19591128_senate_23_s16.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <session.header>
    <date>1959-11-28</date>
    <parliament.no>23</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>2</period.no>
    <chamber>SENATE</chamber>
    <page.no>2049</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <day.start>1959-11-28</day.start>
      <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)</inline> took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
    </business.start>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2049</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PUBLIC SERVICE</title>
          <page.no>2049</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2049</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1T</name.id>
              <electorate>through Senator McKenna</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BENN, Archibald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BENN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>How many officers of the Commonwealth Public Service, including those in the office of the High Commissioner, are employed in the United Kingdom? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>In what departments are they employed? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Is there a representative of the Public Service Board in the United Kingdom? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2049</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7A</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for National Development</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am supplied with the following answers: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Eighty-four officers are employed in the United Kingdom, under the Public Service Act. The majority of them work at Australia House but a small number staff the provincial migration offices at Birmingham, Belfast and Edinburgh. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>In addition, there are 31 officers in the United Kingdom on . training courses, post-graduate scholarships, and on exchange duty with the United Kingdom Civil Service. </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="2.">
              <para>While in the United Kingdom the officers come under the control of the High Commissioner and are responsible to him. The departments represented are - </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>Department of the Army. </para>
          <para>Attorney-General&#39;s Department. </para>
          <para>Auditor-General&#39;s Office. </para>
          <para>Department of Civil Aviation. </para>
          <para>Department of Customs and Excise. </para>
          <para>Department of Defence. </para>
          <para>Department of External Affairs. </para>
          <para>Department of Health. </para>
          <para>Department of Immigration. </para>
          <para>Department of the Interior. </para>
          <para>National Library. </para>
          <para>Postmaster-General&#39;s Department. </para>
          <para>Public Service Board. </para>
          <para>Department of Supply. </para>
          <para>Taxation Branch. </para>
          <para>Department of Trade. </para>
          <para>Department of the Treasury. </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2049</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2049</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 20th November (vide page 1727), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir Walter</inline> Cooper - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2049</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This bill  deals  with the procedure associated with variations of the master plan of Canberra.  The  Opposition has no objection to the second reading of the measure. I shall, however, at the committee stage, propose some amendments, the purpose of which will appear quite plainly in the amendments themselves. I reserve whatever comments I have regarding them until the committee stage. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para>In committee: </para>
          <para>The bill. </para>
          <para>Clause 4. </para>
          <para>Section twelve  a  of the Principal Act is amended - </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(b)">
              <para>by omitting from sub-section (1.) the word &#34; thirty &#34; and inserting in its stead the word &#34; twelve &#34;; </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(c)">
              <para>by omitting sub-section (2.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - &#34;(2.) A copy of the instrument by which any modification or variation  of  the plan has been made, together with an explanatory statement by the Minister, shall be laid before each House  of  the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of that House after the making of the modification or variation.&#34;; and </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(d)">
              <para>by omitting from sub-section (3.)  the  words &#34; fifteen sitting days &#34; and inserting in their stead the words &#34; six sitting days of that House &#34;. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">Section proposed to be amended - 12a.  -  (1.) The Minister may at any time, by writing under his hand, modify or vary the plan  of  lay-out of the city of Canberra and its environs, published in the Gazette of the nineteenth day  of  November, One thousand nine hundred and twentyfive, as modified or varied prior to the date  of  the commencement of this section, but no such modification or variation shall be made until after the expiration of thirty days after notice of intention, published in the Gazette, so to modify  or  vary the plan has been given. (2.) A copy of the instrument by which any modification or variation of the plan has been made shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within fifteen days of the making thereof if the Parliament is then sitting, or, if not, then within fifteen days of the next meeting  of the  Parliament. (3.) If either House of the Parliament passes  a  resolution, of which notice has been given  at  any time within fifteen sitting days after the instrument  has been laid before it, disallowing the modification or variation made by the instrument, the modification or variation shall cease to have effect. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2050</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I move the following amendment to clause 4: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>After paragraph (b) insert the following paragraph: - &#34; (ba) by adding after sub-section (1.) the following sub-section: -  (U.) Before the instrument of variation is laid before each House of the Parliament, as required by the next succeeding sub-section, the Minister shall refer the proposal to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory which shall furnish a report to the Minister within seven sitting days.&#39;; &#34;. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>The purpose of the amendment is associated with the important matter of parliamentary control of statutory authorities. I expressed some thoughts to the Senate on this matter on an occasion during the course of the week. Accordingly, I do not devote any real time now to the principle involved. In the hurry of events in parliamentary life, the activities of bodies to which are committed important responsibilities tend to escape our notice as parliamentarians. Reports, which come through in great volume, from all sources, frequently reach us at times when we are pre-occupied with other matters. </para>
          <para>The purpose of the amendment is to require the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory to have a look at proposed variations of the plan. It is a plan that has been in existence for a long time. The proposed changes referred to are minor changes in the plan, and it is desired to expedite the processes for dealing with them. But, of course, power is taken to deal not only with minor changes, but with any change in the plan, under the procedure outlined in the bill. We of the Opposition feel that there is a responsibility upon the Parliament to obtain assurance that changes in a plan in which we all have a vital interest, as well as a great responsibility, should be brought to the notice of Parliament. This proposal will ensure that members of this Parliament will have to address themselves to these changes, and we shall have in the Parliament a body of members from another place,, and a number of senators, charged with the duty of keeping us informed regarding the consequences of proposed changes. This, of course, is a salutary proposition. I would hope that the amendment would commend itself to the committee. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2050</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JQP</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for Repatriation</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COOPER, Walter</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Sir WALTER COOPER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>&#91;9.37&#93;. - This amendment was proposed in another place and was not accepted by the Government. I would point out that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory was formed only recently, and the Minister discussed this bill with the committee. The proposals put up by the committee were accepted by the Minister, with one exception. The exception was the proposal that seven days be allowed for the committee to make a report to the Minister. The bill originally provided a period of five days, the committee suggested seven, and the Minister compromised with six days. Six days cover two normal sitting weeks, while a period of seven days would run into three sitting weeks. The Minister is in consultation with the committee at all stages, and has given his assurance that while he is the Minister, or while this Government holds the Treasury bench, that consultation will be maintained with regard to all alterations on the plan. There will be better access to the Government&#39;s intentions with regard to variations of the plan than there was pre-  viously, because in the past there has been no direct contact with the Minister before a bill was brought to the Parliament. I regret to say that the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2050</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYA</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;BYRNE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In the circumstances, I should like to explain the background of the amendment. It springs from an example of hasty, lastminute, rushed legislation. Some years ago a regulation was signed by the Minister and laid on the table of each House in the dying hours of a session. The regulation had, for its purpose, the alteration of the Canberra plan in order to turn the lakes scheme into what is known as the ribbon-of-water scheme. The matter was later referred to the Public Works Committee and our inquiry showed that the machinery was in motion to lease the racecourse, which would be submerged, for 25 years and that the fairways at the alternative site for the Canberra Golf Club at Westbourne Woods had been planted with trees. It was more or less a foregone conclusion that the ribbon-of-water scheme would be accepted. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I remind the Senate that, because the Minister for the Interior of that day was overburdened with work, a regulation was tabled in the Parliament, was later gazetted and became operative. The amendment now before the Senate can only add to the safeguards that are so necessary to ensure that the Public Service machinery does not supersede parliamentary responsibility and authority. I therefore support the amendment wholeheartedly. </para>
          <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2051</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I proceed to the third amendment circulated in my name. The second amendment was consequential upon the carrying of the first amendment, which has just been discarded. I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">In paragraph (d), leave out &#34; six &#34;, insert &#34; ten &#34;. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The Minister adverted to this in the course of his commentary upon the earlier proposed amendment. The alteration would enable the Parliament to have ten sitting days within which to disallow any proposed variation of the plan. The Minister has had a compromise with the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. It is disposed to accept seven, but the Opposition feels that the period should be at least ten days. We all know how quickly events can move and how easily matters of this nature can escape our attention when we become preoccupied with matters of very great importance. I point out to the committee that the general proposal in relation to disallowance matters is contained in section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act, and the period has been fixed at fifteen days. </para>
          <para>We had an experience during the week of an attempt to disallow a regulation. The committee will recall that, in the rush of business, notice of the motion of disallowance was given on the last of the fifteen days. That was due to the heavy pressure of important legislation, but it illustrates how easily a change in the plan could escape our notice when we are preoccupied with other matters. As a further compromise to enable minor matters in the plan to be dealt with expeditiously, 1 suggest that we have ten days within which  to  disallow a variation instead of the six days proposed in the bill. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir WALTER</inline>COOPER (Queensland - Minister for Repatriation) &#91;9.44&#93;. - The remarks I made on the earlier amendment apply also to this amendment. I  again  stress that, now that we have the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, the Parliament is  far  better informed in six days than  it was  previously in fifteen days. Some members of the Parliament know before anything  is  done just what will happen and just  what  variation is proposed. The Government considers that, in these circumstances, the period of the six days proposed in the bill gives the members of the Parliament far  better  knowledge of what is happening than they had previously and that these matters  can  be raised quickly by members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. </para>
          <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
          <para>Bill agreed to. </para>
          <para>Bill reported without amendment;  report  adopted. </para>
          <para>Bill read  a  third time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY REPRESENTATION BILL (No.2) 1959</title>
        <page.no>2051</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2051</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Consideration resumed from 20th November (vide page 1727), on motion  by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir Walter</inline> Cooper - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
        <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL (No. 2) 1959</title>
        <page.no>2051</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2051</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 25th November (vide page 1797), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para class="block">That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2052</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The bill now before us provides for a variation in the incidence of sales tax in relation to certain types of motor vehicles. Honorable senators will recall that in March, 1956, the Government, soon after an election, imposed increased taxes of various forms - the increases being estimated to yield &#163;115,500,000 a yearunder a supplementary budget known as the little Budget. Amongst other things, the sales tax on motor vehicles used for private purposes was increased from 16$ per cent, to 30 per cent. That was a really extraordinary rise. The Government justified it upon the ground of the need to reduce the demand for the importation of petrol, having regard to the state of the economy. The Goverment left at the 16$ per cent, rate the sales tax imposed on vehicles of the type known as delivery vans. Station wagons came under the category of private vehicles, and attracted tax at the rate of 30 per cent. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>It appears that some firms have been manufacturing delivery vans, attracting sales tax of 161 per cent., and selling separately with them kit and equipment to enable them subsequently to be converted into station wagons. Although what has been done is strictly within the law, so far as the sales tax is concerned the Government claims that there is a gap, and it seeks to close that gap by making delivery vans of the type that are convertible, as I have described, subject to the full sales tax of 30 per cent. We oppose that. We oppose it for the same reason that we opposed the proposals in relation to sales tax in 1956. We felt that it was unfair to impose indirect taxes of this type to that extent. I have protested in this place in relation to the recent Budget against the heavier incidence of indirect taxes that has developed under the present Government. It means that more and more people are paying taxes at a completely flat rate and fewer according to their ability to pay on a graduated scale related to their incomes. We accordingly feel that just as we protested against the taxes then imposed, we must oppose this particular provision at the same time. </para>
          <para>I point out that another objection made then was that the effect of those sales tax proposals in relation to motor vehicles was inflationary. It added to costs that went on into business, and ultimately it was reflected in the whole cost structure at an aggravated level, margins of profit being added to sales tax and adding to the extraordinary spiralling of costs that has continually gone on throughout the term of this Government. Again and again we have objected thai the Government has taken no positive steps to halt that spiral. I advert to the fact that the sales tax on motor vehicles was the beginning of the rise of substantial unemployment in Australia. In December, 1955, preceding the imposition of the little Budget there were only some 16,000 persons unemployed in Australia. From the moment this heavy sales tax on motor vehicles in particular was imposed the level rose within a few months to 30,000 odd - almost double. For a period of three years the level continued to rise until unemployment reached a total of some 80,000 odd. Very fortunately, the number is now on the way down - down in the 50,000&#39;s - but it is at a level now higher than it was in December, 1955. </para>
          <para>We have been concerned about that, lt has been the subject of debate during the past three years. It was the disorganization of the motor manufacturing and distributing industry as a result of the imposition of this sales tax that began to empty employees out, particularly of the manufacturing industries and then of the distributing industries. That in turn had its effect on all the numerous ancillary industries relating to the motor industry. They are legion because many of the manufacturers of motor cars in Australia farm out the fabrication of many of the component parts of cars and any disturbance of that industry has enormous repercussions right through our industrial structure. </para>
          <para>We oppose the measure for the reasons I have indicated. We think the imposition of this tax is unfair. We think it is inflationary, and we feel that at this time the Government should direct its mind to the question of altering the incidence of indirect taxes to restore the proportion in favour of direct taxes and to ease out the burden of these indirect taxes. &#60;- </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2052</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I am not opposing the bill as such, but in view of the demonstration yesterday of the degree to which our arbitration machinery is taking its place in the escalation of the Commonwealth economy - not without just cause or excuse, to adopt the terms of the bill that has engaged our attention in the last few days - that machinery must be watched as a central factor in this continuing upsurge of costs. Taxation has been adopted as a measure to stem that upward tendency. I rise to express the hope that fiscal measures will not be resorted to as the appropriate means of deflating rising costs in the next six or twelve months. The most serious attention will have to be given to the problem. I am not convinced that the imposition of heavy taxes is other than inflationary. There are views to the effect that it is deflationary, but 1 am not convinced that it is. I plead that a course of this kind should not be adopted without the gravest consideration. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2053</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSL</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAHER, Edmund</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MAHER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I want to by-pass the terms of this bill because of the time factor and because honorable senators wish to bring the session to a close, but there is a subject which, while not exactly referred to in the bill, is particularly relevant to it. I wish to mention the matter briefly this morning while I have the ear of the Minister for Shipping and Transport <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Paltridge).</inline> In Queensland, particularly in western and north-western areas, the owners of grazing properties frequently use four-wheeled vehicles of the Land-Rover type, in respect of which certain sales tax concessions are allowed. Such vehicles are particularly helpful in those areas in the wet season. In addition, they are useful for travelling over rough and rugged country. Under the existing law, the owners of stations are entitled to receive the regular sales tax concession when they buy such vehicles, but the managers of grazing properties have not the same facility. The manager of a property must be on the job for the greater part of his time. In the wet season, he has to leave his sedan car in the garage and resort to the use of a four-wheeled vehicle of the Land-Rover type, which is found to be essential in that country. The managers of station properties consider that they ought to be entitled to the same sales tax concession as are the owners of properties because managers are in fact doing work that many owners, who do- not have managers on their properties, do themselves. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>My remarks also apply to the men, with big droving plants, who bring thousands of cattle down from the back country to the markets of the south. In moving their droving equipment, they also require the type of vehicle that I have mentioned. The contractor-drover feels that he should have the same sales tax concession in respect of such vehicles as the graziers have. I have also had complaints from mining prospectors who find it necessary to go into rugged, mountainous country and to use this type of vehicle. They think that they, too, should be entitled to the sales tax concession that now applies in the case of owners of pastoral properties throughout Australia. I should like the Minister to keep this matter in mind. I know it cannot be dealt with under this bill, but it will come up for consideration later. I bring it to his notice to indicate the disparity that exists in the application of this sales tax concession. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2053</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - in reply - I point out to the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator McKenna)</inline> that this bill has a particular and specific relationship to a certain item - a motor vehicle - in relation to which the method of collecting and assessing sales tax has, in the past, created an anomaly. The extent of the anomaly is made quite clear in the second-reading speech, where reference is made to the fact that revenue has suffered to the order of &#163;300,000 per annum and could, in certain circumstances, suffer to the extent of &#163;3,000,000 per annum. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The Leader of the Opposition has related this bill to general economic policy. At this stage, I do not propose to pursue that subject. The honorable senator referred to unemployment and inflation. The Government acknowledges that both of those factors have to be kept under continual review. I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition that that review will, as in the past, be a continuing one undertaken by the Government. We are aware of the twin dangers of unemployment and inflation. I merely say to the honorable senator that unemployment in Australia has never at any time reached a figure which, in the broad economic sense, has created a problem. He himself has acknowledged this morning the fact that the fortunately small percentage of unemployment that has existed is decreasing. Inflation, too, will be watched, and economic policy will be adjusted to meet the changing demands of the times. This bill, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, as</inline> I have pointed out, has the particular and narrow purpose &#169;f correcting what is an obvious anomaly. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2054</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2054</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 25th November (vide page 1797), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2054</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUM</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DITTMER, Felix</name>
              <name role="display">Senator DITTMER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> as a child, I was amazed at the way in which grotesque, unsually shaped pieces could be fitted together to make an attractive pattern. Since my entry into this Parliament, I have been intrigued by the fact that, when you take a collection of men with attractive and appealing personalities and bring them together to constitute a cabinet, they become implacable in their contempt for the will of the people and voracious in their appetite for power. We have seen a perfect illustration of the consequences of such a change in personality in the way in which innumerable bills have been submitted- to the Senate for consideration in so short a time. After all, I suppose that we may regard ourselves as the elected representatives of the people. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The particular cabinet in office for the time being at Canberra, as representing the authority of the Commonwealth, is probably no different from other cabinets in this sense, but that does not justify the haste with which it requires the Senate to deal with various measures. Over the last two weeks, we have been required to deal with two particularly important bills, which I shall describe as the Cameron Pharmaceutical Burden Bill and the Barwick Divorce Facilitation Bill, and we are now asked to rush through, in a very short time at the end of this session, a large number of bills. Some one may say, &#34;We could come back next week or the week after&#34;, but we, as the representatives of the people, have responsibilities to the people which we find it necessary to discharge outside the Parliament. I have on my desk a considerable number of invitations to visit towns in Queensland to which I propose to travel over the next couple of weeks. </para>
          <para>The bill now before, us was received from the House of Representatives on Wednesday last, and, although we have sat on into the early hours of Thursday, Friday and Saturday mornings, we only now have an opportunity to discuss it. What appalls me is the fact that this is the only opportunity the Opposition will have to discuss the act which it is proposed to amend. That act, including the index, extends over 98 printed pages. It is divided into seven parts - the Government proposes to delete Part VI - and it contains 150 sections. The fact that we are given so little time to discuss such an important measure is a glaring example to the people of how contemptuous Cabinet can be of the rights of their democratically elected representatives. </para>
          <para>This matter covers such important questions as the constitutional power vested in the Commonwealth Government in relation to insurance, deposits, statutory rights of the individual, actuarial investigations, reports to the Commonwealth, and so on. All these matters are vital to the people. </para>
          <para>Further, it has to be remembered that there has been a change in approach to the investment of funds. Insurance companies derive their funds from the contributions made by their clients in the form of premiums paid upon policies taken out to cover probate, and policies maturing at specified ages or death or for the future security of children. At one time, the insurance companies invested all funds in excess of what was required to finance their own activities in what were looked upon as fixed securities - governmental and semi-governmental loans and bonds. Now, the insurance companies are turning from those fields of investment. They are turning now to real estate. The Mutual Life and Citizens Assurance Company Limited even went into the hire purchase business not so long ago. Because the bill is submitted at such a late stage in the sitting, we are not given full opportunity to discuss in proper detail the effect of the change in the avenues of investment of these enormous amounts of money. We are given no opportunity to stress the need for investment in the provision of worthwhile amenities and facilities calculated best to serve the interests of the nation and its people. It is nothing less than an absolute disgrace that we have so little time to discuss the measure. </para>
          <para>Frankly, although the Opposition accepts the proposed amendments it must be admitted that they have been made necessary because of the need to make some attempt to stem the inflationary spiral that has been developing ever since this Government&#39;s predecessor took office in 1949. Before that government took office, it promised to restore the value of money - to put value back into the &#163;1  -  but when we realize the great decline that has taken place in the value of money since then, I do not think it can be claimed that this measure goes far enough by any means. The improvements proposed by this bill do not by any means cover the decline in the value of money. It is a step in the right direction, but not as much as the people are entitled to expect. The three amendments proposed are - </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(a)">
              <para>to allow life insurance companies to pay claims without production of probate or letters of administration where the amount insured does not exceed &#163;1,000, instead of &#163;500 as at present; </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(b)">
              <para>to allow a special policy to be issued in place of one which has been lost, without the expense of advertising the loss where the sum insured does not exceed &#163;500, instead of &#163;200 as at present; and </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(c)">
              <para>to provide a small increase in the minimum rates of surrender value laid down in the act. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">But we are given no opportunity to deal with such matters as industrial insurance, the value of which, as an investment, has become less attractive. Very often, those who have been paying in for twenty years have received back less than they paid in. It&#39; is scandalous to think that a government which, because of its extraordinary majority in another place and its reasonable majority in this place should take advantage of the position to introduce so late in the session innumerable bills affecting matters of such great importance to the people of the nation. I submit that there is no way in the world by which the Government can justify this action. There is no valid argument against correcting it. I do suggest to the Leader of the Government in the Senate <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Spooner)</inline> that he discuss with Cabinet the desirability of adopting a proper attitude towards these matters and the paramount importance of giving democratically elected representatives of the people a reasonable opportunity to debate legislation. The Government was taught a salutary lesson last night. I hope it will profit by that lesson. It is old enough to recognize the will of the people and, I hope, not so old as to forget its obligations to the people and their representatives. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2055</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - in reply - I am gratified, naturally, that the Opposition does not oppose the three small amendments which are proposed to the Life Insurance Act. Indeed, the amendments do no more than bring the act into consonance with modern times and modern conditions. With respect to the remarks of my good friend, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dittmer,</inline> regarding the lack of opportunity to discuss this measure, I merely point out that, during the two sessions this year both Houses of this Parliament have had abundant opportunity to address themselves to insurance matters generally. In the first session of the Parliament, this year, we had banking bills which afforded a broad opportunity to discuss investments of banks and insurance companies. The Budget session, of course, allowing, as it does, a broad scope, would again have given an opportunity to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dittmer</inline> to go into this subject in much more detail than he was able to do this morning. I can only say to him that it is not the intention of the Government, at any time, to stifle debate. For my own part, I would be prepared to sit here with him through the week-end and discuss insurance, but I am afraid that we would not get too many other senators to keep us company if we did that. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>COMMONWEALTH MOTOR VEHICLES (LIABILITY) BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2056</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2056</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 27th November (vide page 2044), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gorton</inline> - </para>
        <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2056</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  The Opposition very warmly applauds this measure. It is a bill to put the Commonwealth into line with State law relating to death or personal injury sustained as a result of the negligent use of its motor vehicles on the road. It is interesting to note that there are some 31,000 Commonwealth vehicles on the road. That represents about one in 84 of the vehicles in use. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The Commonwealth does not pay insurance premiums; it carries its own risks and at present whilst the Commonwealth is liable in respect of personal injury or death occasioned by any Commonwealth vehicle being used with its authority, it is not liable if the vehicle is being driven by an unauthorized person. The Commonwealth, of course, cannot be made liable at law for such unauthorized use of its vehicle. That position is covered in the States by thirdparty insurance schemes, which leave the registered owner liable even for the unauthorized use of his vehicle, and oblige him to insure against the possibility that he might have to meet a claim of that kind. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2056</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is that the position under this bill? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2056</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The position in the future will be that the Commonwealth will accept liability for any death or injury caused by the unauthorized use of its vehicle, whether the vehicle is used by a person in its employ without authority or by somebody who has stolen the vehicle. Up to date the Commonwealth has been liable solely for the actions of a user with its authority. This bill will put the Commonwealth, in relation to all persons, in exactly the same position as other vehicle owners under the third-party insurance scheme. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>This is a bill that is, I suggest, long overdue. We warmly applaud it. The position formerly was that when the unauthorized use of a Commonwealth vehicle caused injury or death, the Commonwealth was prepared to make ex gratia payments. Its practice was to base those payments upon the relative level of workers&#39; compensation benefit applicable in the circumstances. The Senate will recognize that that would be a lower level than the level of amounts that are awarded by juries for injury or death. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2056</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What amount is lower? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2056</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The level of workers&#39; compensation payments for death or injury would be much lower than would normally be conceded in a claim for damages for negligence. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2056</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The liability under this bill is not limited to workers&#39; compensation benefits. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2056</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. I might repeat to the honorable senator what I. said. Prior to the advent of this bill, the Commonwealth was prepared to make ex gratia payments, but it confined its ex gratia payments to a level comparable with the level of payment under workers&#39; compensation acts - in other words, to a much lower level than that of the damages an injured person might be expected to recover in a court. As this brings the liability of the Commonwealth in relation to death or injury caused by its motor vehicles into line with the Australia-wide practice, the Opposition welcomes and warmly applauds the measure. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para>In committee: </para>
          <para>The bill. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2056</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I refer the Minister to clause 5 (1.) (a). Why is there a limitation to uninsured vehicles owned by the Commonwealth? An uninsured motor vehicle is defined as a vehicle in respect of which a third-party policy is not in force. What is the principle behind the exclusion of all vehicles other than uninsured vehicles? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for the Navy</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  The reason for that is that although the Commonwealth does  not  insure its own vehicles, certain Commonwealth authorities in some instances  may  do so. These insured vehicles would  be  the subject of action in the ordinary  way. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I suggest that there may be some discrimination if insured vehicles were excluded entirely from the application of this legislation, in which case liability would depend upon the old law and the recourse of the plaintiff would be limited to the amount of  the  insurance. In this case the Commonwealth is taking liability without qualification for all vehicles it owns. That seems to me to be a very wide principle. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I agree with the merits in the purpose of the measure, but to take liability for every injury that has been caused by a vehicle, the ownership of which is still vested in the Commonwealth means determining &#39;questions of title and property and will govern liability although it may be that the Commonwealth has no connexion with the control of the activity out of which the accident arises. I have no doubt that the AttorneyGeneral&#39;s Department has submitted this provision to complete scrutiny; but I simply indicate that at the moment I have some query with regard to that. If this liability is attached solely to an uninsured vehicle then, taking the case of an insured vehicle in which the insurance is limited, say in the case of death, to &#163;5,000, recovery action on the insurance company is limited to &#163;5,000 but against the Commonwealth, in  the  case of an uninsured vehicle, it is unlimited. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2057</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKenna</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Would not the claim disregard the amount of the insurance and depend upon an assessment of the damage suffered? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2057</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  But we are thinking  of  what the injured party will recover. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I should like to clear up the matter which the honorable senator has raised. As I understand the position, the Commonwealth carries all insurance risks, whether for property or anything at all. It probably saves a great deal of money in the process, having resources to meet any claim. As I understand the third party system operating in the States, a person&#39;s liability is not limited to the amount for which he is compelled to insure. He is compelled to insure for a minimum, but the injured party may recover more than the amount for which the registered owner is obliged to insure. There is this distinction: In the case of the Commonwealth, which has the resources, the plaintiff is seeking to recover the sum for which he has obtained judgment. I think that is the point we are leading up to, is it not? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2057</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Yes. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2057</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Accordingly, it is an advantage over the plaintiff in an action under an insurance policy in the States who normally would not be able to recover more than the insurance proceeds, the registered owner not having the resources himself to meet it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The only thing is that if the insurance policy covering a vehicle owned by a Commonwealth authority is limited to &#163;5,000, it seems to me on reading this bill that the liability of that authority extends to the driver only. He is, in fact, the agent acting within the scope of his employment. The liability that the Commonwealth is accepting under this bill is not extended to the case of the unauthorized driver - the soldier who takes a motor truck off the picket lines at night and ends up in the first creek. If that vehicle were owned by a Commonwealth authority, it would seem to be not te be embraced within the scope of the bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2057</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKenna</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The practical answer is that no Commonwealth vehicle is insured </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for the Navy</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I am told that a Commonwealth authority vehicle can be insured. That is the point which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> is making. One of the minor points raised was whether damage caused by an unauthorized driver would be compensated for under an insurance policy of this kind taken out by a Commonwealth agency.  1  am informed that the answer is that it would be. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2058</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Without limitation? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2058</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- 1 was moving on to limitation. The honorable senator raised two separate points: First, would it be covered; and secondly, to what extent would it be covered. I am unable to get definite information as to whether, and in what cases, there is any limitation placed on the amount for which a Commonwealth vehicle, or a Commonwealth authority&#39;s vehicle, would be insured. Such vehicles would be insured, I suppose, in accordance with the laws of the States in which they were operating and would be on the same basis as a private motor vehicle insured for third-party purposes. I think that the net result is that a person knocked down by an insured or uninsured Commonwealth vehicle, or Commonwealth authority&#39;s vehicle, would be able to claim and receive damages from an insurance company in a State in the same way as if he had been knocked down by a vehicle owned by a private citizen in that State. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Bill agreed to. </para>
          <para>Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. </para>
          <para>Bill read a third time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>TAXATION ADMINISTRATION BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2058</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2058</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 26th November (vide page 1866), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para class="block">That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JQN</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COOKE, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COOKE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The bill seeks to create an additional statutory position of Second Commissioner of Taxation. It is interesting to note that the administration has been carried on under the Commissioner and one Second Commissioner since 1916 despite the great increase in the number of fields of Commonwealth taxation and in the number of sections that have been established in the intervening years to 1959. It is only now that this step is being taken to create the position of a statutory Second Commissioner. It is a wonder to many how the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Taxation Branch has been able to continue under the administration of only the Commissioner and one Second Commissioner. We must presume that a certain amount of authority has been delegated by those two officers to Assistant Commissioners, Directors and Deputy Commissioners. </para>
          <para>The Opposition finds no reason to oppose the bill, and it does not do so. However, 1 do wish to suggest to the Government that Opposition senators think that the various forms of taxation should be reduced to a minimum, particularly in the field of indirect taxation. For very many years we have been promised that indirect taxation would be lessened. The various indirect taxes that have been imposed upon the people were imposed for some special purpose. Apparently the special purpose has never ceased to exist and so the taxation field has become broader and the work of the Taxation Branch has increased. We cannot blame the branch for that, but the people of Australia are groaning under the burden of the many forms of taxes. </para>
          <para>The Opposition feels that the Government should give early consideration to fulfilling the many promises that have been given to the people to relieve them of sales tax, pay-roll tax and other indirect taxes that have been imposed. We are approaching Christmas time. If Father Christmas promises to bring something and then does not do so because sales tax has put the price of a gift beyond the means of the would-be donor, great disappointment is caused. The Government has promised to give relief to the people from the burden of these indirect taxes, but nothing has been done. I hope that with the appointment of this Second Commissioner the Government will be able to give effect to the promises it has made to the public. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I want to make only one comment on this bill. We ought not to forget the grave responsibility and great authority and powers which, under modern taxation laws, are conceded to the Commissioner of Taxation, the Second Commissioner and now the second Second Commissioner. It is of the greatest importance that the very delicate decisions that have to be made by these officers in relation to people&#39;s motives and intentions - decisions which involve large taxation liability - shall be soundly based. We, therefore, must have faith in the integrity of these officers. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I have mentioned this subject because I hope that the taxation committee of inquiry which the Government has promised to sei up will take it into review. The amount of money that the decision of one man, as an authority of the Taxation Branch, can involve, is ever so much greater to-day than it was when this legislation was originally passed and these wide powers were conferred on taxation officials. </para>
          <para>We must be constantly on guard to see that the exercising of this terrific power is not the subject of even a suggestion of abuse. Although no such suggestion has been made in relation to officers in the higher, levels, complaints are coming forward in increasing numbers that junior officers, in cases where a decision depends upon their advice, are using investigational procedures which have given taxpayers the impression that in spite of the merits of their case it is better not to resist. </para>
          <para>I mention this matter because I have striven in the Senate to prevent the inclusion in legislation of powers which will make liability a mere matter of opinion. I hope that the Minister in charge of the measure will be on the alert when the inquiry committee is functioning, and will realize that there are some who are mindful of the necessity to have decisions on liability based on a sounder foundation than the opinion of only one officer, whether he be called the Commissioner of Taxation, the Second Commissioner, the second Second Commissioner or an assessor. If such decisions can be concluded by one officer, injustice may be done to individual taxpayers. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2059</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I take only one moment to express to the Commissioner of Taxation, the Second Commissioner and other officers of the Taxation Branch, our indebtedness as an Opposition for the explanatory memoranda which are always submitted with bills that emanate from that branch. It is an enormous service to members of the Parliament in this highly complex field. Only those who have taken a real interest in it have any idea of its complexities. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I am continually staggered that only one or two men are charged with the full administration of such a difficult field. I agree entirely with what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has said. The standard of efficiency and integrity in the Taxation Branch is exceedingly high. In fact, there is nothing higher in the Commonwealth Public Service. From time to time I make aproaches on behalf of constituents and I am continually impressed by those two qualities at all levels. Above all, I am impressed with the common sense that is displayed by the officers and, what often is not appreciated, the very broad humanity of the branch generally. Although the Taxation Branch comes in for objurgation in particular cases, I take this opportunity to say that I have enormous confidence in <inline font-style="italic">its</inline> administration. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SUPERANNUATION BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2059</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2059</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 26th November (vide page 1870), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge-</inline></para>
        <quote>
          <para>That  the bill be  now read  a  second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2059</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBC</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I move- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Leave out all words after &#34; That &#34;, insert  &#34; the  bill be withdrawn and re-drafted because it fails to make provision for an increase in the value of the unit of pension and because it fails to come into operation from the 1st July, 1959 &#34;. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>I move this amendment to the motion for the second reading, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> because, possibly for the last two years, people who have had a life-long association with the Commonwealth Public Service have been waiting for some lift in the value of the superannuation unit. I know that there are more ways of killing the cat than hangit up by a string. Nevertheless, almost the traditional way of assisting contributors to the Superannuation Fund is by increasing the value of the unit. We must remember this this superannuation scheme is a mutual arrangement between the Commonwealth and the contributors. Contributors might start contributing at the age of about fourteen, when they join up as very junior officers in the service and pay contributions right up to the day when they become 65 years of age. Superannuation is not only an important part of their industrial life, but also something which affects their families and their standard of living on retirement. I think that since 1922, when the original bill was introduced, and when the value of the unit was 10s. - 5s. being contributed by the Government and 5s. by the public servant - the value of the unit has been increased on three occasions, and has moved somewhat disjointedly to 17s. 6d. I say &#34; disjointedly &#34;, because the units were not always of equal value during that time. 1 would say that there is a clear case for an increase in the value of the unit at this stage. In my opinion, it might well be increased to more than &#163;1 but, conservative as we all are, and allowing ourselves to drop into the habit of doing what has been done in the past, an increase of 2s. 6d. naturally implants itself in my mind. </para>
          <para>The purpose of the bill is to give some help to contributors to the Superannuation Fund. I ask the Minister, when he is speaking in reply, to deal with my objection to a fact which is apparent in the bill - that it will help people on the higher and middle incomes to a greater degree than it will help people on lower incomes. In fact, the only people who will be materially assisted by the bill are those in the higher and middle income ranges, not those on the lower incomes. I know it may be said that an adjustment was made in 1954 in respect of those people, but I point out, in answer to that, that this bill merely picks up the 1954 adjustment and takes into account increases since then. </para>
          <para>The lower income pensions, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> were then fixed at 70 per cent, of the salaries of the officers concerned, and I understand that the Commonwealth provided half of the total contribution. As I understand it, in the higher salary range, up to the then maximum salary of &#163;4,000 a year, which was the salary received by heads of departments - since increased to &#163;6,000 maximum - the pension was fixed at 40.9 per cent, of salary. Had we had more time to study this measure I might have been able to look up the history, so to speak, of superannuation pensions and inform the Senate of it. However, at the moment, I do not quite see how the point was fixed at which the rate of pension moved from 70 per cent, of salary down to 40.9 per cent, of salary. 1 should like to know, for instance, the proportion of pension to salary that applied to a &#163;3,000 a year salary when the maximum salary rate was &#163;4,000. </para>
          <para>It is true that something had to be done, because the proportion of pension to salary had dropped back to 59.6 per cent, in the case of people on lower and middle incomes and, in the case of those in the upper limits, to 27.3 per cent. The Government has adopted the principle that has been used since 1922 - that is, to take the number of units permissible to be taken out at the various levels, and recast the scale so that more units could be taken out. The maximum number of units that may be taken out is to be increased from 36 to 54. The maximum pension, which will be that applying to a salary of &#163;6,000 a year, will be &#163;2,457 a year. </para>
          <para>Now I raise a query. Should it be necessary to take those pensions to that height? Do not think for one moment that I am advocating smaller pensions, particularly for people who have devoted the whole of their lives to the Public Service, and who contributed so much towards their pensions in the years when they were junior officers and when it was a real hardship for them to contribute to the Superannuation Fund. However, because I feel that people on the lower salary ranges could have been helped more by this measure, I am wondering whether it is necessary to maintain the ratio of 40.9 per cent, between pension and salary at the &#163;6,000 salary level, which is a fairly high salary. I raise this matter merely for future reference, because it is quite obvious that, as a result of inflation, there will have to be continual and progressive upward adjustments of salaries for probably as long as any of us here will be on this earth. I wonder whether some thought should not be given to whether it is necessary to take these pensions up into this upper limit. </para>
          <para>The increase in the number of units that may be taken out by a contributor applies to public servants receiving more than &#163;1,365 a year. The thought comes to my mind that that base figure of &#163;1,365 means the exclusion of a terrific number of people in the Public Service from any benefit from the increase of units that may be taken out - and these are the people who really need help. I refer to people in the Fourth Division who are doing the more menial jobs in the Public Service - people like lift drivers, cleaners, linesmen, motor drivers, and all the rest. I am wondering whether that consideration is to be kept in mind in relation to any future adjustments. </para>
          <para>I note that the Commonwealth under this measure is adhering to the previous contributions ratio. The contributor will contribute two-sevenths of the amount necessary to produce his pension, and the Commonwealth the remaining five-sevenths. The contribution ratio has been generously amended in the last few years in favour of the contributor, but I wonder whether the Government has decided not to spend any more money than is necessary on superannuation, and whether this has led to the fixing of the amount of &#163;1,365 to which I have referred. It would be very difficult for the Government to show any justification for saying, &#34; We will not spend more than is necessary on superannuation. We shall adjust the scheme in such a way that the increase in the number of units, in respect of which we contribute, will apply mainly to those on the higher salary scales &#34;. I do not think that that could be justified for one moment. </para>
          <para>I do not intend to go through ail the provisions of the bill, but I should like to refer to one of them. People within eight years of retirement, particularly senior officers, who decided to contribute for a maximum of 54 units instead of the previous maximum of 36, would find the cost just about prohibitive. The Allison committee, I understand, looked only at the Defence Forces  Retirement Benefits Fund.  I do not  think it  looked  si the Superannuation Fund, but on that point I would  like to be  corrected if I am wrong. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2061</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not think any of us have had access to that report officially. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2061</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No, not that I know of. The Allison committee, I understand, recommended that the amount of money required by an officer who is within eight years of retirement to pay for the extra units that he must take out, be considered, if the officer so chooses, as a debt payable by him on his retirement, if his furlough payment will be sufficient to cover the amount due. It is one of the peculiarities of the Commonwealth service, and one of the ways in which it differs from the State services, that furlough is allowed to accumulate as a sort of insurance. Throughout my association with the Commonwealth Public Service I have always questioned the wisdom of this. Furlough was never meant to be used as an insurance, lt was never meant to be used for the purpose of stacking up six months&#39; or twelve months&#39; salary, so that it can be drawn as a kind of retiring allowance or paid to the widow in the event of the officer&#39;s death. However, this practice which has grown up in the Commonwealth Public Service is now being enshrined in an official document. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I am not suggesting that the Commonwealth Public Service should do what is done in some of the State services, where an employee might be told, perhaps by telephone, one night that he will be on furlough as from the following morning. Annual leave and furlough are not of much benefit if they are to be forced on a person at short notice in that narrow fashion. But to allow the furlough to accumulate throughout the life of an officer is not in his best interests, and the service is certainly not getting any value from it. A man should be allowed to enjoy a rest period, to get away from his problems, or perhaps to take a bird&#39;s eye view of them. He should be able to enjoy a physical and mental rest. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2061</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KOW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HENTY, Norman</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Henty</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He endangers his health if he does not take his holidays. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2061</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is the very point, but the Government is encouraging public servants to continue to follow this practice of accumulating leave. I admit that if an officer is within eight years of retirement it may not be of much benefit to him to take furlough, but I believe that the whole matter of furlough has been mishandled by the Commonwealth. I do not suggest that we should adopt the narrow concept of some of the States, but I believe there is a happy middle way. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I return now to the report of the Allison committee. As I understand the position on the defence forces - and I stand subject to correction on this - officers retire at much earlier ages than in the case in the Commonwealth Public Service. I believe that the retiring age varies according to an officer&#39;s rank. I think a major retires at about 47, and the higher the rank the further up the age scale you may go before retiring. Therefore I do not see how you could apply the same conditions to the Commonwealth Public Service as apply to the defence forces in the matter of the provision for an officer within eight years of retirement. </para>
          <para>The amendment increasing the widows&#39; pension from one half to five-eighths of the pension payable to the contributor is a welcome one. I think most of us who contribute to superannuation schemes would agree that our greatest solace is the thought that in the event of an untimely death the widow is provided for. I believe this amendment will be welcomed by the contributors probably more than any other section of the legislation. The Minister said in his second-reading speech - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The cost of this increase - </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">He was speaking of the increase in the widow&#39;s pension -  will be met by the Commonwealth, but the bill provides that the portion of any surplus revealed at the seventh quinquennial investigation of the fund which is- attributable to married contributors who have retired or died will be applied towards the cost of the increase. The five-eighths widow&#39;s pension will be a basic feature of the superannuation scheme for all future contributors, who will be required to pay contributions at an increased rate in order to provide this new benefit. Those who are now contributing to the fund will have an option to take up the additional widow&#39;s pension provided they meet their proportion of the additional costs in extra contributions. </para>
          <para class="block">There seems to be an inconsistency there. The Minister said, first, that the surplus revealed - and I understand this seventh investigation has already taken place, so that the amount available should be readily determinable - will go towards the cost of the increase, so reducing the Commonwealth&#39;s liability. But he then went on to say that some contributors would have to make extra contributions to pay for the increase in the widow&#39;s pension. Whether the Minister has in mind that -some contributors, because of their lower salaries, will not be able to afford the extra units I do not know. </para>
          <para> The provision for reserve units was introduced some time ago. It was a very popular measure. It allows an officer to take out reserve units, so that, when he hits a higher salary, he can convert those reserve units to. active units and continue to pay for them at the lower rate. It is proposed to increase from four to eight the number of reserve units that may be taken. This is a welcome amendment, and will help public servants in their continuing struggle against the forces of inflation that are sending up salaries and, consequently, increasing the contributions that have to be made to the fund. </para>
          <para>I have little more to add. Naturally, we welcome any increase in payments under the scheme. I think there will be some disappointment at the fact that a flat rate of increase over the whole of the range has been provided. I know that many difficult problems are met in dealing with a large service like the Commonwealth Public Service. As soon as you provide for increased contributions in the lower salary ranges you involve a tremendous number of people, who are doing most essential jobs. In the field of pensions or superannuation, you must always watch the interests of the person on the lower salary. </para>
          <para>I have given just a brief survey of the legislation, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy President.</inline> This is by no means a small bill, and I regret that I have not had more time to debate it. I would have welcomed the opportunity to go through it thoroughly. It occurs to me also that this is a bill to which the Senate might well have applied itself over a period of time. I believe that we might even have gone to the extent of appointing a select committee to examine it. The Superannuation Fund is assuming gigantic proportions and affecting large numbers of people. There are more people in the Commonwealth Public Service than in any other service or any private industry in Australia. Therefore, I believe this legislation could have been examined by a select committe. </para>
          <para>With those few words I commend my amendment to the Senate. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2063</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The very bulk of this bill precludes adequate consideration of it on this occasion, but I ask the Minister to inform the Senate what will be the charge per annum on the Commonwealth for contributions to the Superannuation Fund, and to what extent the charge is being increased by this bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>It is not entirely an occasion for gratification when we see increases being made such as are provided for in this bill. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline> has expressed appreciation of the increases, but I believe we must have regard to the true interests of the people concerned. Their true interests are safeguarded only if the greatest economy is exercised with respect to numbers employed for the work in hand, and if their salaries and superannuation allowances are kept at a level which bears some relation to the earnings of the taxpayers who provide the fund from which the superannuation payments are made. We have been assured that this matter will be subject to detailed review in the next twelve months if any anomalies reveal themselves in the legislation now being considered. I have considered whether an amendment should not be introduced, limiting the operation of the bill to twelve months, in order to ensure that it will come up for parliamentary review at the end of that period. But that course is inappropriate to a provision which is the base of a financial structure as wide as the Superannuation Fund for the Public Service. I prefer, therefore, to let the bill go in its present form without dissent. </para>
          <para>I feel that I must oppose the amendment moved by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee,</inline> but at the same time I express the view, in agreement with him, that the provisions of the bill would be appropriate to a review by a parliamentary select committee. We would then have a more adequate understanding of the responsibilities that we, on behalf of the taxpayers, accept for the Treasury, first, for the salaries of the Public Service and then, as an adjunct to that charge, for the cost of this superannuation. I would be obliged if the Minister, in the course of his reply, would inform me of the total cost of this superannuation to the Treasury and the increment that will accrue as a result of this measure. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2063</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The amendment moved by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline> on behalf of the Opposition is not acceptable to the Government. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid).</inline> - We will deal with the amendment straight away, and then you can proceed with your reply. </para>
          <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator PALTRIDGE</inline>(Western Australia - Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation). - in reply - I have a note which indicates that there is, generally, a good deal of misunderstanding about the value of the pension unit. The value in itself has no significance. What is significant is the value of the unit in relation to the scale of salaries to which it is applied. The basis of the superannuation scheme, with the adoption of the unit with a value of 17s. 6d. in 1954, was to provide pensions equivalent to 70 per cent, of the salary in the lower and middle ranges, reducing to approximately 40 per cent, of the salary through the middle and up to the higher ranges. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline> did not accurately state the position when he said that many people will not benefit from this legislation. Those who receive no benefit from the extended scale of units provided in the bill have already automatically, since 1954, had preserved for them the right to a pension equivalent to 70 per cent, of the salary paid. Those who do benefit under the bill are those who have had the misfortune since 1954 to have had the proportion of pension to salary, which was then established, eroded away. The bill restores the percentages which were adopted in 1954. It is not true, therefore, to suggest that those who  are  being restored to the 1954 position are being given an advantage denied to the other members of the fund. </para>
          <para>If the request to increase the value of the unit to &#163;1 were accepted, pensions would rise from the present 70 per cent, of salary to 80 per cent, of salary and the Government&#39;s contribution would be increased from the present 50 per cent, to 60 per cent, of salary, which I suggest is a very high and very generous rate. The increase to&#39; &#163;1 would cost &#163;800,000. I inform <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright,</inline> in answer to his question, that the present cost to the Treasury is &#163;3,700,000. These new arrangements add &#163;300,000 to the commitment, and I repeat that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee&#39;s</inline> suggestion to increase the value of the unit to &#163;1 would cost the Treasury &#163;800,000. </para>
          <para>As to retrospectivity, I point out merely that, as in all cases where a line must be drawn, there are always some people who feel that they have cause for complaint. To move the commencing date back would merely move the border of discontent; there would still be some who would just miss out. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2064</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2064</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 26th November (vide page 1873), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYA</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;BYRNE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- This bill amends the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act and arises from recommendations made by a committee which was set up under the chairmanship of <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Allison. The committee made a very comprehensive survey of the defence forces retirement benefits and made recommendations to streamline the provisions of the principal act, which came into operation in 1948. The Superannuation Bill, which has just been passed by the Senate, introduced a number of streamlining factors, and this bill really brings the defence forces retiring benefits into line with the retiring benefits in other spheres. It contains a formula, which was recommended by the Allison committee, to provide a scale of pensions based on the pensions payable in the Civil Service at age of 60 years, with appropriate percentage payments because of the earlier retiring ages of members of the services. It provides that future contributors to the scheme will pay on an average <inline font-style="italic">22i</inline> per cent, of the cost of their pension benefits, instead of the 15 per cent, that prevailed in the past. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>At present, the retirement benefits fund has an accumulated surplus of &#163;9,500,000. Contributions for this year amounted to &#163;1,296,106 and commitments amounted to &#163;841,692, and there was a Government contribution of &#163;391,000. So, it will  be  seen that the fund is in a very sound financial position. There was a very important provision made that all gratuities be calculated on a stated amount for each year of service, depending on the class of a member. This is a very desirable feature. </para>
          <para>Another very important provision in this measure relates to retired servicemen who become re-employed by the Commonwealth. The provision in this bill is similar to one contained in the Superannuation Bill, which we have just passed. Briefly, under the measure now before us, a retired serviceman will be able to receive a pension up to an amount of &#163;500 10s. per annum if he is re-employed by the Commonwealth, and the comparable pension for a widow will be &#163;312 16s. 3d. per annum. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2064</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Is that equal to 50 per cent, of the ordinary pension? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2064</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;BYRNE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  A sliding scale applies in relation to widows. I am not quite familiar with the actual formula. Consequent upon the implementation of the proposals contained in the statement recently made to the Parliament by the Minister for Defence <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Townley),</inline> there will be numerous retirements from the Services. In these circumstances, I think that the provision under which a retired serviceman who becomes re-employed by the Commonwealth will retain a substantial part of his pension is a very desirable feature of this bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>This bill states that the new retirement benefits for members of the Defence Forces shall come into effect on 14th December, 1959 - in a few weeks&#39; time. The Opposition believes that, as result of alterations in the <inline font-style="italic">strength</inline> of the various Services in accordance with the defence statement to which I have referred, hardship could be inflicted on quite a number of servicemen unless the benefits under the bill are applied retrospectively from 1st July, 1959. Unless this retrospectivity is applied, many members of the Services who have retired since the beginning of this financial year and since the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt)</inline> indicated in his Budget speech that these alterations would be made, will not obtain the benefit of many provisions of this bill. </para>
          <para>There is another very important matter that I should like to mention, lt concerns Navy and Air Force personnel who have not been contributing for full benefits. The bill gives them an opportunity to elect to contribute for full benefits, and it is provided that, from the deferred pay that will become due to them, they may pay their arrears of contributions. The Opposition believes that a similar opportunity should bs extended to Service personnel who have retired since the announcement concerning this matter was made by the Treasurer in his Budget speech. 1 therefore formally move - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Leave out all words after &#34; That &#34;, insert &#34; the bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide for the benefits under the act to be made available from a dale not later than the 1st July, 1959&#34;. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para>In committee: </para>
          <para>The bill. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2065</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I ask the Minister to consider making available, as a public document, the report of <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Allison, on which this bill has been said to be based, instead of regarding it as a private Government document. I think it should be appreciated that members of this Parliament are disadvantaged if a document which is vouched for as the justification for a major measure of this sort is not available to them for examination. Everybody would pay regard to a committee such as the Allison Committee, with its sense of responsibility, but we are handicapped when the document is not made available to us. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2065</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I regret that I cannot meet <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright&#39;s</inline> request. The Government regards the report of the Allison Committee that was presented to it as a confidential Government document, which cannot be made available. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Bill agreed to. </para>
          <para>Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. </para>
          <para>Bill read a third time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2065</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2065</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 26th November (vide page 1874), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henty</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2065</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBC</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The Opposition does not oppose this bill, which &#39;merely validates certain arrangements between the Federation of Rhodesia and Australia. I understand that certain officers of the Department of Trade visited Rhodesia some time ago, and arrangements were made to apply a preferential tariff to certain commodities from Rhodesia admitted to Australia. I should not like to be pinned down concerning the phrase &#34; preferential tariff &#34;, because I know that many technicalities come into the matter. Rhodesia is applying a similar concession in relation to its imports from Australia. The bill gives effect to a normal arrangement between two countries. It is particularly nice to see the younger members of the British Commonwealth taking their place in this way. The Minister has assured us that in all negotiations of this kind, care is taken to protect Australian industries, and I am sure that that has been done on this occasion. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2066</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2066</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 26th November (vide page 1874), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henry-</inline></para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBC</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The Opposition does not oppose this bill. It is merely a machinery measure to facilitate the work of the Department of Customs and Excise. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES&#39; COMPENSATION BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2066</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2066</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 26th November (vide page 1875), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge.</inline></para>
        <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBC</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Commonwealth employees compensation will be, I forecast, a very controversial subject of legislation in the future. The Australian Labour Party has very definite views about it. We feel that the whole approach to workers&#39; compensation at present is wrong. Had this bill been introduced earlier in the session we would have taken the opportunity to debate it at length. There must be a new concept of this subject. I . do not intend to go into the matter at this stage because it would not be fair to the Minister. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Poke</inline>has had a good deal to say on the safety angle, particularly in the timber industry, where he himself suffered accident. He saw many other people in that industry suffer accident. Many aspects of this subject could be raised but for the sake of clarity I only want to raise one point at this stage. I feel that the Minister would have agreed with me on this point if I had had time to consult with him. The point I am dealing with is appeals. At the moment when a person is injured the Commonwealth, through the Treasury, makes a determination. An employee&#39;s only right of appeal from that determination is to a county court. In the States there are boards which would hear those appeals, but in the Commonwealth the appeal is heard by a court. First, I suggest that such appeals should be heard by boards. This is not the type of matter that should go before a court. But let us leave that on one side for a moment. There is provision in the act that the delegate to the commissioner may repeal, revoke or amend. The danger is that time is not limited and it has happened in the past that a determination having been made, the appellant briefs counsel and lodges an appeal in the court. On the eve of going into court the delegate to the commissioner revokes or amends the determination. The first appeal is never heard, so the employee must brief counsel afresh. That process could go on ad infinitum. The appellant could be kept out of court. The High Court declared that the Treasury was within its rights in revoking and amending as often as it wished. That is an anomaly, and the act should be amended to provide that the moment an appeal is lodged in the court the power to revoke should be suspended. Alternatively, a time limit could be imposed -  14 or 28 days - after the appeal is lodged within which to revoke or amend. It seems wrong to me that the employer has the right to make the determination. </para>
          <para>I trust that early in the New Year the authorities will look into this matter. I cannot see any difficulty about setting it right. It is bad that a statutory appeal can be interfered with by an officer of the department. I know that it is generally a senior officer who does so, but it could be a junior officer. I do not think a right of statutory appeal and determination should be handled by a department in this manner. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I propose to defer until the committee stage any reference to the matter dealt with by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee.</inline> I am anxious to hear what the Minister for Shipping and Transport <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Paltridge)</inline> has to say in reply to that honorable senator&#39;s observations before I make any submissions. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>This bill increases the lump sum benefits payable on death of a Commonwealth employee from &#163;2,350 to &#163;3,000. It likewise fixes maximum sums to be paid in weekly or monthly payments for injuries less than total or permanent injuries. It increases the weekly payments for incapacity in the case of an employee from &#163;8 15s. to &#163;10 a week, for his wife from &#163;2 5s. to &#163;2 10s. a week and for dependent children from &#163;1 ls. a week to &#163;1 2s. 6d. It was that structure of payments that I had in mind yesterday when we were debating the Matrimonial Causes Bill in relation to an attachment of earnings order and the fact that pension payments were excluded. But that is another matter. </para>
          <para>It is a demand of justice that cannot be resisted that, due to fluctuations in the economy, adjustment should be made to these compensation payments for injuries received in the course of employment. But while other sections of the community have no such source of re-adjustment, while markets are falling and droughts are drying up the crops and we are evolving a higher wage system in our cities, we must relate compensation to the earnings of the taxpayer from whom, after all, these things are provided. We have dealt with the defence services and their retirement benefits. We have dealt with superannuation. We are now dealing with compensation for injury. In the interests of the people for whose benefits this measure is introduced we must maintain continuous scrutiny to see that the operation of the Public Service is really kept within limits. There is a tendency for irresponsibility to grow. In the Budget debate I commented that in the ten years since 1949, contrary to some statements, the number of people employed in the Public Service has not increased to any substantial extent in any department other than the Post Office; and the increase in employment in the Post Office is as a result of the need to provide adequate services for our ever-increasing population. We are dealing with compensation payments, a small increment that must be maintained at a level commensurate with wage levels. I urge continuing scrutiny, which is the only method of guaranteeing that reality will be observed in regard to increasing payments. </para>
          <para class="block">Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SEAMEN&#39;S COMPENSATION BELL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2067</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2067</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 26th November (vide page 1876), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge-</inline></para>
        <para>That the  bill be now  read a second time. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBC</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This bill is consequent on the measure with which the Senate has just dealt. It provides, amongst other things, that depositions in respect of injured seamen may now be taken by Australian representatives at overseas ports, whereas formerly, that matter was handled only by British representatives. The remarks that I made in relation to the bill with which we have just dealt apply also to this bill. As I said before, this is a field in which radical alterations will have to be made at a future date, but at this stage the Opposition does not oppose the passage of the bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2067</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Does the regulation to which the honorable senator referred when the previous bill was before the Senate, also apply in this respect? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2067</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No, I do not think so. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>LOAN BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>2067</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2067</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 27th November (vide page 2044), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge-</inline></para>
        <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- This is one of the measures intimately associated with the Budget proposals. It is designed to authorize the raising of &#163;61,000,000 to meet the expected overall deficit of that amount for the current year. The Opposition does not give its approval to the proposal. We have no confidence that there will be a deficit of &#163;61,000,000. We are influenced in that belief by last year&#39;s performance, when the Government, having budgeted for a deficit of about &#163;10U,000,000, finished up with a deficit of only about &#163;10,000,000. I have already commented at length, a.id very adversely, on that subject, and I do not propose to open it up now. 1 merely direct attention to what happened last year and to what, I anticipate, will be reflected in the results of this year&#39;s operations. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I must comment on the fact that this expected Budget deficit has been arrived at after the transfer of approximately &#163;27,900,000 out of Consolidated Revenue to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Account. When we refer to that account, we find that the balance at 30th June, 1958, was &#163;299,000,000, and that at 30th June last, the balance was &#163;237,000,000. There, we have a very large fund to which, this year, it is proposed to add the additional sum of &#163;27,900,000 from Consolidated Revenue. The transfer increases the overall anticipated deficit by that amount. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But is that not only a book entry? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. Far from it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- By what investments is it represented? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- With the exception of &#163;57,000,000, which is invested in treasury-bills at 1 per cent., the balance of the &#163;237,000,000 is invested in interestbearing Commonwealth bonds. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Then the Commonwealth Government owes the money to the Commonwealth Government. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, but the honorable senator must appreciate that the securities are readily realizable on the market. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They are pieces of paper. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Would the honorable senator regard them as pieces of paper if he were offered the opportunity to take them over at a discount of 50 per cent? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If I offered myself bonds I would regard them as pieces of paper, and if the Commonwealth issues bonds in its own favour they are only paper.. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is paper of a kind that I would be ready to pay something for. As the Minister for Shipping and Transport <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Paltridge)</inline> indicated in his second-reading speech, it is. proposed to use the Loan Consolidation, and Investment Reserve Fund to the extent of &#163;24,000,000 of the securities in it, and to realize those securities. So, the Government at least expects to raise &#163;24,000,000, towards this expected deficit of &#163;61,000,000, from the pieces of paper to which the honorable senator refers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Government could issue 100,000 bonds to-morrow and raise further money on those, could it not? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It could. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It has that privilege. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I agree that it has that privilege. Of course, one of the laments that I have made on behalf of the Opposition has concerned the appropriation of Consolidated Revenue into the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Account, and the use of the proceeds, at interest to supplement State loan programmes. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But that was the very purpose of constituting this fund, was it not? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2068</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I say that it is one of the purposes, but that does not take away from the criticism that I have presented regarding the fact that in this way, during the last ten years, some &#163;600,000,000 of revenue has been lent to the States, at interest, from accounts of this type. The result has been to impose on State budgets an annual interest charge of approximately &#163;30,000,000. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>We do not support the bill for the reasons I have given. We do not think that the deficit will be realized, nor do we believe that the Government thinks that it will have a deficit of that amount. The Government has ample recourse to the securities in the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Account. It will be most interesting, in the light of the comments I make now, to see the budgetary results at the end of the year. </para>
          <para>I cannot refrain from commenting on the extraordinary position that, in what the Government is pleased to term a time of prosperity, it is budgeting for a deficit of &#163;61,000,000. It is doing that at a time when the Government claims, we in this country are at the very pinnacle of prosperity, and when it is granting taxation concessions of some &#163;20,000,000, which will go mainly to those in the higher income brackets. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2069</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  But, at the same time, reaping from those very taxpayers &#163;57,000,000 more in income tax this financial year. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2069</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I think that the total income tax returns for the current financial year, according to the Budget figures, are expected to increase by &#163;78,000,000. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2069</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is after allowing for the other &#163;21,000,000. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
              <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order! It would be better if these conversational exchanges ceased. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2069</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> 1 feel that we have fallen into bad habits through being so long in committee over the last few days during the consideration of a very controversial measure on a nonparty basis. I think that we ought to resume our normal roles as soon as we can. However, I must accept my share of the blame for the exchange, because <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> tempted me on one of my pet subjects. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The only thing that I want to say, in conclusion, is that, faced with an alleged deficit of &#163;61,000,000, the Government, in addition to granting tax concessions, extraordinarily imposed further taxation by increasing postal charges by some &#163;17,000,000 a year. We of the Opposition consider that the Government&#39;s finances are horribly confused, and that no clear-cut policy is being pursued by the Government. With those comments, I leave the bill. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL (No. 2) 1959</title>
        <page.no>2069</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2069</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 27th November (vide page 2046), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Spooner</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> this measure has the support of the Opposition. It relates to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, which was established in 1957 in order to help insure the proceeds of export sales. The service obviously has been very popular. Policies to the tune of &#163;40,000,000 have been written. At 30th June last, the outstanding liabilities of the corporation totalled &#163;21,000,000. The scope of its activities is increasing and this is a very hopeful sign for Australian production. The purpose of the bill is to provide increased opportunities for the corporation to function. The limit of the cover that it may provide in respect of some aspects of its work is to be lifted in order that exporters may be insured against losses to a proportion as high as 95 per cent. In other respects, the limit remains at the level at which it was established in the first place - 85 per cent. I congratulate the corporation on the enterprise it has shown. Its activities have doubled in a mere twelve months. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>We give the measure our very cordial support. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1958-59</title>
        <page.no>2070</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Statement of Expenditure</title>
          <page.no>2070</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>In committee: </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2070</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the committee approves the Statement for the year 1958-59 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1957. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The statement provides, in accordance with the terms of the appropriation, details of expenditure totalling &#163;8,860,818 from the appropriation of &#163;16,000,000 made available to the Treasurer. Full details of the expenditure for the financial year 1958-59, which includes these items, are set out in the Treasurer&#39;s Finance Statement which has already been circulated to honorable senators. The various items of expenditure have been examined and reported upon by the Public Accounts Committee. </para>
          <para>The 1958-59 statement, compared with that of previous years, appears in a new format involving a reduction in size from 97 to 63 pages and a substantial reduction in the cost of each copy. It is, I think, somewhat easier to follow, and I am sure this will commend itself to the committee. Honorable senators will also be pleased to learn that, following the application of modern electronic equipment to this accounting by the Treasury, the first proofs of the statement were available to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration within fourteen days after the end of the financial year. </para>
          <para>I commend the motion to honorable senators. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Resolution reported; report adopted. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>2070</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Spooner)</inline> - by leave - agreed to - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. </para>
      </quote>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>2070</page.no>
        <type>special adjournment</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para class="block">Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Spooner)</inline> agreed to - </para>
      <quote>
        <para class="block">That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the  President,  which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter. </para>
      </quote>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>2070</page.no>
        <type>adjournment</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Valedictory</title>
          <page.no>2070</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2070</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7A</name.id>
              <electorate>New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I move- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the Senate do now adjourn. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Contrary to my usual custom when  I  submit a motion of this kind, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> on this occasion I should like to speak  to  it. At the close of this parliamentary year, which has brought a good deal of hard Work for us all, I should like to make  a  few remarks to mark the completion of our business. I should like, first of all, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> to extend to you, on behalf  of  both sides of the Senate, our thanks for the work that you have done. You have made personal friends on both sides of the Senate and it is difficult in those circumstances always to be impartial, which is the highest attribute of your office. We congratulate you upon the impartial way in which you have administered the business of the Senate and the confidence which I believe both sides of the Senate have in you. </para>
          <para>I congratulate you also, onbehalf of us all, on your successful chairmanship of the recent conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and upon your appointment as chairman of that association. It is an honour, and we all, I think, bask a little in your reflected glory. </para>
          <para>I should like also to pay tribute  to  the  Chairman  of Committees. I believe that  in  him we have one of the wisest and most experienced chairmen of the parliaments of the Commonwealth. </para>
          <para>I should like to say, &#34; Thank you &#34; to my Cabinet colleagues, and my supporters on this side, for the help they have given me during the year. I pay particular tribute to my  Deputy  Leader, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge.</inline> Speaking from experience, I believe it to be correct to say that to represent the Treasurer, in the Senate, is one of the most difficult and arduous tasks in the Parliament, and I congratulate <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge</inline> on the way he has done the job this year. </para>
          <para>I come now, in order of protocol, to say, &#34; Thank you &#34; - and I say it most sincerely - to the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator McKenna)</inline> and those who sit behind him. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McKenna</inline> has been here a lot longer that I have, and I have a suspicion that he has a flair which will always enable him to have a greater knowledge of parliamentary procedure, and arrangements concerning the Senate, than I shall have. I say to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McKenna</inline> that I have greatly appreciated the fact that whilst we have had to fight - of course we have got to fight, we represent opposing political forces - opposition in the political atmosphere has been accompanied by amicable personal relationships between us. On many occasions, he has extended the right hand of good fellowship, as it were, with his advice and assistance. </para>
          <para>As we are breaking up for Christmas, 1 think we would all like to remember those three members of the Senate who are at present in hospital - <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dame</inline> Annabelle Rankin, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Flaherty</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kennelly.</inline> It should not pass unnoticed that two of those honorable senators are the Whips of the Senate, and I think it would not be out of keeping to say that their indisposition is, to some extent, occasioned and aggravated by the responsibilities that they carry. </para>
          <para>Then I should like to say a word of congratulation to those who have joined our ranks this year. We have had seven new senators - Senators Branson, Dittmer, Drury, Cant, Lillico, McKellar and Ridley. I do not include Senators Drake-Brockman and Ormonde. They represent the reappearance of popular favourites, having gone away and come back. But I think that those of us who have the </para>
          <para class="block">Senate at heart watch with great interest the appearance of new members to our group. I think, too, that we watch with very great interest their performance in their work. I say on behalf of all of us that we have been most interested and most pleased with the way in which these new senators have assumed their responsibilities and worked in the Senate. </para>
          <para>I come now to say something which &#93; think I should say about the press, and broadcasting arrangements. I start with the recollection that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright,</inline> when speaking to a motion relating to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, caused me - most unusually - to look back to the report of the debates in the Senate during the 1930&#39;s. I was most intrigued to find that one of the complaints that was being made then was that the Senate was not adequately reported by the newspapers. Honorable senators were saying that in the 1930&#39;s, and I think one of the good things is that in 1959 we have received a greater share of attention from the press than we have done for some years. One naturally thinks that it is because we are better than the senators of previous years that we have got that attention, but speaking seriously, one does try to reflect and find the cause of it. I think it is due very greatly to the new policy adopted by the &#34; Sydney Morning Herald &#34; - it was subsequently followed by the &#34; Daily Telegraph &#34; - of giving parliamentary proceedings a special page, in the same way as it gives a special page to legal proceedings. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2071</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KSL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MAHER, Edmund</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Maher</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- And horse racing. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2071</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7A</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I remind <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Maher</inline> that this is Christmas and he should not introduce such chill thoughts into the discussion. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I think that this factual report - and all we ask is that our proceedings be reported in a factual way - has indicated that the Senate does make its contribution in a major way to parliamentary proceedings and has, on its merits, achieved a fair share of the special part of a newspaper that is set aside for the reporting of parliamentary proceedings. There is great interest in parliamentary proceedings and the reports of them take up a considerable portion of the newspapers. I think it is an improvement in the journalistic presentation of parliamentary proceedings to record that news in that special part of the journal. </para>
          <para>I turn now to the officers, to the Clerks at the table, the officers of the Senate, the Parliamentary Draftsman, &#34; Hansard &#34;, the Refreshment Rooms staff and others. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> I have reached a situation in which I feel that the greater the responsibility one assumes in life the greater is the need to have adequate support in discharging those responsibilities, and I pay my tribute to the assistance I have received from <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Loof</inline> and the officers associated with him. Indeed, I could go a little further to say that I do not know what would happen if I did not have those little bits of paper that they seem to put in my hand at each critical stage in the proceedings. </para>
          <para>Whilst we may have divergencies of political opinion deep personal friendships are formed during our work. I conclude upon a very old-fashioned note by saying to everybody in the chamber most sincerely, &#34; A happy Christmas to you all &#34;. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2072</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTN</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I should like to address myself to the motion in terms similar to those used by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Spooner.</inline> The session just concluding has been particularly heavy. Much work has been done and the signs or stress are apparent on many people in the Senate. As I saw those signs emerging, my mind was thrown back to an answer to a question given quite recently by a person concerned with mental diseases and disturbances. He had been asked into what categories sufferers from such afflictions could be classified. He replied, &#34;Well, there are the neurotics who build castles in the air; there are the psycotics who live in them; and there are the psychiatrists who collect the rent &#34;. I was wondering where I might finish up if the strain continued very much longer. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline>I join with the Leader of the Government <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Spooner)</inline> in conveying to you best wishes and seasonal greetings. I join with him entirely in saying that between the Opposition and yourself there has not been one rift in the lute during the whole of the year. I agree with him that you have held the scales of justice most evenly. I join with him also in his congratulations to you upon your appointment as  Chairman  of the General Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is a high honour. We are confident that you will fulfil your duties with great distinction to yourself and credit to the Parliament of Australia. </para>
          <para>The  Chairman  of Committees is getting quicker than ever on the draw in the chair. He is the only one who shows no signs of strain - except straining at the leash in his attempts to get the bills through. I would like to extend to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Spooner</inline> and his ministerial colleagues my thanks for their many courtesies during the past year. They have made available to me the very competent services of the legal officer of the Senate. Each one of them, on request, has been able to provide for my advice the expert ministerial advisers from the department. I would never have been able to carry out my duties without this access to the expert advice that is available to the Ministers. I appreciate that courtesy. It enables the procedures of the Parliament to go on with understanding, and saves a great deal of friction that might otherwise arise. </para>
          <para>To my friends, sitting behind the Government I extend the best wishes of the Opposition. I thank my own supporters very particularly for their loyal support throughout the year - except in non-party matters. I am sure that party leaders on both sides hold similar feelings with regard to those matters. </para>
          <para>I am pleased that the leader of the Senate has referred to the sick senators, but I exercise my privilege as Leader of the Opposition to amend his remarks in that connexion. He will be glad to accept this amendment when I tell him that all three are not in hospital. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Flaherty</inline> is recovering at his home. 1 join with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Spooner</inline> in wishing <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dame</inline> Annabelle Rankin, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Flaherty</inline> and my particular friend, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kennelly</inline> best wishes for their recovery as quickly as possible. </para>
          <para>To the  Clerk,  his officers, the attendants, the Library staff, &#34; Hansard &#34; and the rest, I cannot express strongly enough the gratitude that I and my colleagues feel for their unfailing courtesy at all times throughout the year. We certainly would not be able to function without their efficient service. </para>
          <para>The press I had almost forgotten. We, of course, lock horns with the press from time to time just as we lock horns with the Government but again, just as personal relations between Ministers and myself and my supporters are not impaired by our political differences, neither are our relations with our friends of the press. We occasionally have things to say about each other that are severe. But just as political differences are forgotten so are our differences with the press. Particularly to the journalists in the press gallery here I extend best wishes for the future. Indeed, I wish to all, including those I have not mentioned but should have mentioned, the very best, on behalf of the Opposition, for a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2073</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JQP</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for Repatriation</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COOPER, Walter</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Sir WALTER COOPER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>&#91;12.1&#93;. - I should like to express, on behalf of the Australian Country Party, our good wishes and seasonal greetings for Christmas and the New Year to yourself, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> to honorable senators on both sides of the chamber, to the officers of the Senate and of the Parliament generally, including &#34; Hansard &#34;, the library and the refreshment rooms. We express our very best wishes for a happy Christmas and for everything of the best in the New Year. We are looking forward to meeting you all again in 1960. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin).</inline> - I thank the Leader of the Government <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Spooner)</inline> and the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator McKenna)</inline> for their kind remarks about myself. The results that are achieved in this chamber flow from the working arrangements made between men of goodwill and experience in parliamentary procedure. The Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition are aware of the advantages to be obtained from cooperating in following the procedures of the Senate, and they do that very well and very successfully. </para>
          <para>However, their burden is very much lightened by the efficient assistance and advice of the Senate staff. The clerks are, of course, completely impartial and fair in their assistance to both sides and anxious always that the good name of the Senate and the institution of Parliament shall be preserved. To those officers and their assistants I say very sincerely, &#34;Thank you for the help that you have given me during the twelve months &#34;. </para>
          <para>I must say, too, that the  Clerk  of the Senate has done a tremendous amount of work this year in connexion with the InterParliamentary Union Conference in Warsaw. I know of the good that can flow from that meeting of the representatives of the parliaments of the world to discuss problems of common interest. </para>
          <para>I cannot let the occasion pass without making reference to the book, &#34;An introduction to the Federal Parliament&#34; that has been produced recently. I pay a very sincere tribute to the  Clerk  of the Senate, the  Clerk  of the House of Representatives, and the many others who were associated in the compilation of that book. I have in mind particularly <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Odgers,</inline> the  Clerk  Assistant, but for whose drive, energy and enthusiasm, the book would not have reached the stage that it has reached to-day. I am pleased to be able to inform you all that already copies of the book have gone not only to delegates to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference here, but to the libraries of the various Commonwealth Parliaments. I am sure it will do much to assist people, not only in Australia but in every land, to know something of the working of our parliamentary system. I say very sincerely that no one could have done more than <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Odgers</inline> did in the preparation of this informative book. </para>
          <para>I should also like to pay a tribute to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Alan</inline> Turner,  Clerk  of the House of Representatives, with whom I was associated in connexion with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. He did tremendous work on the organizational side of the conference and, to a very large extent, its success was due to his energy and good judgment in handling the delegates and assisting them in their task.  1  am sure that the conference was of great value generally in fostering goodwill and understanding between the member countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations. </para>
          <para>I endorse the references made to the  Chairman  of Committees and to his ability in the chair. I thank him, particularly for the courtesy and co-operation that he has extended to me during the year. For those qualities in particular, I pay tribute to him. </para>
          <para>The other members of the staff of Parliament House have worked extremely well this year. When one thinks of the refreshment rooms, and perhaps the bar, one is appreciative of the fact that these services have been maintained at a high standard, notwithstanding that the staff has not always worked in the best of conditions. So it is, right down along the line. Wandering round the building, one finds the cleaners at work. It is to their credit that this is as clean a building as one could find anywhere, particularly having regard to the volume  of  traffic passing through it. </para>
          <para>I thank honorable senators very much for their good wishes, which I most heartily reciprocate, and I look forward to long years of association with them. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Senate adjourned at 12.7 p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the  President. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>