Mines Development Assistance Act 1962. Its detailed provisions are complex, but the guiding principle is that development allowance is payable to the extent that a .mine’s expenditure on approved development in a year exceeds a defined base expenditure - generally the average annual amount spent by the mine on development during the three years preceding 1962-63. For the purpose of the scheme, development means, broadly, exploration of the mining property and the preparation of ore bodies for mining operations. The scheme was designed primarily to meet the needs of some of the large Kalgoorlie mines which did not then qualify for subsidy and whose longer-term prospects would be improved by the provision of assistance to enable them to increase the amount of work they were doing on development.

There has been a substantial change in the industry’s circumstances as compared to those which gave rise to the introduction of the development allowance scheme. With the steady rise in the average cost of producing an ounce of gold, most of the mines have reached the stage where their costs have risen above £13 10s. per ounce, which is the commencing point for eligibility for subsidy. Since the subsidy scheme is generally of more value than the development allowance scheme for mines in such a position, provided they are not affected by the 10 per cent, profit limitation test, the mines concerned have tended to become claimants for subsidy rather than development allowance. Moreover, the development allowance scheme has in practice been of rather less benefit to the industry than was anticipated because of the physical limitations encountered by the mines concerned in stepping up the rate of their development work. In other respects, also, the development allowance scheme has been found to have some unsatisfactory features, particularly so far as its administration is concerned.

The Government has therefore decided that the development allowance scheme should not be renewed after the present legislation expires on 30th June next, and that future assistance for the industry should be provided through continuation of the subsidy scheme in a liberalised form. The liberalisations have been devised having regard to discontinuance of the development allowance scheme as such, the effect being to absorb to some extent the development allowance scheme into the subsidy scheme. In addition, of course, the liberalisations have due regard to the deterioration in the industry’s general financial position since the question of assistance was last reviewed some three years ago.

The two main ways in which the Bill provides for liberalisation of the subsidy scheme are. first, abolition of the 10 per cent, profit limitation test that at present qualifies the subsidy entitlement of large producers and. second, an increase in the maximum rate of subsidy payable to large producers and in the flat rate subsidy payable to small producers.

As honorable senators will be aware, inclusion of a profit limitation test is a usual feature of Commonwealth subsidy legislation, and it derives from the thoroughly sound principle that the taxpayer should not be called upon to provide assistance which results in a more than reasonable level of profits for the recipients. In the case of the gold subsidy, however, there are other provisions embodied in the scheme which provide safeguards against the making of unreasonably high profits - namely, the gearing of the subsidy rate for large producers to a particular mine’s costs of production, and the fixing for subsidy purposes of the selling price of the subsidised product. Having regard to those distinctive features of the gold subsidy scheme, and after considering representations made by the industry about the undesirable effects that retention of the test could have in particular sets of circumstances, the Government has decided to remove the profit limitation test from the subsidy scheme in its extended form. It is estimated that the immediate cost involved will be in the vicinity of £50,000 per annum, but it is expected that the cost will rise significantly above that figure over the period of the renewed legislation.

Commencing with the financial year 1965-66, the maximum rate of subsidy payable to large producers is being increased from £3 5s. per ounce to £4 per ounce. This is a substantial increase, but the Government has decided that it is warranted in view of increased per ounce costs of production since the rale was last reviewed and further cost increases that are in prospect. With regard to small producers, who are eligible for a flat rate subsidy rather than a rate of subsidy determined by reference to their costs of production, the practice ever since the subsidy scheme was first introduced in 1954 has been for the flat rate subsidy to be three-quarters of the maximum rate for large producers. The Bill provides for continuation of this practice, so that the flat rate subsidy for small producers will become £3 rather than £2 8s. per ounce as from 1st July next.

The existing subsidy scheme contains a special provision under which a producer with an annual output of more than 500 ounces can, if he wishes, elect to be treated as a small producer. If he does so elect, the rate of subsidy payable on the whole of his production is the flat rate subsidy for small producers reduced by one penny for each ounce by which his production exceeds 500 ounces. An appropriate adjustment is being made to this provision by reason of the increase in the flat rate subsidy payable to small producers. The amount of one penny to which I have referred will become one and one-fifth pence - or one cent when decimal currency is introduced. The effect of the adjustment can be illustrated by taking the case of a producer with an annual output of 740 ounces who elects to be treated as a small producer. At present, the rate of subsidy payable to such a producer is £1 8s. per ounce - £2 8s. less 240 pence - or an annual total of £1,036. As from 1st July, it will be £1 16s. per ounce - £3 less 288 pence - or an annual total of £1,332. The immediate cost of the foregoing increases in subsidy rates is estimated to be between £20,000 and £25,000 per annum. The cost will, however, rise substantially as and when additional large producers become eligible for subsidy at a rate in excess of the existing maximum rate of £3 5s. per ounce.

In addition to the two main liberalisations I have outlined, the extended subsidy scheme provided for in the Bill contains some liberalisations which are of rather lesser consequence but which are nevertheless still of significance. Chief among these is a provision under which a large producer will be able to include in his costs for subsidy purposes one-half of costs incurred in approved exploratory diamond drilling elsewhere than on his mining property. For the purpose the yardstick for approval will be whether the diamond drilling, if it resulted in the discovery of gold bearing minerals of payable grade, would contribute to the continued production of gold bearing minerals in, or in the vicinity of, an existing gold mining area. At present, none of such costs can be included in the determination of subsidy entitlement. Bearing in mind that in the long run the future of existing gold mining communities will be influenced by the success or otherwise of efforts to locate and open up new ore bodies, the Government has decided that inclusion of the provision 1 have outlined is desirable.

The Bill also provides for the removal of two restrictive provisions in the present Act. In the subsidy scheme as it stands, a large producer’s entitlement to subsidy is subject to reduction if his expenditure on development exceeds a certain amount or if the grade of ore being mined falls below a certain level. In the present day circumstances of the industry, and having regard to the discontinuance of the development allowance scheme, we believe that these two restrictive provisions should not be renewed. Instead, we have concluded that a producer’s entitlement to subsidy should be subject to reduction only if, and to the extent that, he fails to observe good mining practice. The Bill accordingly contains a provision to the latter effect.

Finally, I wish to point out that the Bill provides that the renewed subsidy scheme will on this occasion operate for a period of five years. In accordance with the usual practice with respect to Commonwealth subsidy legislation generally, the gold subsidy legislation has in the past been enacted for maximum periods of three years at a time. The industry requested that the current extension be for a longer period so that the mines would be able to plan their expenditure and funds raising programmes on a more secure basis as to the duration of the extended scheme of assistance, and the Government has decided that in the industry’s particular circumstances the request should be granted. The gold mining industry occupies an honoured position in the history of the development of this vast continent. The Government believes that the revised measures of assistance provided for in the Bill should meet the industry’s reasonable needs for the period of five years covered by the Bill and, in particular, will serve to stabilise for that period the financial position of gold mines on which centres of population in outlying areas are so dependent. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1093

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1965

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 Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is designed to remove a number of defects in the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1964 and to facilitate the administration of the legislation. I will deal first with the defects in the previous Act. The provision in the 1964 Act for lump sum payments to certain pensioners gave rise to some technical difficulties. However, the lump sums have all been calculated and paid in accordance with the Government’s intention and what was its intention in bringing down the legislation. The part of the Bill dealing with this matter does no more than re-state the basis for the actuarial calculations and validate the payments already made.

Other defects relate to the reduced rates of contribution to the Ministerial Fund by Opposition leaders a provision which arose in adapting to a contributory scheme the proposals of the 1959 Richardson Committee. A longer period of contribution at the reduced rates is, of course, necessary to qualify for the pension. There should also have been a similar extension to the 14 year period after which contributions will cease, and this is now being provided. Then, again, the three Parliaments rule which, broadly, treats service in three Parliaments as the equivalent of 8 years service, is clearly inappropriate if 16 or 32 years actual service is required for the purpose of the Act. It was not intended that the provision for extended service at lower rates of contribution should be set aside by the three Parliaments rule, and this is being corrected by restricting the application of that rule to those office bearers who contribute at the full rate. The other defect now being corrected is the omission to vest the management of the Ministerial Fund formally in the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust.

Other amendments, to facilitate the administration of the legislation, provide formally for the delegation of powers generally by the Trust to a Trustee and of powers of investment to an officer of the Treasury; for contributions to be expressed as monthly amounts instead of weekly amounts; for the accrual and method of calculation of payments of contributions and pensions; and for an election or option, provided in the legislation to be revoked at any time before it has been acted upon. I do not think I need to enlarge on the desirability of providing for a delegation of powers or for the way in which various calculations shall be made and it is obviously convenient to express contributions as a monthly amount when they are to be deducted from salaries which are being paid monthly.

These changes will have no effect at all on the amounts contributed by senators and members generally, but those contributing to the Ministerial Fund will be required to contribute a small amount more each month. I should, however, explain in relation to elections and options that the trustees have, in the past, been sympathetic to those ex-senators and their widows who wished to change an election or option which they had made before it had been acted upon and have in fact been permitting this in accordance with the terms of the proposed amendment. As it has been suggested that the legality of this action is in some doubt, the opportunity has been taken to make it quite clear that the trustees can act in this reasonable and helpful manner. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 5.18 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 May 1965, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1965/19650521_senate_25_s28/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant