19611019_senate_23_s20.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>1961-10-19</date>
    <parliament.no>23</parliament.no>
    <session.no>3</session.no>
    <period.no>2</period.no>
    <chamber>SENATE</chamber>
    <page.no>1263</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <day.start>1961-10-19</day.start>
      <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)</inline> took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
    </business.start>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1263</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT</title>
          <page.no>1263</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1263</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>- I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service a question in relation to long-service leave for waterside workers under the Stevedoring Industry Act. Is the leave entitlement of waterside workers vitiated by strikes and periods on compensation during their previous employment? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1263</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 do not think that the question can be answered in the terms in which it is put, because I do not think that it is possible to differentiate between long-service leave credits earned before a particular unauthorized stoppage and longservice leave credits earned after it. The position is that during a member&#39;s working life there is a period of qualifying service to which long-service leave credits are attached at the time when he leaves the industry. In other words, the amount of long-service leave that a member gets when he retires is dependent upon the amount of qualifying service that he has put in during the whole of his career, in this instance on the wharfs. Those long-service leave credits at the end of his career are the ones that are affected by any unauthorized stoppages in which he may have taken part. I do not think that one can differentiate, as the question suggests, between service before an unauthorized stoppage and service afterwards. All that one can do is look at the end of a man&#39;s career and say that if he has not taken part in an unauthorized stoppage during his career he will have so much long-service leave credit; if he has taken part in an unauthorized stoppage, he will have less credit. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1263</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES</title>
          <page.no>1263</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1263</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KT8</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCCALLUM, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McCALLUM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Has the Minister for Civil Aviation anything to say in addition to the statement he made last night in the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, in respect of the repeated assertions made by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Shand, chairman</inline> of directors of East-West Airlines </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Limited, that the Minister had urged him to accept a take-over bid made by Ansett- A.N.A.? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1263</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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>- There are one or two things which I might say, in view of a further reported statement published in the press this morning and attributed to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Shand.</inline> It will be recalled that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Shand,</inline> in his previous statement, said that I had repeatedly urged him to accept a take-over offer. It would now appear that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Shand</inline> has revised that and says that I urged him to accept this take-over offer on two occasions, one at the opening, or the day after the opening, of the Orange airport, and one at a meeting with me at a subsequent date in my office in Canberra. That throws a strange light on some of the dates and timings of this matter. The original takeover offer was made by Ansett in April, 1960. It was rejected and by June, 1960, the company had altered its articles of association in the way I described yesterday to prevent the transfer of shares without the specific approval of its board. It is now claimed that some sixteen months later, when in my understanding the whole matter was as dead as Julius Caesar, I was urging acceptance of this offer. I want to make it quite clear that I did see <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Shand</inline> in Orange on the day after the opening of the Orange airport. Accompanied by an officer of my department I saw <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Shand</inline> at his request. It should not be assumed that I saw him or that he saw me for the specific purpose of discussing a takeover offer, which has been given an importance altogether out of perspective. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Shand</inline> wished to discuss with me a number of matters in relation to the operation of his airline, including his new route to Orange commenced the day before, and including some maintenance work that he was seeking for his workshops at Tamworth in relation to which he solicited my advice and assistance. During the course of our fairly long discussion he referred to this Ansett take-over bid. I told him that I did not know that there was a current take-over bid. He said that he was referring to the one made eighteen months previously. I replied to him there and then that if he was talking of that kind of thing it would obviously indicate a need for a reopening of negotiations. I told him that that was not a matter for me - that if he wanted in any way to make any approach in respect of this matter he should not discuss it with me. I told him that it was a matter for decision and action by his company&#39;s board. That was that. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I saw him again, at his request, on 17th or 18th July, and again this matter was mentioned. Again I told him with equal emphasis what my approach to the matter was. I did not know that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Shand</inline> held the view that I was urging him to accept a time-expired offer until he wrote to the Director-General of Civil Aviation a month after seeing me in Canberra. As a result of his letter to the Director-General I wrote to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Shand</inline> in these terms - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The Director-General brought to my notice his correspondence with you dated 23rd August. I find your statement that I urged you to re-open negotiations with <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ansett</inline> incomprehensible. I said in the course of our meeting, and I repeat now, a decision to negotiate with Ansett is entirely a matter for the commercial judgment of your board. If the question of negotiations with Ansett Transport Industries Limited or any other airline arises in the future I would be glad if you would make this quite clear to your board. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Perhaps I am getting a little short-tempered about this matter, but I emphasize that, regardless of what has happened or what is alleged to have happened at the two interviews that I had with Shand, as far as I know no negotiations have taken place between him or anybody else in this connexion. May I go on record publicly as saying that if in the future Shand wants to enter into these negotiations, I completely dissociate myself from them. They are a matter for him and for his board. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1264</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>FLOUR</title>
          <page.no>1264</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1264</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K4S</name.id>
              <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SANDFORD, Charles Walter</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SANDFORD</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  1 ask the Leader of the Government whether it is a fact that the flour mill at Wangaratta, Victoria, has closed or is about to close. Is the Minister aware that this mill is one of the best, if not the best, in the country and that it specializes in making flour for export? Does he agree that the closing of this mill would seriously affect employment in Wangaratta? Will he make inquiries to ascertain whether, if it has not yet been closed, it can remain open or whether, if it has already been closed, it can be re-opened? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1264</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 do not know the circumstances surrounding the operation of the flour mill in Wangaratta. But I do know that my colleague, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McEwen,</inline> and officers of the Department of Trade have assisted the flour-milling industry very materially indeed in negotiations for overseas contracts. One is rather hesitant to make statements off the cuff for fear one is wrong, but my recollection is that the efforts of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McEwen</inline> and his officers retained a very substantial flour market for us in both Ceylon and Indonesia. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The flour export trade is rather competitive. I believe that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McEwen</inline> and the department are well aware of the need to do all that can be done to maintain our export trade, particularly in regard to flour. One cannot make arrangements for exports from a particular company; one can only ensure the opening of a general market. It is for the various flour mills within Australia to compete for the market that is available. I shall bring the circumstances mentioned by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sandford</inline> to the notice of the Minister for Trade in the hope that he will be able to do something to assist. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1264</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TELEVISION</title>
          <page.no>1264</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1264</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAC</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
              <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I address to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral two questions relating to the Postmaster-General&#39;s announcement yesterday about what is called the fourth phase of the plan for television in Australia, in which three new national television stations are planned for Western Australia. Without trying to be parochial about this matter, I point out that two very large well-populated areas of Western Australia - the Goldfields region and the Geraldton area - do not come into the proposed extension and that presumably no national stations are being planned for them. My questions are: First, can the Minister tell me whether, in view of the Postmaster-General&#39;s statement, it will be possible for private interests to apply for television licences for those areas? Secondly, will he endeavour, as soon as possible, to arrange for the production of a map - I do not think it can be done in any other way - showing what I understand are called the primary service areas of the projected stations in the various States, but particularly those of Western Australia? They are the areas in which reasonably good television reception can be expected. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1265</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Air</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My understanding of the statement made by the PostmasterGeneral about the sites chosen for the establishment of stations in the fourth phase of television development is that parties not located in the areas named may apply for a licence. Indeed, that conforms with Government policy, which is designed to extend television to rural areas with the least possible delay. The Postmaster-General has been careful to select areas which he considers will guarantee the commercial success of the undertakings. That has been one of the fundamental requirements of the areas chosen. Should the people of Kalgoorlie and Geraldton be able to state a case to the Postmaster-General and give adequate undertakings that they could make a commercial success of the venture, I imagine that the Postmaster-General would consider their applications. I shall bring to the notice of my colleague the honorable senator&#39;s request for a map. If a map is available, I have no doubt that it will be supplied to him. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1265</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES</title>
          <page.no>1265</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1265</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Minister for Air whether the Government&#39;s future air policy envisages a two-company monopoly for Australia, as I have often heard mentioned in this chamber. If that is so, how does the Government propose to rope in smaller companies, such as East-West Airlines Limited, if not by negotiation? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1265</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <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 am a little surprised that my friend, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde,</inline> apparently does not understand the policy of the Government in this respect. As has been clearly stated, the two-airline policy relates specifically to trunk air routes. In 1957, when we formulated a policy in respect of feeder air route, services, we laid down definite lines of assistance which would be extended in certain circumstances to airlines operating on those routes. Indeed, the feeder airline policy obviously will not support competition, because no country areas in Australia really support the profitable operation of even one airline. The difference between the two policies is that on the trunk routes there are two operators, while on the feeder air routes there are airlines operating under conditions which can only be described as zoned monopolies. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1265</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TIMBER</title>
          <page.no>1265</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1265</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRG</name.id>
              <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LILLICO, Alexander</name>
              <name role="display">Senator LILLICO</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Has the Minister for Customs and Excise seen a letter published in the &#34; Sydney Morning Herald &#34; under the signature of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. W.</inline> Gentle, of Bathurst, in which the writer stated that the value of timber imports into Australia was &#163;100,000,000, or only &#163;30,000,000 short of the annual amount oi &#163;130,000,000 for the importation of petroleum products? If the Minister saw the letter, did he note that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Gentle</inline> claimed that we possessed the world&#39;s best timber-growing climates, and that he described Australian yields as usually two or three times greater than the best American yields and from three to four times greater than the best European yields? Does the Minister believe that the Australian timber industry provides great scope for import replacement? Does he think that the industry has an export potential? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1265</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KOW</name.id>
              <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HENTY, Norman</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HENTY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I read with interest the letter signed by the gentleman referred to by the honorable senator. I was immediately struck by the figure of &#163;100,000,000 that he gave in relation to imports of timber into Australia. The figure seemed to me to be wrong and I asked my department to look into the matter and give me the actual figure. For the information of the Senate, I point out that in 1960-61 the value of timber imports was &#163;21,577,312, or about one-fifth of the amount referred to by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Gentle.</inline> The Australian climate is favorable for the &#39;growing of timber, but natural advantages are offset by stiff royalties and by the very high charges made for the carriage of timber by rail and road from the timber-growing areas on the mainland. The Tasmanian timber industry is affected by high shipping costs. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The honorable senator has asked whether the Australian timber industry has a potential for import replacement. In my view, large quantities of imported timber are being used in Australia for purposes for which readily available Australian timber would be equally suitable. I have had brought to my attention many instances of the use of imported timbers being stipulated in specifications, although in the places where timber is sawn and manufactured Australian timber is used for the same kind of jobs, with perfect satisfaction. The Australian people, particularly Australian  architects, have a duty to ensure that, wherever possible, Australian timbers will be used, because that would assist our timber industry, which is not in the healthiest condition at the moment. </para>
          <para>The honorable senator has asked also whether I believe that Australian timber is a potential export material. Recently there have been slightly growing exports of timber to the United States of America and other countries, and I believe there is a possibility of expanding this trade considerably. At present representatives of some of the Tasmanian firms that are interested in exporting timber, particularly hardwoods, are in America, and representatives of other firms have already been there. 1 believe that a timber export trade is developing which will be of great value to Australia. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1266</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>ATOMIC SUBMAKINE BASES</title>
          <page.no>1266</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1266</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6P</name.id>
              <electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I desire to ask the Minister for the Navy two questions. Has the Government made arrangements, or is it contemplating making arrangements, with the United States of America for the establishment of an atomic submarine base in Australia? If such a base were established, would the submarines be equipped with the Polaris weapon? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1266</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <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 answer to the first question is, &#34; No &#34;. Consequently, the second question does not arise. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1266</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>MINING</title>
          <page.no>1266</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1266</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5K</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. By way of preface, I refer to a statement in to-day&#39;s newspapers that there is a possibility of further mining development around Cobar, in New South Wales, and that the Minister for National Development has said that aerial reconnaissance has shown the existence of magnetic anomalies over widespread areas of the Cobar district. I ask the Minister: How accurate are magnetic surveys? Has he any information about an instrument called an ore detector which can locate sulphide ore bodies at depths of up to 1,500 feet? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1266</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7A</name.id>
              <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 hesitate to claim a knowledge of the scientific instruments used by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. I know in general what has happened in relation to the Cobar field. Spread over a somewhat lengthy period, the Bureau of Mineral Resources has done, I think, a couple of years&#39; work there. It was largely as a result of that work that the company did the additional work that was necessary. As is the case in all these matters, the present anomalies indicate that there may be a deposit. However, it will be necessary to carry out additional groundwork, geological work and drilling to prove whether the deposit is there. As a result of its experience in this field the bureau goes so far as to say that there is justification for the further work, and a possibility that the field is larger than the present workings indicate. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1266</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TRADE</title>
          <page.no>1266</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1266</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>- My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Has the Minister noted the remarks of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Warren</inline> McDonald and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> P. Young at a conference of the Australian Association cf National Advertisers held in Canberra? <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDonald</inline> stated that something should be done to ensure that in future trade agreements entered into by Australia were honoured. Is the Minister in a position to say whether the Government has any association with a contract said to be concluded with a trader at Hong Kong who agreed to build an abattoir to deal primarily with Australian meat? The trader had not handled an Australian beast for three weeks and had been forced to accept a contract for the processing of 80,000 ducks from red China. There is also another Hong Kong case where Australian trade officials advertised extensively to interest residents in milk powder, but when an order was placed Australian manufacturers could not meet the requirements and the contract was ultimately sought and obtained elsewhere. Can the Minister give the Senate any explanation of this deficiency in trade relations which apparently is doing great damage to Australia? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Further, will the Minister comment on a statement made by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. John</inline> P. Young, a management consultant, who said that productivity in Australian industry had risen considerably although fewer people were employed? He added that the answer to the problem of re-employing the present unemployed lay in selling ourselves out of Australia&#39;s credit squeeze. Further, does the Minister realize that these statements give the lie to Government claims in relation to the productivity of the Australian worker? These responsible people suggest that the Australian worker&#39;s productivity is so high that he has produced himself out of employment. Will the Government take urgent action to see that the products of Australian workers are promptly and efficiently sold so that Australian workers can be kept in employment? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1267</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7A</name.id>
              <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 think <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cooke</inline> has set me a difficult task in endeavouring to reply to all the matters he has raised, but I will do my best. I have not read the statement of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Warren</inline> McDonald to which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cooke</inline> referred. I assume that it is in this morning&#39;s newspapers, and as I was late getting back from my trip I had time only to see the headlines. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cooke</inline> puts the position on this occasion, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McDonald</inline> has made reference to specific instances. I think it would be useful if I were to ask my colleague, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McEwen,</inline> to see whether he can ascertain the circumstances of those two specific instances - not that we can do a great deal about them because they are contracts between traders in Hong Kong and traders in Australia. But we should not get any wrong impressions. Our trade  in  that part of the world is increasing. We hope that it will continue to increase. W|e do not want to create any impression that the business is not being handled efficiently by traders at both ends of the trade routes. If it were not being handled efficiently, the trade would not be increasing the way it is increasing. I will try to find out the position in respect of those two contracts. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I do not know exactly what sort of an answer to give to the question about productivity and the credit squeeze. We live in a modern world. Productivity will continue to increase. How to measure the increase is a different problem. Quite often we hear a lot about the sharing of productivity by employees and employers. I believe that we should see whether or not a good deal of the benefit can be passed on to the consumers. If, as a result of increased productivity, we are able to reduce prices and costs, in my opinion productivity will increase still further because of the additional markets that will be created by the increased demand. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1267</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>SOUTH-EAST ASIA</title>
          <page.no>1267</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1267</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUD</name.id>
              <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCMANUS, Francis</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McMANUS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs: Will the Minister for External Affairs, prior to the dissolution of this Parliament, make a considered statement on the increasingly grave situation in the Laos, Cambodia and South Viet Nam area of South-East Asia, where informed overseas sources predict that the end of the monsoon season may be followed by the general collapse of resistance to Communist aggression? Will the Minister, in making his decision on a statement, bear in mind the belief of many Australians that such a collapse would be a most serious blow to Australia&#39;s own security? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1267</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <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 shall bring the suggestion made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline> to the notice of the Minister for External Affairs. No doubt he will decide whether or not he will make a statement along the lines suggested before the end of this session. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1267</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TELEVISION</title>
          <page.no>1267</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1267</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2I</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BRANSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. As Kalgoorlie and Geraldton in Western Australia are not to be served by either national or private television stations before  1967  at least, will the Government provide translator or repeater stations to relay the programmes  of  the national stations to those two areas? Is the Minister aware that the cost of the Adler units is between  &#163;2,000  and  &#163;8,000  and that the Government would soon recoup its outlay from the increased number of viewers&#39; licences? Is the Minister also aware that these units do not need to be manned, but are completely automatic? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1267</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  In view of the interest in this matter that is being displayed in Kalgoorlie and Geraldton, I feel that ways and means will be devised to secure services for both those places. I think it would be improper for me to comment on the suggestions made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson</inline> in view of the answer that I gave to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Vincent.</inline> Either method could well be adopted.  I  repeat my opinion that if the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Postmaster-General is satisfied that commercial interests in either centre, or in both centres, can successfully provide a service, he will consider their submissions. It could well be that either method suggested would be an acceptable means of providing that service. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1268</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT</title>
          <page.no>1268</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1268</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUM</name.id>
              <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>- I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service another question in relation to long-service leave entitlements of waterside workers. Do periods on compensation during the course of their employment vitiate their long-service leave rights? This was part of the question previously asked. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1268</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <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>- As I understand the position, if a member is injured and goes on compensation, the first fifteen days of the period during which he is on compensation count as qualifying period for long-service leave. Periods on compensation after the first fifteen days do not count as working days in the accumulation of long-service leave, but they do not break continuity of employment nor detract from any credits that may have been earned in the past or may be earned in the future. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1268</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>COMMUNIST CHINA</title>
          <page.no>1268</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1268</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>- Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs been directed to two contradictory statements, which were published in the press during the last few days? One was by Lord Montgomery to the effect that he is assured that Communist China has no territorial ambitions in Australia, and the other was by Doctor Goddard, who was equally assertive, from his special knowledge of the area and his experience as an officer of the Department of External Affairs, that Communist China has ambitions to enter Australia. Can the Minister say whether the recent suggestion that Communist China has demanded a quota for admission to Australia has any basis in fact? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1268</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <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 have not any knowledge at all of Communist China having demanded a quota for admission to Australia, nor do I know of any channels through which such a demand could be made. As to the other part of the question, I suppose that Field Marshal Montgomery is entitled to come to his own conclusions, even in a field which is not the field in which he has been trained, and so are other people. All one can do in this matter is to go on historical knowledge. In the past, China has spread to these parts of the world whenever she has been strong enough to do so. By &#34; these parts of the world &#34; I mean Indonesia, Burma and other parts of SouthEast Asia. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1268</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>ATTORNEY-GENERAL&#39;S DEPARTMENT</title>
          <page.no>1268</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1268</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JQN</name.id>
              <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>- I direct a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Is it a fact that the staff of the Attorney-General&#39;s Department engaged on parliamentary drafting is some six officers short and that this position has continued for some time? What progress, if any, has been made in the consolidation of Australian statutes? Will this work be finished within a reasonable time? Is it proceeding to a schedule? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1268</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <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>- This is a matter that was raised at some length during the consideration of the estimates of the Attorney-General&#39;s Department by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Laught,</inline> of South Australia, who expressed concern regarding the number of parliamentary draftsmen. I can only repeat that the Attorney-General&#39;s Department is engaged in discussions with the Public Service Board in an endeavour to build up the staff and is considering the introduction of a cadet training scheme. The matter is therefore quite clearly regarded by the department and the Government as highly important. I shall obtain from the Attorney-General a written answer to the second part of the question in relation to progress^ made in consolidating the statutes. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1268</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TOBACCO</title>
          <page.no>1268</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1268</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JQP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <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>- Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry say whether the committee established to investigate the tobacco industry has completed its investigations and forwarded its report to the Minister for Primary Industry? If it has not, when is the report likely to be completed? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The committee is making rapid progress with this work, but I emphasize that both State and Commonwealth governments have a responsibility and interest in this matter. The report must of necessity be presented to both State and Commonwealth governments. I understand that the report has almost been completed. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I gather that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir Walter</inline> Cooper would like to know what the Commonwealth Government&#39;s attitude might be. I cannot speculate on all aspects of the matter, but I do know that should the State governments, upon examination of the findings of the committee, seek Commonwealth assistance on a &#163;1 for &#163;1 basis, that application will be speedily considered. That is in line with the policy that this Government has always adopted in &#39;granting relief in cases of distress, such as flood and bushfire. In one instance, I think, the dried fruits industry received a straight-out grant when it suffered severe losses. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1269</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>COAL</title>
          <page.no>1269</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Does the Leader of the Government believe we have yet reached rock bottom in the displacement of men from the coal industry? Can he express a view on whether or not employment in this industry will start to rise in the near future? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7A</name.id>
              <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>- The question is in general terms, but it is not possible for me to answer it in general terms. The statement that employment will rise because the Joint Coal Board contemplates an increase in coal production would be accurate, but it would also be somewhat misleading, because the different types of coal have to be taken into account. There are possibilities of a further reduction in the number of employees in mines producing gas coal, unless we can find export markets, which have been difficult to find up to this stage. But I should think that in the other fields we shall see an increasing volume of employment, provided we can maintain the level of the present export trade, which in my opinion depends very largely upon how quickly port construction can be completed. I hold the view that the completion of the ports will lead to a marked increase in exports. Without the ports we could have lost what we have already gained. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1269</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>VIET NAM</title>
          <page.no>1269</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K3O</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BUTTFIELD, Nancy</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BUTTFIELD</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Minister for External Affairs a question. In view of this morning&#39;s announcement that Viet Nam is in a state of emergency, will the Minister say whether the Vietnamese Army is strong enough to overthrow the Viet Cong forces or at least to maintain the status quo, or is there any likelihood that Seato or American forces will be called in to assist in the near future? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <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>- It is quite impossible to speculate as to what may happen in the future in this part of the world. It is very difficult to talk in terms of the Vietnamese Army overthrowing the Viet Cong forces. The Viet Cong forces are a guerrilla organization. They come together in accumulations of troops which approximate army formations and then melt away into the country-side and hide their fragments throughout the jungles and unexplored places in Viet Nam. The Viet Cong forces have not yet reached a stage where they are mounting army size military operations against the Vietnamese Army. The situation resembles the situation that existed in Malaya for so many years. That is about all I can say to the honorable senator. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1269</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>AMATEUR RADIO BROADCASTING</title>
          <page.no>1269</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNU</name.id>
              <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HANNAN, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HANNAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General a question. Will the Postmaster-General reexamine the Government&#39;s decision, announced last week, to curtail by onethird the 3.5 megacycle band allotted to radio amateurs by excising from the present allocation the spectrum range from 3.7 to 3.8 megacycles? Failing this, will the PostmasterGeneral give a direction to the Postal Department that radio amateurs now using this part of the spectrum should not be asked to withdraw from it until such time as the frequency and the adjacent channel from 3.8 to 3.9 megacycles, which for fifteen years has been withheld from amateurs and virtually unused by other services, is genuinely needed by other services which the department proposes to place there? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1270</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hannan</inline> suggests a clash of interests between amateur radio operators and the report of the committee set up to inquire into the allocation of frequencies, 1 feel that his request may not be heeded, for he does not need me to remind him that amateur radio operators were one of the favoured few organizations to have direct representation on that committee. If <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hannan</inline> has perused the committee&#39;s report, as 1 am sure he has, he will doubtless have read that the findings of the committee were unanimous. However, he has raised technical matters and I shall ask the PostmasterGeneral to comment on them. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1270</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>FREIGHT RATES</title>
          <page.no>1270</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1270</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KQQ</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LAUGHT, Keith</name>
              <name role="display">Senator LAUGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether he has perused the 26th annual report of the Australian Meat Board, presented this month to the Minister for Primary Industry, in which, dealing with canned meat, the board reports that current freight rates on canned meat to the United Kingdom are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>From Australia - 214s. per ton measurement. </para>
            <para>From New Zealand - 162s. 6d. per ton measurement. </para>
            <para>From Argentina - 150s. per ton weight. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>In its report the board states that it is very concerned at the adverse freight rate applied to Australian canned meat. I would like to know whether the Government contemplates any action to help the board resolve this problem. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1270</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not know the attitude of the Minister for Primary Industry on this matter. I am not aware even whether he has had time to study the board&#39;s report and to give a considered opinion on its contents. I will bring the matters raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Laught</inline> to the notice of the Minister and ask him to let the honorable senator have his reactions to the report. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1270</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TELEVISION PROGRAMMES</title>
          <page.no>1270</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1270</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On 5th October, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hannan</inline> asked me the following question: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>I address a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Last week I asked a question about the Australian Broadcasting </para>
            <para class="block">Commission and the &#34; Chifley Era &#34;. I now ask the Minister: Has his attention been directed to a telecast from Melbourne last Monday night, quaintly titled &#34; University of the Air &#34;, in which a political symposium was presented for the instruction of viewers? Is the Minister aware that the two members of the panel were Professor Harper - not a Liberal-Country party protagonist - and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Sam</inline> Cohen, the latter giving a straight-out Labour political view of the Australian scene? Is this <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Sam</inline> Cohen the person who has been endorsed by a section of the Labour Party in Victoria as a Senate candidate at the next election and is he the  president  of the Jewish Council against War and Fascism, which was described last year by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Jacobson,</inline> the  President  of the Jewish Chamber of Deputies, as a Communist front organization? Is it fair that, within two months of a general election, and following Professor Crisp&#39;s effusion of last week, the Australian Broadcasting Commission should run this series of undiluted Labour propaganda? Does the Minister know whether next week&#39;s &#34; University of the Air &#34; will feature <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Evatt, Mr. Calwell, Mr. Ward</inline> or <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Burton?</inline> Does the commission intend to run a similar series, covering Liberal-Country Party leaders, at this stage, so close to the date of the general election? Even though the writs for the election have not yet been issued, is it intended that this propaganda series will be taken into account when assessing the amount of television time to be made available to the Labour Party in the election campaign? </para>
          </quote>
          <para>The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply: - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The telecast to which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hannan</inline> refers formed part of an educational, not a political series. Under the general title of &#34; Australia&#39;s Story &#34;, the series was introduced in April with two programmes on the aboriginal culture that preceded white settlement in this country and, since then, the main events and trends in Australian history have been presented at weekly intervals. The section on the twentieth century began on 4th September and will continue until 18th December. Early in the new year there will be a further ten programmes dealing with Australian literature. The series, including the literature section, was planned as a whole and each telecast must be seen as fitting into the general scheme of development. The details, including speakers, were worked out in consultation with a committee representative of the Australian National University, Canberra, and the Universities of Sydney and Melbourne. In the main, the speakers have been university professors or lecturers, though a certain number not holding such appointments, or not holding them on a full-time basis, have been included. All have been of high academic standing. </para>
            <para>The programme on Monday, 2nd October, to which the honorable senator referred, was not a political symposium with protagonists for particular points of view. It was a panel set up for the purpose of reviewing the broad issues that had emerged from the previous four programmes which had been presented by individual speakers and which, together, formed a chronological sequence  covering the period 1900-1950. To this extent, the opportunities for introducing new matter were limited. </para>
            <para>The programme was recorded on 30th August, which was some time before the date of the election was announced, and the members of the panel were Professor Zelman Cowen, AssociateProfessor Norman Harper, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Samuel</inline> Cohen, a Melbourne Q.C. and Master of Laws. Professor Cowen acted as  chairman  and it is felt that he exhibited considerable skill in his selection of questions and his control of the discussion to maintain an impartial and academic approach. </para>
            <para>The remaining programmes in the series will deal with particular aspects of twentieth century life in Australia - rural development, the changing lace of the cities, the family, immigration, &#38;c. - and in each case the approach will be educational. Since in no sense could the series be called a propaganda series, it is difficult to see how it could have any bearing on the allocation of television time in relation to the election. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL</title>
        <page.no>1271</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1271</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>- I  lay on the table the following paper: - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>Audit Act-Finance - Supplementary Report of the Auditor-General upon other accounts, for year 1960-61. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>GOVERNMENT BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1271</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Precedence</title>
          <page.no>1271</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Spooner)</inline> agreed  to - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That Government business take precedence of general business after 8 p.m. this sitting. </para>
        </quote>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>HOUR OF MEETING</title>
        <page.no>1271</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para class="block">Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Spooner)</inline> agreed to - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till tomorrow at 10 a.m. </para>
      </quote>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>BEACHES, FISHING GROUNDS AND SEA ROUTES PROTECTION BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1271</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1271</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1271</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Existing references in some of the legislation administered by the Department of Shipping and Transport to &#34; the Director &#34; and &#34; the  Deputy  Director &#34; refer to officers who hold Public Service offices within that department. These specific Public Service titles must be retained as long as the references are in existence in order that they may have significance. However, the effect of such retention is undesirable, because it hampers the processes of review and improvement in the departmental organization and procedures. The necessity for greater flexibility in this respect was stressed recently in a Public Service review of the organization of the department. </para>
          <para>This short bill, which I commend to honorable senators, is designed to provide that necessary flexibility in respect of the Beaches, Fishing Grounds and Sea Routes Protection Act by omitting references to &#34; the Director &#34; and replacing them with references to the Minister or a prescribed officer. </para>
          <para class="block">Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kennelly)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>LIGHTHOUSES BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1271</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1271</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1271</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <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 class="block">That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Under this short bill references in the Lighthouses Act to a  deputy  director will be replaced by a reference to a person prescribed by regulation. This is being done because as long as references to officers who hold Public Service offices remain in legislation administered by the Department of Shipping and Transport it is necessary, in order to give meaning to them, that the specific Public Service titles be retained, and this has the undesirable effect of hampering the processes of review and improvement in the departmental organization and procedures. The necessity for greater flexibility in this regard was stressed recently in a Public Service report on the organization of the department. </para>
          <para>That necessary degree of flexibility in respect of the Lighthouses Act is therefore being provided under this bill, which I feel sure will be supported by all honorable senators. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kennelly)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>EXPLOSIVES BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1272</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1272</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1272</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">In the last session of Parliament the Explosives Act  1952-1957,  which provides for the handling of Commonwealth explosives for use by the defence forces, was amended to extend its scope to include explosives of other nations. But in its present form it is limited in its application to explosives having a defence use. </para>
          <para>Regulations made under the provisions of the Explosives Act established the Commonwealth Explosives Port Facilities Committee, which has an advisory function in relation to facilities available or required at Australian ports for the handling of Commonwealth explosives. On the recommendation of this committee, a pier is being constructed at Point Wilson, in Victoria, for this purpose. The whole cost of the pier is being met from Commonwealth funds, and work on the structure has been progressing for some time. It is expected that the pier will be ready for use by the end of this year. </para>
          <para>After the construction of the pier had commenced, a parliamentary committee  in  Victoria examined the conditions existing at the State Explosives Reserve, Altona, and made a recommendation that the Altona reserve be closed when the Point Wilson pier is ready for use and that, with Commonwealth concurrence, all commercial explosives shipped to and from Victoria should be handled at Point Wilson. The Commonwealth has consented to this arrangement. </para>
          <para>The existing Explosives Act and regulations, being restricted to explosives for defence requirements, cannot be used to provide for regulatory control covering the safe handling of commercial explosives on the Point Wilson area and operation of the pier. Legislation is thus required to permit the making of regulations covering the safety of persons, the safe handling of explosives on the pier and in the adjacent Commonwealth-owned area, and for the general administration of the whole establishment. </para>
          <para>Substantial amendments to the existing act would be necessary to extend its scope to embrace all the matters which will be involved in the handling of both Commonwealth and commercial explosives at Point Wilson. It has been decided, therefore, that it would be appropriate to repeal the existing acts and introduce new legislation following closely the provisions of the earlier act as they relate to Commonwealth explosives only, but with the inclusion of a new part dealing with the safe handling of explosives and general control of a Commonwealth explosives area such as Point Wilson. </para>
          <para>Of those parts of the bill which deal with matters covered by the existing act, the only change of any significance that has been made in the bill is to the existing section  6 (1a.),  which has been amended by clause  11.  This section authorizes the making of a second order specifying a berth to be used, when a port authority has failed to provide a suitable berth in response to an order. The amendment will permit the regulation authorizing the making of a second order to be limited in application to prescribed ports only. Although section  6 (1a.)  has been in the act for several years, it has not been found necessary to promulgate regulations to give effect to this provision because of the co-operation of the Australian Port Authorities Association. </para>
          <para>The general manager of the Fremantle Harbour Trust, however, has requested that regulations giving effect to this section of the act should be proclaimed and made operative in respect of his port. In order to meet this request, sub-clause  (2.)  of clause  11  of this bill will provide that the regulations authorizing the making of a second order may be applied to ports prescribed in the regulations instead of to ports generally as at present. Provision has also been included for existing permanent indemnities held by port authorities, which become operative whenever an order is made, to continue in force. </para>
          <para>Part HI. of the bill which deals with the control and operation of prescribed Commonwealth explosives areas, has been so framed that it may be applied to the Point Wilson area or to any other Commonwealth areas that may be declared by the regulations to be areas to which the part applies, although no other areas of this nature are at present in contemplation. This Part will permit the making of regulations on all matters associated with the operation and control of the Point Wilson explosives area, the associated pier, access road and an overpass over the Princes Highway constructed at Commonwealth expense. </para>
          <para>The regulations will cover such matters as the administration of the area, the transport of both Commonwealth and commercial explosives on the area, the berthing of ships and the manner of handling cargo over the wharf including any charges that may be levied on private concerns such as Nobel (Australasia) Proprietary Limited or on the State government for the use of Commonwealth facilities or for services performed. The Commonwealth does not intend to provide magazines or, except in an emergency, store explosives on the area, but both the Nobel company, which is the principal manufacturer of explosives in Victoria, and the Victorian State Government are establishing magazines on land on the area which they have leased from the Commonwealth. </para>
          <para>All transport and handling on Commonwealth property will be subject to Commonwealth regulations and precautions will be taken to ensure that this pier which has been built for defence purposes is available for its prime purpose whenever it is required. The charges to be levied for the use of the facilities by other interests will be assessed at a level that will enable the costs arising from this additional use of the pier to be recovered. </para>
          <para>The bill makes provision for the act to come into operation on a date to be proclaimed, which will allow time for the drafting of the necessary regulations. In the meantime, the handling and transport of Commonwealth explosives will continue under the existing act and regulations. I commend the bill to honorable senators. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kennedy)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1273</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1273</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1273</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
          <para>This bill is to provide that royalties on timber cut on reserves for wards in the Northern Territory, that is, those reserves set aside for aborigines, shall be paid into a trust fund which is applied for the benefit of the wards, including the making of grants to aboriginal institutions. </para>
          <para>The principle involved in this bill was laid down in  1952  when the Northern Territory (Administration) Act was amended to establish a trust fund known as the Wards (Benefits from Mining) Trust Fund, into which royalties from mining on reserves for wards or on any land excised from such reserves shall be paid. This bill provides that the title of the trust fund shall be altered to the Wards Benefits Trust Fund and that, in addition to mining royalties, royalties on timber from reserves will also be paid into the trust fund and used for the benefit of the aborigines. Previously, these royalties have been paid into Consolidated Revenue. </para>
          <para>The need for the bill has arisen largely because of the steps being taken to improve the control of timber-getting and for promoting afforestation in the Northern Territory. The natural stands of commercial timber in the Northern Territory - mostly cypress pine - are limited, but it is planned to add to them considerably by forestry work and to establish new forests. Many of the existing stands and much of the country most suitable for forestry work are in Arnhem Land and on Melville Island on reserves for wards. Moreover, we are developing forestry as a form of training and employment for the aboriginal wards and using them in the creation of forests. In this year&#39;s Estimates a sum of &#163;73,500 has been provided for this work. The long-term programme includes detailed surveys and mapping of the forest areas, selection of the areas which would justify extensive cultural treatment, and programmes for conservation, re-planting and utilization. It is envisaged that, in the carrying out of the programme, considerable employment for the wards will be created. In addition to acquiring useful skills, there will be social as well as economic benefits in the extension of forestry work in the reserves, and the development of the forests will provide the prospect of occupations for the wards in the next generation. </para>
          <para>It is intended to provide opportunities for private enterprise to cut logs and mill timber in reserves under licence, provided that the licensee&#39;s activities fit in with the programme of the Welfare Branch for development of forestry on reserves for wards. Royalties derived from these licences will, under the provisions of the bill, be paid into the trust fund and be used for the benefit of the wards. That is the main purpose of this bill. The opportunity has also been taken, however, to introduce one other unrelated amendment. The bill proposes to make certain formal changes in the principal act as a result of the enactment by the Parliament earlier this year of the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act 1961. That act established the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia in place of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. As a consequence it is necessary to amend the references in the principal act to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory so that they refer to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Flaherty)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1274</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1274</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1274</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 class="block">That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The purpose of this bill is to amend the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954- 1959 to remove certain inequities which can sometimes arise, in the application of the existing act, to the disadvantage of some producers of gold. As honorable senators are aware, the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act provides for payment of subsidy to gold producers. The subsidy arrangements have been in force for seven years and, on the whole, they have worked smoothly and effectively to the benefit not only of gold producers, but also of the goldmining areas which depend on gold production. </para>
          <para>For the purposes of the subsidy scheme, gold producers are divided into two classes - large producers and small producers. Large producers are those whose output of gold exceeds 500 ounces a year. They may claim subsidy if their average cost of production exceeds &#163;13 10s. per ounce. The rate of subsidy payable to such producers varies with a mine&#39;s cost of producing gold, the maximum rate being &#163;3 5s. per ounce. Subsidy is not, however, payable to a large producer to raise his profits above 10 per cent, of the capital used by him in the production and sale of gold. Small producers are those whose annual output of gold is 500 ounces or less. They are eligible for subsidy at a flat rate of &#163;2 8s. per ounce. They do not have to prove their costs of production and they are not subject to a profit limitation test. </para>
          <para>The reason for including special provisions for small producers in the subsidy legislation is that it would probably be impracticable to ask small producers to provide satisfactory figures of their costs of production in order to qualify for subsidy. Small producers would not usually keep detailed accounting records, particularly as income from gold-mining is not subject to income tax and, moreover, they would probably find it difficult to establish the existence of sufficient capital to surmount the profit limitation test. The choice of 500 ounces as the dividing line between small producers and large producers was necessarily somewhat arbitrary, but production of 500 ounces of gold would return the producer a gross income of &#163;7,800, and it was thought not unreasonable that a producer with an income at or above that level should be required to prove his costs of production and should not have an automatic right to subsidy payments. </para>
          <para>The principles embodied in the existing definition of a small producer for the purpose of the subsidy scheme are thus thought to be reasonable. At the same time, the sudden cut-off at 500 ounces can sometimes produce an unfair situation in that a producer with an output under that figure is entitled to a flat-rate subsidy irrespective of his costs and profits, whereas a producer with an output a little in excess of that figure may be entitled to nothing at all, depending on his costs and profits. The Government, therefore, proposes that there be included in the legislation a provision enabling a producer whose output in a year falls in the range of 501 to 1,075 ounces of gold to elect, if he so desires, to be treated as a small producer. If a producer makes that election, the rate of subsidy payable to him will be determined at the rate of &#163;2 8s. per ounce, less Id. for each ounce by which output exceeds 500 ounces. </para>
          <para>The proposed provision will have the effect of lessening the sharp distinction between &#34; small producers &#34; and small &#34; large producers &#34;, by allowing the latter producers to become eligible to receive a flat-rate subsidy, irrespective of costs and profits, if it suits them to do so. At the same time, the amount of the flat rate subsidy will taper off and disappear at the top of the range. Some producers may find they would be better off to be treated as large producers; so it is to be left to the discretion of the producers themselves to make the choice. Producers whose output falls in the range of 501 to 1,075 ounces in a subsidy year and who do not exercise the election as provided for in the bill will be treated as large producers, as at present, and can claim subsidy, depending on their costs and profits, up to &#163;3 5s. per ounce under the terms of the act. </para>
          <para>I suggest that the bill provides a reasonable method of removing the inequities which have come to notice and I commend it to honorable senators. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Tangney)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1275</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1275</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1275</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia Minister for Civil Aviation</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <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 class="block">That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The purpose of this bill is to amend the International Finance Corporation Act 1955 to take account of recent amendments to the articles of agreement of the International Finance Corporation, which have the effect of permitting it to invest in the common stock of firms it proposes to finance. The International Finance Corporation is an affiliate of the International Bank and operates, in close co-operation with the bank and the International Development Association, to promote economic development in its member countries, particularly in the less developed areas, by encouraging the growth of productive private enterprise, lt operates by financing selected enterprises in member countries, usually in association with private firms or individuals. The corporation was established in 1955 and Australia was one of the original members, subscribing an amount of 2,215,000 dollars. By 30th June, 1961, the corporation had made investments in 37 enterprises in seventeen countries. In its six years of operations, the corporation has had to evolve suitable operating procedures, investigate likely projects and steadily build up the scale of its operations on firm foundations. This has taken time and, at present, its operational investments amount to about one-third of its subscribed capital. </para>
          <para>One difficulty confronting the International Finance Corporation has been the provision in the articles of agreement - Article III., section 2 - preventing it from making investments in the form of common stock, that is, equity investments. This restriction was inserted in the articles because common stock normally carries voting rights, and it was felt by some of the countries participating in the drafting of the charter that it would be inappropriate for an international institution to become involved in the managerial responsibilities of private firms, except, of course, where some action was required for the protection of its own interests. This restriction on the form of its investments was found by the corporation&#39;s management to be a serious handicap to the growth of its operations. Being prohibited from making normal equity investments, the International Finance Corporation was forced to make use of forms or techniques of financing which sometimes appeared complicated and unusual. Its terms normally provided foi unsecured loans at a moderate fixed interest rate, but also carrying some additional income related to profits or options on shares. Such conditions are unknown or unfamiliar to businessmen in many of the less-developed countries in which the corporation operates. </para>
          <para>At the 1960 annual meeting of the board of governors of the corporation, the managing director raised the proposition that the articles be amended to enable the I.F.C. to make equity investments, and this was favorably received. Subsequently the board of directors, who were instructed by the governors to consider what action might be taken, proposed that section 2 of Article III. should be amended to read - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The Corporation may make investments of its funds in such forms as it may deem appropriate in the circumstances. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">A further amendment was proposed to sub-section (iv) of section 3 of Article III., as follows: -  the Corporation shall not assume responsibility for managing any enterprise in which it has invested and shall not exercise voting rights for such purpose or for any other purpose which, in its opinion, properly is within the scope of managerial control. </para>
          <para class="block">The latter amendment was suggested to make it quite clear that there was no intention that the corporation take part in the management of private business, except possibly where its investments were threatened. It has always been permitted, under Article III., section 4, to take whatever action it deemed necessary to protect its own interests. </para>
          <para>These proposals were submitted to the board of governors and, as the existing provisions appeared to be hampering the operations of the corporation, the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt)</inline> voted in favour of the amendment in his capacity as governor for Australia. Affirmative votes were cast by all countries which voted, making up 94 per cent, of the total voting power, and the resolution was thus- carried by an overwhelming majority. Votes were not received from seven countries. At the recent annual meeting of the board of governors in Vienna, which the Treasurer attended, it was considered desirable that the amendments enter into force as early as possible, and a resolution was passed to bring them into effect as from 21st September, 1961. </para>
          <para>The International Finance Corporation Act 1955 approved Australian membership of the corporation as established under the original articles of agreement which were set out in the schedule to the act. While the I.F.C. is now empowered to make equity investments in Australia, the Treasurer has been advised that, unless the 1955 Act is amended as proposed in the bill now before the Senate, regulations could not be issued under section 6 of the original act to grant immunity to the corporation from taxes and charges in respect of such investments as required by Article VI. of the articles of agreement. The International Finance Corporation has made investments totalling almost 1,000,000 dollars in Australian private firms and it is not unlikely that further investments will be made. It is therefore to our advantage to smooth the path for any further operations by passing this legislation. I commend the bill to honorable senators. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McKenna)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>COMMONWEALTH BANKS BELL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1276</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1277</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1277</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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  bill  be now read  a second  time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The purpose of this bill is to increase the capital of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia by a further &#163;5,000,000 and to appropriate the funds required for the purpose. As honorable senators will recall, the introduction of this measure was referred to in the Government&#39;s Budget proposals. </para>
          <para>The Commonwealth Development Bank was formed under the Government&#39;s 1959 banking legislation basically by amalgamation of the Mortgage Bank Department and the Industrial Finance Department of the former Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and the new bank was placed under the control of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, together with the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia. The two former departments had already achieved much in the assistance of both agriculture and industry, but the Government considered that they would be able to meet a somewhat wider range of needs and would be in the best position to do so if they were brought together in a single institution. </para>
          <para>The Commonwealth Development Bank therefore took over the business of the two former departments and was empowered to provide finance for the assistance of primary production or the establishment or development of industrial undertakings, especially small undertakings, in cases where in the bank&#39;s opinion the provision of finance is desirable and the finance would not otherwise be available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. An essential principle of the legislation was thus that the Development Bank would supplement, but not compete with, other sources of financial assistance to agriculture and industry. </para>
          <para>When it was established in January, 1960, the Development Bank possessed capital, including an additional &#163;5,000,000 provided for under the legislation, that amounted to just under &#163;16,000,000. In addition, the bank had substantial reserves of its own, and a long-term loan from the Commonwealth Savings Bank then amounting to some &#163;16,000,000 was also trans ferred to it. The Government considered these funds would permit the bank to begin its life with resources that would be adequate for the time being and which, if necessary, could be supplemented by the negotiation of further loans, particularly from the Commonwealth Savings Bank. The Government was however, fully conscious that the position would need to be watched closely from the viewpoint of a possible need for a further increase in the bank&#39;s capital later in the light of the bank&#39;s operating experience. The funds position of the Development Bank has therefore been kept under careful review by both the Government and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Board. </para>
          <para>During the comparatively short period of about one year and ten months that it has been in existence, the Development Bank has already made a significant contribution in its important field of activity. By 30th June, 1961, the bank had approved loans to primary and secondary industry totalling nearly &#163;15,000,000 and had also provided valuable assistance in the form of hire-purchase finance for producers&#39; equipment. The bank&#39;s lending has continued at high rates in the current financial year. Assistance provided by the bank covers a very wide range of development activities in both primary and secondary industry, including such activities as pasture improvement, clearing, fencing, water conservation, engineering, transport, storage and communications projects. The bank also provides much indirect aid through the supply of technical advice and the support of research efforts in appropriate fields. Demand for the bank&#39;s services remains strong and may be expected to increase further in line with the opportunities for worthwhile development. </para>
          <para>The contribution to development that the Development Bank is making is a matter of great satisfaction to the Government, and as a result of its continuing review of the bank&#39;s experience and funds position, the Government has decided that there should now be a further increase of &#163;5,000,000 in the bank&#39;s capital. With this additional &#163;5,000,000, the actual capital of the bank will be nearly &#163;21,000,000. To this must still be added the bank&#39;s substantial reserves which, each year, are increased by the amount of the bank&#39;s net profits. This is in addition to the considerable loan moneys that will continue to be available to the bank. </para>
          <para>I know that honorable senators will share the conviction that the Development Bank will make the most advantageous use of the funds available to it in carrying out its important statutory functions and I therefore confidently commend the bill to the Senate. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Toohey)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1278</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>ESTIMATES PAPERS 1961-62</title>
          <page.no>1278</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">In committee: Consideration resumed from 18th October (vide page 1253). </para>
        <para>Broadcasting and Television Services</para>
        <para>Proposed expenditure, &#163;12,921,000. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1278</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2I</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BRANSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Last night the Minister for Air <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Wade)</inline> promised to obtain an answer for me in reply to my question as to why the Australian Broadcasting Commission had steadfastly refused to use translator or transmitter stations. My other question was: In the interests of the people who will not have television stations established in their areas before 1964, wi&#39;l the Minister inquire from his advisers what they have against the use of the Adler-type translator as a form of experiment? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1278</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I am interested to know why the Australian Broadcasting Commission does not engage in the collection of advertising revenue from the commercial community of Australia. I have heard it said that the Government does not believe that the commission should trade, and that to engage in advertising in its programmes would amount to trading. I do not think that contention can be sustained because already the commission does quite a bit of trading although it does not compete with other media of publicity and other radio and television stations and, therefore, does not try to obtain a part of the sum of &#163;10,000,000 spent in advertising each year </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>As I have already said, the commission does engage in trading. For example, it sells news to various organizations for &#163;11,000. That indicates the commission does trade in news. The commission receives also &#163;279,000 from public concerts. That is another form of trading. The commission is in the theatre business and is obtaining income from concerts which it conducts. The commission also receives income from sales of the &#34; A.B.C. Weekly &#34;. So it is in the newspaper business, lt sells advertisements for that weekly. To the extent of &#163;21,000 it becomes involved in trading. There is another amount from sales of other publications, namely, &#163;65,000. </para>
          <para>I have never considered that the A.B.C, as an organization, improves its presentation or its public appeal by not having advertisements. I say that quite the reverse is the position. 1 myself am a devotee of the A.B.C, but if it restricts its programmes to those acceptable to people interested in the purest form of entertainment, it restricts its radio listeners and its television viewers. As a matter of fact, advertising is a form of entertainment. On many occasions the advertisements on commercial stations are a good deal better than the entertainment the stations provide. </para>
          <para>I believe that &#34; Consider Your Verdict &#34; - a show that ought to be well known in this chamber because <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hannan</inline> is the judge on it - could be improved quite a deal. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HANNAN, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hannan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Do you want an autographed photo? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. This is serious. Last Monday night I returned home after a heavy political week-end. 1 said to myself, &#34; Now I will sit down and rest for a couple of hours &#34;. My wife turned on the television set and who do you think looked out at me from the screen? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KSS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MATTNER, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mattner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Judge Jeffreys. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1278</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-- No, Judge </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Hannan. It was quite an enjoyable show. I hope that I am not straying too far from the matter under discussion, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman.</inline> I have heard Judge Hannan - I mean <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hannan</inline> - stand up in this chamber and talk about improving the quality of television programmes. Anybody who looked at &#34; Consider Your Verdict &#34;, which deals with crime and nothing else, would agree that Judge Hannan ought to be doing something along those lines with his own producers. If there is one difference between </para>
          <para class="block">Australian crime as presented and American crime as presented, it is that American crime is presented more expertly. Australia has a very amateur type of criminal presentation . </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1279</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HANNAN, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hannan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  You mean that the American criminals are more expert, do you? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1279</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  And the judges. However, I am concerned that this very &#62;bountiful source of revenue is not exploited by the A.B.C. in both its radio and television programmes. I believe that advertising would improve the programmes all round. Of course, that would also help the Australian industry, because advertising is the life-blood of the industry. Television is a new industry. I do not think that in this modern age the commission helps itself at all by attempting to appear to be independent of commercial income. I have heard that commercial and trade interests have &#163;10,000,000 available for advertising. Probably the figure is twice that amount. Advertising is part of the modern distribution system. If there is no advertising, there are no sales. If there is no advertising, there is finally no employment. I cannot see why this government instrumentality should not engage in advertising and obtain some of the revenue that is available. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1279</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KT8</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCCALLUM, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McCALLUM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I wonder, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> whether <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> would like an advertisement for hair restorer to be shown in the middle of one of his speeches. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1279</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAC</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
              <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I wish to say something which is closely related to the remarks made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> about television programmes. I wish to refer particularly to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the problem of the proportion of Australian-produced drama to imported drama used in television programmes. If one reads the report of the board I do not think one gets a true picture of the real problem that Australia faces. The board is somewhat apologetic for the fact that so little drama is being produced in Australia. I should like the board to do a little research into the manner in which that position can be improved. We must realize the deplorable fact that only a little more than 1 per cent, of the drama that is televised in Australia is produced in Australia. Australia has been in the television field for some five years now and that percentage has not altered. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1279</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>- Were you not condemning the kangaroos and wombats drawn by Australian artists last night? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1279</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We can improve the wombats, too. My aim is to try to make our television programmes more Australian. One per cent, of Australianproduced drama in our television programmes is not a high enough percentage. However, I am not so concerned with that; 1 am concerned with the fact that no planning is being done for an improvement. I am also concerned about the corollary of that; &#39; namely, that there has been no substantial improvement from the time television commenced in Australia. The figure is about the same as it was then. It may be a little different. 1 will not quarrel over a small figure. Undoubtedly, very little improvement in that percentage has been achieved. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>In this debate I do not want to develop the ill effects of that situation. The ill effects of the enormous amount of imported television programme material upon our Australian culture are perfectly obvious to us all. I am not concerned now with the quality of the material; I am concerned with the quantum of material that is imported and its effect upon our culture. I put this question to the committee: How can this nation develop culturally if an enormous proportion of the most important medium of entertainment - serious drama - is being imported from Hollywood, Europe and Great Britain? </para>
          <para>Of course, this presents a big problem. I am not trying to simplify it. In the first place, there is the problem of the listener&#39;s or viewer&#39;s resistance, to locally produced programmes. Undoubtedly, a large proportion of the Australian audience prefers imported programmes. I admit that that is a problem. I shall mention it again in a moment. The second, and perhaps even more difficult problem, is the lack of adequate resources for the production of programmes in Australia. In &#34; resources &#34; J. include technical staff, skilled producers and directors, actors and finance. It is a distressing fact that the Australian film industry virtually does not exist to-day. The only existence that that industry has is in the making of advertising films. The Commonwealth, of course, has a very good documentary film service, but apart from that our film industry is virtually nonexistent. The point 1 make is that it will continue to be non-existent until some action is taken. We have on the one side a general public resistance to locallyproduced films. We have inadequate resources, in all elements, for the making of proper Australian programmes, and therefore we have a dilemma. I am disappointed with the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which states - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>While the Board agrees that broadcasting stations should do all that they can to develop Australian programmes, it would be reluctant to deprive Australian listeners of the variety of programmes that flows from the use of overseas programme matter, most of which is in the form of gramophone records. The Board does not propose to determine arbitrary proportions for various types of programme matter, although if stations revert to the trend, now apparently arrested, of abandoning all forms of programmes except music and essential services, it may be necessary to reconsider this . . . However, the figures given in Table B suggest that further consideration might be given by broadcasting stations to restoring to a greater extent the radio drama for which Australian actors and producers were so creditably known. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I emphasize the word &#34; were &#34;. The report continues -  </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">The Board is continuing its investigations into all aspects of this matter. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I am delighted to learn that the board is continuing to do something, but really we are in trouble in this matter. By next year the board should present to this Parliament and to the department something more concrete as to the manner of coping with this problem. It is not an insuperable problem. Every country has faced it and many countries have overcome it. European and American countries have had a look at the problem and done something about it. I refer, for example, to Canada and practically every important European country. With great respect, I think that Australia is one of the few countries that has not done something about it. </para>
          <para>Where do we stand now? This is the rather serious picture that I present. A meagre proportion of Australian drama is being presented in Australia. Australian actors and artists are going overseas as fast as they can to get work because they cannot get it in Australia. We have 10,500,000 Australian people subscribing to organizations in Europe and America in which Australians are employed, buying back the product of those cultures. The situation is rather Gilbertian. Australian actors and technicians cannot get jobs in this country. I admit that some are employed and I do not decry the efforts that are being made. The truly professional actor in Australia is in trouble. Because he cannot get adequate employment, he has to go overseas to get a job. Large numbers of Australians are gainfully employed in the British theatre. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1280</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KT8</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCCALLUM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McCallum</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I think that John McCallum is still here. He has been here for some years. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1280</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is what one might expect from the clan McCallum. 1 interpolate to say that some Australians are staying. Good luck to them! But every one of them will tell you that the future is never very rosy. They never know whence their next production is coming. I doubt very much that more than a pitiful handful of Australian actors are permanently employed for twelve months continuously in Australia. They have an occasional production and they try to make out with this. The great bulk of our artistic Australians are overseas doing well. I have referred to the effects on out culture, and I shall not develop that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>It is perhaps time that the Senate had a look at the question. It might not be a bad idea if we examined it more closely one of these days, because there are ways and means whereby this trend can be stopped and the Australian film industry can be promoted. I realize the dilemma. It is impossible for the Minister to become arbitrary and say that a given proportion of programmes shall be of Australian origin, because the Australian theatre and film industry cannot provide that proportion. It is not adequate for the purpose, so he cannot be arbitrary. There is the dilemma. I pose the questions now. 1 do not provide the answers because 1 do not think that this is time or place. There are answers. Let me throw one into the ring before I conclude. We are paying out &#163;3,000,000 or &#163;4,000,000 a year in purchasing overseas films&#39; and productions. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WOOD, Ian</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wood</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  How much? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I said &#163;3,000,000 or &#163;4,000,000. I speak subject to correction. That figure may relate to a period of two years. That is money that we could well afford to save, and we could save some of it. We have a tariff on imported film. It is not a very high tariff and it does not stop film from coming in. It is purely a revenue-producer. In relation to the tariffs imposed on imported film by other countries, such as America, Great Britain, Canada, France or Italy, it is a very low tariff. Any one who tries to import film into America would be astonished at the tariff that he had to pay. I think that the answer is in having a look at the tariff. The money obtained from an increased tariff could be utilized to build up our film industry and our theatre, because these are complementary cultural enterprises. Without a healthy theatre, we cannot have a healthy film industry. By building them up, we can provide a potential for local productions. The Minister would then be able to say: &#34; We now have a potential in Australia for producing films. We have a potentially active theatre. Therefore, television and radio companies shall, from now on, include an ever-increasing proportion of Australian productions in their programmes.&#34; I throw that into the ring for consideration. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Each year I speak on this subject and each year the situation is about the same as it was the year before. It is high time that this committee had a serious look at the question. I hope that the Minister will not be satisfied with the latest report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which is a pretty pessimistic document. In a generation, it will be too late to start doing something. Listening carefully, one can hear the American accent on our radios when younger people are talking. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</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>-  Are they American? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1281</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They are not Americans. They are good Australians, but they are so fed with American culture that they think it is right and proper - perhaps rather smart - to ape the American accent. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid).</inline> - Order! The honorable senator&#39;s time has expired. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1281</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Air</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  Last night, I undertook to endeavour to secure answers to the queries that had been raised by several honorable senators. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline> asked me about costs to the taxpayer for time made available to political parties during the coming election. I cannot at this stage give an estimate of the cost of these broadcasts. This information can be supplied to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline> later when the Australian Broadcasting Commission has received details of the way in which each party proposes to make use of the radio and television time allotted to it. For example, some of the talks may be given by direct transmission. Others may, at the request of the party, be recorded in advance of transmission. Some may come from studios; others may come from public halls or other outside locations Costs are affected by these decisions. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson</inline>sought information with regard to translator stations. Basically, translator stations are small units used to provide a television service to restricted local areas. They re-transmit, on another frequency, the programmes picked up from a parent station. As the honorable senator stated, quite a number of such stations are in use in the United States of America and it may well be that there will be some application for them in the future in the Commonwealth. Their use must, however, be co-ordinated with the provision of services by conventional stations. The Australian television service has been planned on the basis of the general use of highpower stations. As the Postmaster-General announced last night, upon the completion of the proposals that have been adopted by the Government, some 91 per cent, of the Commonwealth will have television services available. Nevertheless, no stations have yet commenced operations in country and provincial areas and, until such time as the extent of the coverage of these stations is known precisely it is not appropriate to reach any decisions as to the use of translators. The matter of their application will, however, be considered in the light of experience. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1282</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ormonde</name>
              </talker>
              <para>asked why the Australian Broadcasting Commission does not indulge in commercial advertising. The short answer is that the A.B.C. is prohibited under the act from accepting commercial advertising. I will bring to the notice of the Postmaster-General the matters raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Vincent.</inline> As this section of the Estimates has been thoroughly debated I move - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <quote>
            <para>That the question be now put. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Proposed expenditure noted. </para>
          <para>Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m. </para>
        </speech>
        <para>Broadcasting and Television Services - Capital Works and Services</para>
        <para>Proposed expenditure, &#163;2,929,000. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1282</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KUD</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCMANUS, Francis</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McMANUS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Usually when a television station is established it is erected at an elevated spot on a hill or mountain. Sometimes there is no ready means of access to that spot.  Is  it usual for the Commonwealth to make a contribution to the cost of making new stations accessible by road? If so, are such contributions provided for in this section of the Estimates? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1282</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Air</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I understand that a contribution is made to the cost of providing road facilities to these stations. In quite a few instances stations of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the commercial interests are sited on the same elevated area. In that case, a joint contribution is made to the cost of providing the road facilities. The honorable senator has asked whether the proposed expenditure we are discussing includes the contemplated cost of sites. It includes the cost of providing roads where specified. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Proposed expenditure noted. </para>
          <para>Overseas Telecommunications Commission - Capital Works and Services. </para>
          <para>Proposed expenditure, &#163;800,000. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Sir WALTER</inline>COOPER (Queensland) &#91;2.17&#93;. - Evidently this is a new appropriation. No appropriation was made last year. The notation applicable to this item of expenditure reads, &#34; In addition, &#163;800,000 is provided under Special Appropriations, page 235 &#34;. When one turns to page 235 one finds a similar entry. It reads &#34; Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Act 1946-1958)&#34;. 1 ask the Minister for Air for a break-up of this item. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1282</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2I</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BRANSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Can the Minister tell me how much of this sum is to be spent in Western Australia? Does it include provision for the transfer of the existing overseas telecommunications centre from Applecross to Bassendean? If it does, can he tell me when the transfer will be completed? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1282</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Air</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - My answer to the question asked by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir Walter</inline> Cooper will provide <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson</inline> with the information he seeks. This is the first appropriation to be made under this heading. It covers expenditure proposed to be incurred by the Commonwealth in 1961-62 on the Pacific cable project, which is estimated to cost &#163;1,900,000 in all. Of this amount, &#163;300,000 will be found from the commission&#39;s own funds. The two appropriations are necessary to cover the balance of the expected commitment. I point out, in reply to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson,</inline> that all the expenditure will be incurred on the Pacific cable project and that no expenditure will be incurred in Western Australia. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Proposed expenditure noted. </para>
          <para>Department of Works. </para>
          <para>Proposed expenditure, &#163;4,810,000. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1282</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 wish to direct the attention of the committee to a passage at page 41 of the report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30thJune, 1961. The report reads - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>During September,1960, a departmental review of contracts let to a certain company revealed that overpayments had incurred in making related progress payments. </para>
            <para>The overpayments, which amounted to &#163;41,307, arose from departmental over-assessment of the value of work completed on two of the contracts. Normally, the overpayments would have been adjusted, before making the final payments, within the contract amount. However, the contracting company, which had undertaken ten contracts with the Commonwealth in the Australian Capital Territory, approximating &#163;2,000,000, subsequently advised its inability to complete the contracts, which were cancelled on 28th October, 1960. </para>
            <para>The company has gone into liquidation and a proof of debt has been lodged with the liquidator. </para>
            <para>Disciplinary action initiated by the Department against certain officers resulted in a supervising architect being fined &#163;10. </para>
            <para>Subsequent to these overpayments, the department issued further instructions, re-stating and amplifying the procedures to be followed in the preparation of progress payments and emphasizing the responsibilities of personnel associated with the preparation of progress assessments for the purpose of such payments. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That means that some professional officers, or officers who claimed to have specialized experience and who were responsible for certifying the value of work done to entitle a contractor to his progress payments, overassessed the value of work done by &#163;41,307. Because of the insolvency of the contractor, that money has been lost. That seems to me to be a startling commentary upon the strictness of scrutiny and supervision within the Public Service. In civil life such negligence would undoubtedly lead to a certifying officer being liable for payment of full compensation to the person who employed him. The net result of this incident was that disciplinary action initiated by the department against certain officers resulted in a supervising architect being fined &#163;10. </para>
          <para>I think the Minister for Air <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Wade)</inline> is under an obligation to place before the committee with some particularity the nature of the certificates and the circumstances in which they were given, and to state whether there was any opportunity for the over-certification to be corrected before the contracting company became insolvent. I am very interested to know with particularity what disciplinary action is referred to in the Auditor-Generals report. I should like to know whether it concerned more than one officer. If it did, I should like to have a general statement of the nature of the evidence that was submitted against the officers concerned and the reasons for such a negligible result as the infliction of a penalty of &#163;10 in respect of  a  breach of what I should think was plain duty involving a loss of more than &#163;41,000. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1283</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Vincent</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  What is the maximum fine in such cases? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1283</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 know. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell me the maximum fine that is provided for in disciplinary action of this kind. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1283</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister forAir</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Let me say at the outset that. I shall never be a party to an attempt todefend the indefensible. I want to make that quite clear, because my reading of the facts concerning this transaction leadsme to draw the same conclusions that. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has drawn. In order to be as brief and as specific as possible, I propose to give a precis of the matter under discussion. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has correctly stated, from 3rd May, 1956, the company that he mentioned had completed thirteen contracts let by the Department of Works,, of a total value of approximately &#163;2,000,000. It can be said, in support of the officials, that they apparently regarded the company as one of substance and one that was ableto complete the work undertaken to  thesatisfaction  of the department. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The company also had ten further contracts under way. On 27th October, 1960, the company advised the Director of Worksthat it was unable to carry out its current contracts to completion and requested their&#39; formal cancellation. The total value of theten separate contracts involved was. &#163;2,102,458. The contracts in respect  of  which over-payment had been made were for 29 houses and a primary and infants school at Campbell. The total over-payment was- &#163;41,307. </para>
          <para>I think that the first obligation on the department, or perhaps I should say on the Minister, was to ascertain whether the overpayment was due to human error, or whether there were other factors that called for careful probing. An investigation by officersof the Commonwealth Police Force established that there was no evidence of collusion, nor was there evidence that any consideration had passed between the contractor and officers of the Department of Works. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1283</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;SULLIVAN, Neil</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sir Neil O&#39;sullivan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  There wasno moral turpitude. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1283</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAF</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable  senator  has stated the position in much better language than I could possibly command. Having established that human error  wasinvolved  and that there was no evidence of improper practice, I take it that the Minister was concerned to do two things; First, to prevent a repetition of such happenings, and secondly, to investigate the charges from a departmental point of view and to inflict punishment if, in his opinion, that should be necessary. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>On the first point, I wish to say that the department took action to prevent a repetition of such happenings. Departmental procedures relating to the preparation of progress payments were critically examined following this incident of over-assessment of the value of work completed. Further, instructions were issued in May, 1961, restating and amplifying earlier official advice concerning the procedures to be followed in the preparation of progress payments and defining the responsibilities of the various officers whose duties included the handling of progress payments. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> said, in effect, it will be appreciated that, had the contracts in question proceeded to completion in the normal way, future progress payments would have been adjusted so as not to exceed the total contract sum on completion, and the temporary payments would thus have been cancelled out. I have recited that statement of the facts to indicate that the Minister has done all that he possibly could do to prevent a recurrence of the happenings. </para>
          <para>On the question of punishment, I can give the committee some rather interesting information. Following establishment of the over-payment in September, 1960, departmental investigations disclosed that certain officers controlling the contracts were aware as early as July, 1960, that the work completed had been over-assessed. Disciplinary action involving severe punishment was then taken, under section 55 of the Public Service Act, against the works supervisor. He was dismissed by the Minister. He appealed to the Public Service Board under section 55 of the act, and his appeal was upheld. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1284</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>- Hear, hear! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1284</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAF</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- 1 am not quarrelling with the decision of the Public Service Board. 1 am merely reciting the facts without comment, because I am not sufficiently well informed to make any comment on the decision of the board or the action of the Minister. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The senior architect, as a result of ministerial disciplinary action, had his salary reduced. He also appealed to the Public Service Board, and his appeal, too, was upheld. The supervising architect, as a result of ministerial action, was downgraded. He appealed to the Public Service Board, and his penalty was reduced to a fine of f 10. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1284</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HANNAFORD, Douglas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hannaford</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  What was his original penalty? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1284</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAF</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  He was down-graded, which involved a reduction of salary. If the honorable senator wishes to have precise information I can secure it for him. That is all the information that I can give to the committee on this subject. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1284</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>-  In what capacity are the officers concerned employed now? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1284</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAF</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Speaking from memory, the works supervisor has since resigned on account of ill-health. He had originally been dismissed, as a result of ministerial action, so 1 take it that he may well be the person who carried the greatest share of the responsibility. That is an assumption which may be right or wrong, but I think it is fairly logical to suggest that he was the person who carried the greatest burden of responsibility. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline>has asked, me to state the maximum fine that may be imposed under the Public Service regulations. I have inquired, but to this point of time I have not received the necessary information. However, I shall see that it is made available to the honorable senator when I have it in my possession. I suggest, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> that the Minister made a very serious appraisal of these alleged misdemeanours. Honorable senators will appreciate that 1 must choose my language carefully, because the Public Service Board has upheld the appeals. For that reason, I am loath to pass any comment on the matter. In the final analysis, it is in the hands of the Public Service Board, set up by this Parliament, to see that justice is done to the officers concerned and also to the Government, which represents the people of Australia. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1284</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>. -  I think that the Minister has given an adequate explanation of the action taken and the punishments inflicted in the matter raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright,</inline> but I am more concerned with the procedures relating to the acceptance of Commonwealth contracts. Are contractors obliged to give guarantees in respect of contracts of- the kind to which the Minister has referred? 1 understood him to say that the contractor about whom he spoke had ten Commonwealth contracts. I should also like to know whether there is any possibility of recovery under the terms of the guarantees, if they are given. I notice that proof of debt amounting to more than. &#163;41,000 has been filed with the liquidator. Has there been any recovery of a part of this debt through the liquidation proceedings? What guarantees are given in relation to work done when progress payments are requested? Does the department require a contractor to submit a form claiming that- he has actually completed the work in respect of which he desires a progress payment? If no guarantees were given, on what basis did the contract board award the contract to this Organization? Did other contractors submit tenders which were ^ejected by the board? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1285</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>.- During the last ten years I have had considerable experience of quantity surveys and estimates of cost in considering construction proposals that have, been referred to the Public Works Committee. In that time 1 have learned that it is the custom of the. Department of Works to allow a certain percentage of the total cost of a project for contingencies. It is the accepted general practice to allow a margin for contingencies. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I think that every one in this chamber knows that Karl Schreiner had been engaged on building works in this city for a number of years. During that time there were great fluctuations of the availability of labour and materials and there was a considerable increase in the size of the buildings erected and. the value of the contracts let. In my view, despite the misfortune that, the Schreiner organization suffered recently. it has left, many substantial monuments to. its; activities in this capital city. </para>
          <para>The value of this continuing series of contracts was about &#163;2,000,000, and  5  per cent, of that sum is &#163;40,000. So it would appear that somewhere along the line there was a miscalculation of 5 per cent. In view of the fact that evidence given on oath before the Public Works Committee has been to the effect that it is necessary to allow up to 10 per cent, for contingencies in calculating the cost of a project, how/ could any departmental officer, dealing with projects of the size, of those involved in this instance, be certain that his calculation would be correct to within 5 per cent.? I believe that it would be extremely unjust to take the view that, in circumstances of this kind, a man was incompetent or corrupt because there- was a miscalculation by 5 per cent. </para>
          <para>Every one expected this organization to continue to prosper. The quality of the work that it had done in the past had been of the highest order. When I was a member of the Interim Council of the Australian National University, this man Schreiner performed, to the letter of the contracts and with credit to himself, all the jobs that he had undertaken to do. As I have said already, I think every one will agree that the Schreiner organization, despite what happened to it recently, has rendered very good service to the Commonwealth Government. </para>
          <para>The departmental officer concerned in this case, who was guilty - I prefer not to use the word, because, I do not think it is appropriate! - of authorizing over-payments amounting to 5 per cent, of the total cost of the project, was working within the limits permitted by accepted practice, according to the evidence given to the Public Works Committee when considering estimates of costs and quantities for large public works. When the Minister said that the of&#38;&#62;.er&#39;r appeal had been upheld, I said, &#34;&#39; Hear hear &#34;. I thought that the Public Service Board, in its wisdom, had realized the difficulties that officers encounter in making accurate estimates. Who is in the best position to forecast changes of circumstances in building construction? Is it an officer, of the Commonwealth Government or is it a private contractor, working to the limit of his resources and doing a job to the best of his ability? </para>
          <para>B  believe that works of the magnitude involved: in this case lend themselves to honest miscalculations of the progress made; </para>
          <para class="block">I hope that the members of this committee will realize that many contractors will find it more difficult to do their work if more stringent conditions are placed upon them. That would cost the Commonwealth much more than &#163;40,000, because any contractor dealing with the Commonwealth would not mess around with chicken feed in the form of an allowance of 5 per cent, or 7 per cent, for contingencies. To use a colloquialism, he would go for the doctor and cover himself against any circumstances likely to arise. I believe that in judging a person who has made a miscalculation involving 5 per cent, of the total cost of a project, justice should be tempered with a good deal of mercy. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1286</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>.- It is unfortunate that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Byrne</inline> has submitted mushy thoughts of that kind to the committee. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1286</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>-  You are only mischievous. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1286</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 honorable senator shows himself to be completely irresponsible if he does not share our concern when it is reported to us that, through the default of some highly placed officers, &#163;40,000 of public money has been lost. I hold steadfastly to the claim that we should be concerned to ensure that that matter is dealt with responsibly. I see <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Byrne</inline> in an obvious paroxysm of rage, waving his arms about as though I were accusing him of being a party to this default. I am not accusing him of that. I am simply examining the matter with the concern that any honorable senator should feel about it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Byrne</inline>began by referring to an allowance under a building contract of 5 per cent, for contingencies, and he related that allowance to quantity surveyors or works supervisors whose duty it is to certify, for the purpose of making progress payments, that certain materials have been supplied and that certain work has been done. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Byrne</inline> has revealed a complete ignorance of the duties of a quantity surveyor. If a quantity surveyor takes into account an allowance for contingencies when he is assessing what a building contractor has done in the way of supplying materials and of construction work, he does not know his job. A quantity surveyor, with his special experience, is employed to assess the value of work done and of materials supplied at a certain time and to issue a certificate stating that, in this case, the Treasury could safely pay, not 95 per cent, of the total contract price, but 95 per cent, of the value of work done and of materials supplied. If an allowance for contingencies were taken into account by a quantity surveyor, it would be taken into account very wrongly, because that would lead to fallacy and error in every progress certificate issued by him. </para>
          <para>Having made that point, I wish to say that in raising this matter in order to provoke inquiry I pass no judgment on any of the officers concerned. However, I do make a prima facie statement about the insignificant result which accrued from the Public Service Board&#39;s inquiry. Reference is made, first, to the dismissal of a works supervisor and then to the resignation of an officer on account, it is said, of ill health. The whole of that statement leaves me perplexed and by no means satisfied that justice has been done in this instance. </para>
          <para>But I do not wish honorable senators to misunderstand me. I am not asserting that the board&#39;s decision has produced injustice either to the public or to the public servant concerned. What I have said indicates that this chamber, displaying its sense of responsibility, should require more information. To that end, I have sought to see the relevant departmental documents myself. 1 want the Minister to let me know whether, as an individual, or as a member of this Senate, I can have the departmental files made available for perusal. I believe that as a House of the Parliament the Senate has the authority to require such files to be laid on the table. Commensurate with that authority, the Senate has a responsibility to inform itself of the facts and satisfy itself as to whether or not justice has been done in this case. I am not suggesting we should encumber our proceedings by a detailed examination, but we should show some concern for these matters. </para>
          <para>I make one reference to the gravity of an item such as this where the amount involved is &#163;41,000. Laxity to that extent, multiplied by the almost innumerable contracts for which the department is responsible, could soon develop, as it were, into a wide loophole. First, there is waste and then come improper practices. The laxity occurs because of a failure on the part of the Minister or the Department of Public Works to accept responsibility. This lack of responsibility leads officers into a sense of laxity with regard to their duties, which leads inevitably to dishonesty. How often do we see a person become a victim of his own incompetence, and then of his own dishonesty, and plead that his employer&#39;s lax system was the cause of his failure, and expect the sympathy of the court? Officers working under this system should not be allowed to breed the idea that we condone such laxity. </para>
          <para>In support of my belief that we should have full information about these matters, I wish to say how grateful I am to the Auditor-General for having stated sufficient in this instance - even though it be in a summarized form - to enable the ordinary member of the Parliament, such as myself, to read sufficient into the statement to incite inquiry. At the same time, just by way of contrast, I wish to refer to something that we should not expect to see in the Auditor-General&#39;s report. In paragraph 8 of his supplementary report upon the transport section of the Department of the Interior, under the heading of &#34; Earnings &#34; the Auditor-General shows a figure of &#163;239,609 and then, in a minutely-printed footnote to a Budget figure, points out that that amount includes a subsidy of &#163;60,000. I am making only a passing reference to this matter. I realize we have dealt with the estimates for the Department of the Interior. I am pointing out that in regard to the Department of Works the AuditorGeneral has stated sufficient to cause a member of the Parliament, with an ordinary understanding of the subject-matter, to be concerned. I am quoting by way of contrast something that is not a disclosure to the Parliament of the facts and substance of the matter, but on the contrary is a concealment. The matter to which I have referred appears in paragraph 8 of the supplementary report of the AuditorGeneral which was tabled this morning. </para>
          <para>I say first of all that it is most important that an officer directly responsible to Parliament should know what our view is, and should know that we expect of him a disclosure with sufficient clarity to enable an ordinary busy member of the Senate, with ordinary experience and without any undue innate suspicion, to discover that there is something other than what is printed. When it is stated that the earnings of a section of a department are &#163;239,000, how in truth can that figure be correct when it is found, on tracing the figure through, that it includes a subsidy of &#163;60,000? It is imperative that there should be truth in public accounts, and the Auditor-General is the last person one would expect to allow to have printed over his signature a document containing the slightest concealment of the facts. </para>
          <para>I state unequivocally that it is of the utmost importance for the prestige of this chamber that the reports of this officer shall be above criticism. The report on the Department of Works reveals the facts, but that concerning the Department of the Interior conceals them. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1287</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1T</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</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>.- A short while ago we were discussing the proposed expenditure of the Department of Works, and reference was made to two over-payments made in respect of work carried out on two jobs which formed a part of a contract, or several contracts, which one man had with the Department of Works. I listened attentively to what the Minister for Air <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Wade)</inline> had to say about the matter. I look at the situation in this light. The Parliament relies upon public servants to carry out important and onerous work. The Public Service award shows that officers are paid according to their responsibility and capacity. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>In the case to which reference has been made the work was in progress. Examinations were made of the work and information was furnished to other officers. As the result of advice received an advance payment was made in respect of one job. It should not be thought for a moment that the work had been completed; it had not been. An over-payment was made also in respect of another job. Speaking from memory I think that the first over-payment amounted to &#163;35,000, and the second overpayment to &#163;6,000, making a total of &#163;41,000. The matter was brought before the proper authorities; an inquiry was made; penalties were imposed; appeals were lodged; and they were dealt with. I have no comment to make on that. </para>
          <para>I look at the matter in this way: The authorities established by the Parliament to deal with such matters dealt with this matter and arrived at a decision. I do not think that it is our function to question the decision while this committee is considering this proposed expenditure. We in this Parliament represent the people. If we go out and try to explain to the man in the street that two over-payments amounting to &#163;41,000 occurred in respect of two contracts being carried out in Canberra, what is his reaction? Does he not say immediately, &#34; Something must have been wrong &#34;? We find now that something was wrong. In respect of the housing contract, a tenth or eleventh house is accounted for in the over-payment of &#163;41,000. </para>
          <para>When this work is being done we rely upon individual effort and departmental administrative procedures. Nothing has been said about those procedures yet. We do not know whether they were correct or not. To my mind, something must have been wrong administratively if these things could occur. I know that the Minister will reassure me when I ask him this question: Has action been taken to prevent future occurrences similar to these two overpayments? That is what I am &#39;concerned about. We know that errors occur in big departments that are handling millions of pounds. We cannot escape from human error. But where an error has occurred and it has come under public notice, the department concerned has a responsibility to take administrative action that will prevent a similar error being committed in the future. </para>
          <para>I conclude on this note: I am looking at the matter from the viewpoint of the typical citizen. As members of the Parliament we have to satisfy him that while the Estimates were under consideration we took appropriate action to prevent a further wrongful expenditure of &#163;41,000. The fact that that amount was overpaid to somebody who was not entitled to it and it has not been recovered, is what matters in the mind of the typical citizen. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNR</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HANNAFORD, Douglas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HANNAFORD</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  In connexion with -these matters I ask the Minister this question: Had the contract and the complete work been carried out and -had the contractor not failed to go on with the associated contract, would not this amount have been accounted for in the final analysis? My assumption is that had the contract been completed this situation would never have arisen and the amount would have been accounted for in the completion of the contract. I under stand that this situation was caused by the firm or individual in question and not public servants. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1288</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Air</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I shall answer <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hannaford</inline> first. I think it could be argued that had the company concerned not gone into liquidation the contracts would have been completed within the stipulated figures. That would indicate, of course, that value had been obtained for the money paid. I point out that that is not the complete answer to the question about inspections and progress payments that is concerning the committee at present. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The reply to the question asked by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> is that section 5.5 (3.) (d) of the Public Service Act lays down a maximum fine of &#163;20. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1288</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>asked for some information about &#39;securities ami assurances that could be &#39;given . He asked whether action has been taken to prevent this sort of thing &#39;happening again. I can state the procedure in respect of deposits. In this instance the Department of Works was acting on behalf &#169;? the National Capital Development Commission. The policy of that commission &#39;demands that a preliminary deposit, which is a nominal deposit, toe lodged with the tender. Upon the signing of the contract a deposit of &#163;500 is required. That is the set figure. It does not vary; it is &#163;500 on every contract. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>Progress payments are authorized up to 95 per cent, of the work completed. The method of lodging a claim has been tightened up considerably, I understand, since the revelations to which we are referring. I am not as clear about the formal procedure as I should be. I understand that the present procedures demand, in the first instance, that the contractor lodge a claim with officers of the department, setting out in the minutest detail the justification for the claim. The contractor having lodged his claim, officers of the department then make their inspection on &#39;the claim submitted by the contractor. If the departmental officers are satisfied that the claim can be substantiated by the quantity of work completed, the claim is met, or it may be reduced as the officers of the department in their wisdom think fit. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</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>. -  In answering the questions asked by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn,</inline> the Minister answered some of the questions that I asked, but he did not say to what degree we have control over the body which allots contracts to various contractors who tender foi them. To what degree does that body obtain assurances or guarantees in relation to the solvency of the contractor and his capacity to carry out the work? I cannot give any details of the work allotted to the contractor who is under discussion, but I understand that he received a far greater proportion of the contracts let in the Australian Capital Territory than he should have received. It became almost impossible for other contractors to tender against him in the Territory. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>At that stage, of course, it was said that he was a very reliable man and that the lowest tender need not necessarily be accepted. This ability to honour his contracts did not come up for discussion until after something had happened. The Opposition was content to accept the fact that this position had arisen, but it was not very satisfied because a considerable number of large contracts was being let to that contractor. As a matter of fact, the position was such that the suggestion was made that there was political influence. Perhaps that was not so. Nevertheless, it is very important that the committee should have before it the exact position in relation to the letting of Commonwealth contracts to tenderers. </para>
          <para>In this case there were over-payments of &#163;41,000 to a contractor who tendered for and obtained large contracts. I understand that &#163;2,000,000 worth of contracts would have been completed if liquidation had not taken place. Many people would have been kept in employment. It is very important that we should know that tenders for Commonwealth contracts are considered with the greatest care, and that the tenderer is financially sound and is backed by financial guarantees. What guarantees were held in this instance? Contracts should be spread and, where possible, the lowest tender accepted, subject to guarantees regarding the solvency and economic stability of the contractor. It is not unusual to hear criticism such as that which has arisen in Western Australia and elsewhere, in relation to government contracts, but it is not possible for anybody to get an explanation from the persons who let the contracts why a tenderer was passed over. In very many cases, it is a matte merely of personalities. The Government or the contract board will not give a member of Parliament or anybody else information in relation to the letting of contracts. We should be told the basic principle and the guarantees that are required. </para>
          <para>Having lodged with the liquidator proof of debt, are we in a position to know what is happening in regard to the liquidation? When the contract was let, was there any guarantee that this man was a solid contractor? He was taking a very big slice of the work in Canberra and excluding other contractors. Can this chamber be given any particulars of the matter so that we may know what is the standard practice, remembering that the board must have a certain amount of latitude in the letting of contracts. This incident is proof positive that the board should not be above the Parliament and above question in relation to revealing why contracts have been let. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the position has been examined and to say what powers Parliament has to examine the matter. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1289</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Air</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I reject entirely <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cooke&#39;s</inline> suggestion that the letting of these contracts, totalling &#163;4,000,000, could have been the result of political pressure. That is an inference that could reflect on all members of the Senate and on their behalf I reject it in its entirety. I say to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cooke</inline> that Government contracts are let by a body that is completely independent and above reproach. The methods adopted are well known and they are laid down very strictly. If the suggestion is abroad that this organization is suspect, this is a pretty sad commentary on our democracy. When these contracts were let, this company had completed contracts totalling &#163;2,000,000 to the complete satisfaction of the department and the Government. Without entering into a defence of the action, I suggest  that  that could be considered a fairly substantial recommendation for providing further work. But we can forget any suggestion that the company&#39;s record was the reason why it was given additional contracts, because the method adopted is thorough. When a big contract is about to be let, known men of ability and standing in their trades are invited to lodge tenders. They are asked certain questions about their financial ability, know-how, and capacity to complete the contract. They may refuse to co-operate in the preliminary discussions if they desire. The procedure is designed for the one purpose of saving those people who may not be adequately equipped to complete a contract from the humiliation and costly process of costing the job, with the department deciding later that because of lack of finance, know-how or equipment they should not have the contract. I refute completely the suggestion that there was anything improper in the manner in which these contracts were let. The committee has discussed the subject very fully. I have given, as frankly as I could, all the information available. I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the question be now put. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTL</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKELLAR, Gerald</name>
              <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKellar</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The question is- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1290</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Temporary Chairman,</inline> I was on my feet. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
              <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para />
          </talk.start>
          <para>You were not. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1290</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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 gag cannot be applied when a question is unanswered. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1290</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">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
                <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Order! The honorable senator will resume his seat. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1290</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>-  I rise to order. I submit that when we are examining the Estimates it is not proper for the Minister to apply the gag when a question is unanswered. While we are in committee, he cannot make a statement and immediately apply the gag. We have rights under the Standing Orders. When one senator speaks, another senator should have an opportunity to reply. This procedure is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The gag is being applied to suppress discussion. The Minister should not be permitted to do this. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1290</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">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
                <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Standing Order No. 65 provides - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Any motion connected with the conduct of the Business of the Senate may be moved by a Minister for the Crown at any time without Notice. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The point of order is rejected. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Proposed expenditure noted. </para>
          <para>Department of Works - Capital Works and Services. </para>
          <para>Proposed expenditure, &#163;1,396,000. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYY</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;FLAHERTY, Sidney</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;FLAHERTY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I refer to Division No. 861. It appears to me that somebody is getting very touchy. There is an old saying that those whom the gods seek to destroy they first make mad. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</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">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
              <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para />
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Order! That has nothing to do with the division under discussion. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1290</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYY</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;FLAHERTY, Sidney</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;FLAHERTY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  If you wish to make a report to the  President,  you should do so. I am mentioning, in passing, something that happened. We have had quite enough evidence recently of people getting away from the point, but the moment an Opposition senator makes reference to something not directly connected with the matter under discussion, you pull him up. I have been sitting here for a long time listening to honorable senators giving dissertations on matters not concerned with the items under discussion. This section of the Estimates deals with capital works and services in relation to the Department of Works. In this connexion, I want to ask a question. In passing, I have mentioned that the Minister is probably getting a bit touchy. Surely we can tell the Minister that he is a bit touchy, when we want to ask him a question. I want to put the Minister in good heart before asking him a question. This expenditure is apparently undertaken from loan moneys. Is provision made anywhere in the Estimates for the building of the Chowilla dam in South Australia? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1290</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Air</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I am informed that no provision is made in these Estimates for financing the construction of the Chowilla dam in South Australia. I think <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Flaherty</inline> will agree with me that provision for this dam could not be expected under this budget for the very simple reason that all that has happened so far is that the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies)</inline> has announced that he is prepared to confer with the States on the construction of the dam. The Commonwealth is not the determining authority as to whether the dam shall or shall not be built. The Commonwealth has merely indicated that it is interested in contributing financially towards the construction of the dam. When the States decide to go ahead with this project, as I hope they will, I am sure that provision  will  be made in the Estimates for the Commonwealth&#39;s contribution. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1291</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>. - I refer to Division No. 861, item 01, Buildings, works, fittings and furniture. In 1960-61 the sum of &#163;276,000 was appropriated for this item, of which &#163;255,663 was spent. This year the Government seeks to appropriate &#163;427,000 under this item - an increase of about &#163;170,000 over the amount spent last year. Under item 02, Plant and equipment, in 1960-61 the appropriation amounted to &#163;109,000 but this year the Government is seeking to appropriate &#163;938,000 - an increase of about &#163;830,000. Will the Minister give reasons for the sharp increase in the amounts sought under those items? When I tried to raise this matter earlier I was gagged. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Is the plant and equipment referred to under this division used exclusively by the Government on government work or is it hired to contractors for use in other than government work? Also, I would like some information about the large expenditure on private architects in view of the fact that the Government spends hundreds of thousands of pounds to maintain  Architects  in the Public Service. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1291</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Air</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In answer to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cooke&#39;s</inline> query in relation to Division No. 861, item 01, the value of works in progress at 30th June, 1961, totalled &#163;160,987. Those works comprised improvements to works depot facilities at Concord, New South Wales, and provision of accommodation for native labour at Rabaul. A new works programme totalling &#163;322,700 includes provision of improved depot facilities in New South Wales, additional staff accommodation at Port Moresby and additional accom modation for native labour at Rabaul and Port Moresby. In relation to item 02, it is departmental procedure to purchase items of plant and vehicles against this department&#39;s Treasury vote for transfer to departmental works expenditure account. The plant is used on projects executed by the department and a hire charge is levied against the jobs concerned. In previous years additional items only were purchased against the division. However, following a change in policy regarding depreciation receipts to be refunded to Treasury, replacement items previously advanced from the works expenditure account also are charged to the division. It has been necessary to increase the amount provided accordingly. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cooke</inline> asked whether the plant was hired to outside interests. No, it is used exclusively on departmental works. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Proposed expenditure noted. </para>
          <para>Resolutions reported; report adopted. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1961</title>
        <page.no>1291</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1291</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 12th October (vide page 1063), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henty-</inline></para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator ORMONDE</inline>(New South Wales; &#91;3.24&#93;. - The Opposition does not oppose this bill. In fact, we support it. Our policy in relation to tariffs is well known. The Labour Party is a tariff protection party. I do not think I need say a great deal about this bill. I do not want to waste the time of the Senate by dealing with technical matters in detail. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1291</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5K</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Scott</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Have a go! </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1291</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I admit my inadequacy in these matters. The reports of the Tariff Board are not exactly written to be understood by the layman. They are so copious as to be almost frightening. I venture to suggest that very few honorable senators understand them. One of the ideas I had intended to postulate was that the Tariff Board should distribute a precis of the evidence taken before it. Nobody looks at the transcripts of evidence. The Tariff Board is a very important body; it almost determines the state of the economy. In fact, I think it is more important than the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The board opens and closes industries and almost determines the wages of workers. With due respect, the Arbitration Commission has only half of the knowledge possessed by the Tariff Board. Of course, the Australian Labour Party does not object to such a state of affairs. It instituted and helped to popularize the tariff procedure. At one stage in my political life I thought we would find the Liberal Party and the Labour Party fighting the Australian Country Party on this issue. The Country Party has always been opposed to tariffs other than those which are granted for the protection of their supporters. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>There is plenty of talk in this chamber about the high costs of production, but many honorable senators forget about the high costs of farm production. Whereas once a farmer went around a paddock on horseback, now he goes around it in a very expensive sedan motor car. I was out in the middle of South Australia a few years ago, but I did not see a horse within 100 miles of the property I was visiting. 1 went anywhere I wanted to go in a sports model car which cost &#163;1,500. That adds to the high cost of primary production. I have frequently seen cars and machines standing out in the weather uncovered. There is plenty of money about to-day in those quarters. The farmer complains only when he is affected. I support high-cost industry, because in my book it means good wages and conditions and that Australia has the power to defend itself. Let us not forget that if we were entirely a farming community fifteen or twenty years ago we may not have been able to defend ourselves. It was the personnel employed in the great industries who help to defend Australia. I am not one of those persons who believe that we live off the sheep&#39;s back. I believe that a lot of our prosperity comes off the backs of the steelworker and the ironworker. Certainly we are dependent upon them for our security. </para>
          <para>As I said earlier, I do not wish to advance any argument against this bill. In general, we support it. We may criticize parts of the Tariff Board&#39;s reports, but we find that a reduction of tariff in one place is offset by a rise in another and that in the end result the board has done a pretty good job. I repeat that, as it is such an important body, the board ought to find some way in which to distribute the information it obtains so that we will know a little more about the economy. At this stage I thank officers of the department who assisted me in my quest for knowledge on this subject. Reports submitted by the Tariff Board are not always unanimous reports. Some provision ought to be made for the publication of minority reports so that we may have the advantage of opinions expressed by all the members of the board. Another fact which we ought to bear in mind is that our mighty steel industry is largely unprotected. It is generally accepted that Australia produces the best and cheapest steel in the world. I should also like to know why we have a Minister for Primary Industry but do not have a Minister for Secondary Industry. If the Labour Party assumes the reins of government, I shall advocate the appointment of a Minister for Secondary Industry. I cannot see why secondary industries should have only an indirect approach to the Government, while primary industries have a direct approach. </para>
          <para>I wish to refer now to one of my pet subjects - the coal industry. The production and use of fuel oil are driving the coal industry out of business. The Minister for National Development <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Spooner)</inline> tells us that everything is all right, that we are exporting coal. I repeat that fuel oil is driving coal off the local market, which is the important market for coal. The pattern of things is changing, and fuel oil is taking the place of coal. After all, this oil is the residue from the manufacture of petrol. The coal industry is not competing with the petrol industry; it is competing with residual oil - in other words, the rubbish which the petrol people throw away. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1292</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENDALL, Roy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Kendall</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  No, it is not. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1292</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, it is. It is more or less rubbish. In America in some cases it is dumped. It seems to me to be quite uneconomic to import crude oil. Coal is cleaned at the pit head; the debris is taken from it. When the product reaches the customer it is pure. But that is not so with crude oil. We used to import pure petrol, but now the raw product is brought here. Even though I may be subjected to criticism, as was apparent from the interjection made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall,</inline> it is possible for the oil companies to take more petrol from the residual oil that is being used to compete with coal. This Government ought to force the oil companies to crack more petrol so that there will be less fuel oil available to compete with the vital coal industry. I leave the matter there. I declare my support and the support of the Labour Party for the bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1293</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2I</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BRANSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I shall be as brief as possible. I enter the debate to bring to the notice of the Minister for Customs and Excise <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Henty)</inline> an undue hardship and injustice that is being suffered by a section of industry which I believe the Tariff Board has not taken into account. 1 refer to the bitumen construction industry, and the use of tall oil and olein. Tall oil is a by-product of the paper and wood pulp industry. Approximately 70 lb. of tall oil is produced per ton of pulp. Of course, that depends upon the kind of wood and the method of processing that are used. Incidentally, tall oil is not produced in Australia but olein is. Olein is a derivative of natural oils, including beef fat, olive oils, copra and peanuts. The report of the Tariff Board on animal and vegetable fats and oil states, at page 39, that olein or oleic acid, as it is called, is used largely in the manufacture of industrial chemicals and resins, soaps and candles, pharmaceutical and toilet preparations, rubber products and lubricants. I direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that nowhere in the report of the Tariff Board is there a reference to the use of tall oil in bitumen. The board&#39;s report states that tall oil is used largely in the manufacture of liquid soaps, disinfectants and, with vegetable oils, in the manufacture of paints and resins. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Tall oil is imported from Sweden, the United States of America and Finland. In 1959-60, 80 per cent of the imports, I understand, came from the United States. I have studied the Tariff Board&#39;s report carefully, and if my understanding of it is correct, it indicates that it is the tall oil fatty acids that are in keen competition with Australian-produced oleic acid and not the crude tall oil, which is used in the bitumen industry to form an emulsion consisting of tall oil, oleic acid, caustic and water. The bitumen is held in suspension in the emulsion, so that it may be used when it is cold. It is not necessary to introduce heat. One of the important aspects of the Tariff Board report is that it makes no reference whatever to bitumen. I can only assume from that that the tariff was intended to apply, not to crude tall oil, but only to tall oil fatty acids. </para>
          <para>The crude tall oil that is at present imported from Sweden for use in construction work involving the use of bitumen, is landed at the Western Australian factory at a price of &#163;59 5s. 6d. a ton. Since September last, it has been subject to additional tariff of &#163;42 a ton, so that the price has increased from approximately &#163;59 to &#163;101 a ton. The olein, which the people engaged in the industry are being asked to use, costs &#163;168 a ton. The industry uses both olein and tall oil. The Western Australian industry uses tall oil at the rate of 66$ per cent. and Australian-produced olein at the rate of 33i per cent. It uses the two commodities because the stable emulsion that results has good pumping qualities. That is to say, it will pump readily and will not break down under the pumping action. In addition, olein .gives an emulsion which has good storage qualities. Because of its use, the emulsion does not tend to separate into soap and bitumen when stored for any length of time. The Western Australian emulsifiers and also ;a number of others in Australia, use a combination of both commodities. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1293</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JUM</name.id>
                <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>-  Do you have to read your speech? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1293</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2I</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BRANSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am not reading it. I am referring to a letter which contains relevant information, and I want to state the case correctly. Bitumen emulsion is used extensively in new road construction. It is for that reason that I am bringing the matter to the attention of the Government. We are vitally concerned with road programmes in Australia, and it must be admitted that bitumen plays a part, in that respect, in national development. .Bitumen emulsion is used almost entirely in road maintenance and for footpaths, small paved areas, catchment areas, pipe linings and soil stabilization works. It is used extensively throughout Western Australia by the shire councils for country road development. I point out that if the manufacturers of bitumen are obliged to use only olein they will have to alter the whole of their pumping equipment. In the case of the Western Australian industry, it will cost &#163;25,000 to do that. The shire councils and all the other users of bitumen also will be obliged to alter their pumping equipment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I come now to a point which I think is a most important one. I suggest that the imposition of the additional tariff is not achieving the purpose that the Tariff Board intended. The cost of crude tall oil has been increased to approximately &#163;100, but it is still cheaper than olein, which costs &#163;168, so that the industry will continue to use tall oil because it is &#163;68 a ton cheaper. All that the additional tariff has succeeded in doing is almost to double the cost of the tall oil content of bitumen. In my humble opinion, the evidence submitted to the Tariff Board was not very convincing. I invite the attention of the Minister to the following comment at page 40 of the report: - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The substantial rise in imports of tall oil fatty acids in the past twelve months, has caused the relative share of the combined market obtained by local manufacturers of oleic acid to fall from 82 per cent, in 1958-59 to 76 per cent, in 1959-60. On the other hand, published information available dies not indicate that competition from imports of tail oil and its fatty acids has so far affected the Australian industry&#39;s production although the A.S.A.P.M. has stated that it is reducing its members&#39; sales. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The board was not convinced on that matter. The report continued - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>However, information available to the Board suggests that most imports would be for purposes competitive with oleic acid in part of its market as a raw material for the manufacture of liquid soaps and disinfectants. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Again, there was no mention of bitumen. do not think that bitumen could have brrn considered by the board. The report went on to state that the price of crude tall oil was &#163;44 4s. 2d. a ton delivered to stores in capital cities, and that of oleic acid, &#163;168 a ton. To impose a tariff which had the effect of increasing the price of tall oil by almost 100 per cent, was, I think, unfair. </para>
          <para class="block">In referring to the degree of competition, the board stated at page 41 of the report - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The degree of competition of imported tall oil and tall oil fatty acids with local production is not clear. Official statistics of production of oleic acid suggest a slight increase in production in 1959-60, although in terms of more recent information available on sales, the slight increase in production does not provide an indication of the full effect of imports of tall oil products on the local oleic acid industry. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">So that the board was not completely convinced that the tariff was having the desired effect. The report went on to state that tall oil and tall oil fatty acids competed in part of the Australian market for oleic acid and also in part of the market for vegetable paint oils, particularly nonyellowing oils, but again, there was no reference to bitumen. </para>
          <para>At the request of the paint and resin manufacturers, provision has been made for tall oil fatty acids for use in the manufacture of synthetic resins to be admitted free of duty under by-law to tariff item 449 (a) (2.). Why could not that still apply to crude tall oil? The last paragraph of the report states - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Olive oil mixed fatty acids may at present be admitted under by-law to Item 229 (h) (3). There is no evidence of local production of these fatty acids and the board considers that this concession should continue. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That refers to olive oil. The board based its finding on the fact that there was no production in Australia. I have already made the point that it is clearly understood that tall oil is not produced in Australia. I ask the Minister to confer with the Minister for Trade with a view either to deleting the reference to crude tall oil or to allowing that product to be admitted duty free under by-law. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1294</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 intervene in the debate for a few minutes to refer to our continuing interest in the items mentioned in the bill that have been ushered into the Parliament by way of the imposition of temporary emergency tariff duties. Honorable senators will remember that some time <inline font-style="italic">igo</inline> we had quite an interesting debate upon the relationship of that procedure to the idea that the Parliament should retain control of the revenue derived from tariff duties. I think it will be of interest to the Senate if I make some comments on the degree to which this extra-parliamentary procedure, the levying of temporary emergency tariff duties, has been operating.  1  notice from the secondreading speech of the Minister for Customs and Excise <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Henty)</inline> that there are, I think, twelve items in relation to which new tariff duties will be fixed by this bill, the duties being imposed originally by the temporary emergency tariff procedure. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I have been favoured by the Secretary to the Department of Trade with an assessment of the degree to which temporary emergency duties operate to increase the cost of imported goods. Before dealing with that, let me refer to a statement in the annual report of the Tariff Board in which the board reminds us that the removal of import licensing has highlighted the cost disabilities of some secondary industries but that Australian industries generally have cost disadvantages when compared with many overseas producers. The board points out that there were again a number of primary industries among the applicants coming before it. In view of the fact that these temporary duties affect the cost structure, it is important for us to make an assessment from time to time of how this system - necessitated by the change-over from import licensing to tariff duty imposition - is working. 1 am glad to know that the items to which temporary emergency duties were applied represented only about 2 per cent, of the total imports of this country during the financial year 1960-61. The conclusion that I draw is that the increased cost attributable to the application of emergency tariff duties to that small percentage of our total imports is insignificant. I should have been very concerned if it had been necessary to impose emergency tariff duties on, say, items representing 20 per cent, of our total imports, but the computation which has been made for me shows that the duties apply only to items representing about 2 per cent, of total imports. I thought it would be a matter of satisfaction to the Senate generally if I were to make that known. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1295</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KOW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HENTY, Norman</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HENTY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  in reply - Let me deal first with the mattei raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> while it is fresh in my mind. I am sure it is a source of satisfaction to the Senate, first, that the legislation is working so well, and secondly, that most of the reports concerned have been placed before the Parliament so quickly that we have an opportunity to discuss them while the emergency tariff duties that have been imposed still apply. I remind honorable senators that emergency tariff duties are effective only for a period of six months, and that after a temporary duty has been imposed the Tariff Board itself has to re-examine the position. It might be that an emergency tariff duty was imposed on a certain article at a time when a flood of those articles was entering Australia from abroad, and that when the Tariff Board itself examined the position the emergency had passed and a high protective duty was no longer deemed to be necessary. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1295</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>-  Am I correct in saying that the temporary duties we are considering now will operate for only six months from the time this bill becomes effective? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1295</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>-  Those approved by the Parliament remain operative until a full report from the Tariff Board is received. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson,</inline>referring to tall oil, raised a very interesting point. The duty is intended to apply only when there is competition. It seems to me that the interests concerned in this matter did not appear before the Tariff Board and put to the board the view that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson</inline> has expressed. I took a careful note of what he said, and I shall certainly have an examination made of the position. Imports have increased very considerably. From the figures given on page 40 of the report of the Tariff Board we see that imports of tall oil and tall oil fatty acids were 359 tons in 1958, 737 tons in 1959, and 1,087 tons in I960. The imports almost trebled in three years. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1295</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2I</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Branson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Do those figures relate to imports of crude tall oil? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1295</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>-  That is not specified. The reference is to tall oil and tall bil fatty acids. Tall oil fatty acids are directly competitive, and that is where the tariff applies. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The proposal that crude tall oil should be admitted duty free under by-law is interesting. The crude oil could be con-  verted in Australia into fatty acids, and that aspect would have to be considered. If the crude oil is used by the industry in the way stated by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson,</inline> then we should have a look at the position, and I give an undertaking that that will be done. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline>referred to the competition that coal is meeting from fuel oil. I should have thought that the Tariff Board had done what the coal industry requested it to do. Representatives of the coal industry gave evidence before the Tariff Board, seeking a reduction of the protection given to the oil refining industry in Australia. The argument was that if that protection were lowered the profits of the refineries would be reduced and, in order to maintain their profits, they would have to charge higher prices for crude oil. I would have thought that would suit the coal industry down to the ground. Certainly, the coal industry gave further evidence requesting the Tariff Board to take other steps, but I think that the board, quite rightly, said that the request of the industry was a matter which it could not take into account. The Tariff Board cannot do something for one Australian industry which will adversely affect another Australian industry. I think that to depart from that principle would be quite wrong. That the Tariff Board has reduced the protection granted to the oil refining industry in Australia does, in effect, meet that part of the coal industry&#39;s request which it was within its competence to meet. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1296</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ormonde</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The  position of  the  coal industry is still worsening. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1296</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>-  The industry will have to find some way to make coal more competitive, or its position will worsen still more. That is a position in which all industries find themselves. The mere fact that some other Australian industry comes into existence which is more acceptable to the public does not mean that it must be told that it cannot continue because it will affect some other industry. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1296</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ormonde</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The oil is imported. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1296</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>-  The refining of the crude oil is still part of an Australian industry. If the coal industry wants to be competitive it must set about getting some brains and show some ingenuity in order to compete with the  fuel  oil industry.  The  coal industry cannot expect the Tariff Board to take that particular aspect into account. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <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>CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADA PREFERENCE) BILL (No. 2) 1961</title>
        <page.no>1296</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1296</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Consideration resumed from 12th October (vide page 1063), on motion  by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henty</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para class="block">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 requests or debate. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CUSTOMS TARIFF (FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYAS ALAND PREFERENCE) BELL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1296</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1296</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Consideration resumed from 12th October (vide page 1064), on motion  by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henty</inline> - </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 requests or debate. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL (No. 2) 1961</title>
        <page.no>1296</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1296</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Consideration resumed from 12th October (vide page 1064), on motion  by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henty</inline> - </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 requests or debate. </para>
        <para>EXCISE TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1961. Second Reading. </para>
        <para>Consideration resumed from 12th October (vide page 1064), on motion  by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henty</inline> - </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 requests  or  debate. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BELL (No. 3) 1961</title>
        <page.no>1297</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1297</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Consideration resumed from 12th October (vide page 1064), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henty</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para class="block">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 requests or debate. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1961</title>
        <page.no>1297</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1297</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Consideration resumed from 12th October (vide page 1065), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henty</inline> - </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. </para>
        <para>In committee: </para>
        <para>The bill. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1297</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 rise on this occasion because of a reference in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Customs and Excise <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Henty)</inline> to a company which alone, it seems will derive the benefit of this bounty. Am I to understand that C.S.R. Chemicals Proprietary Limited is a subsidiary of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited? Can we be told something about that company? We understand that this bounty has produced benefits of the order of &#163;100,000 a year. I think the limit on the annual bounty payments up until 1964 under this bill is &#163;142,000. From the Minister&#39;s second-reading speech I understand that this chemical company sells its product to Courtaulds (Australia) Limited. That company appears to be the only purchaser. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I may have been remiss in not reading the report of the Tariff Board on this matter, but I should like to be given as much insight as possible into this industry and the justification for a bounty being paid to a particular company to produce a product that is manufactured into rayon yarn. I assume that that yarn has no connexion with the wool industry, but is associated with cotton. In my ignorance, may I ask for the information to which I have referred? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1297</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KOW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HENTY, Norman</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HENTY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The company referred to by the honorable senator - C.S.R. Chemicals Proprietary Limited - is owned 60 per cent, by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited and 40 per cent, by Distillers Limited. The bounty arrived at for this year is &#163;90,000. In fact, that relates to a profit of about 6 per cent, on the amount of capital invested. The flake produced is sold to Courtaulds (Australia) Limited which, in turn, makes a man-made fibre which is used by man-made fibre mills. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1297</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Although protection is being given to the firm of Courtaulds (Australia) Limited near Newcastle, that mill is not catching up in the employment field. About 400 people are still out of work there. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1297</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 of recent origin? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1297</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Yes. I wonder whether the Minister could explain why that is so. I know that those people could be out of work for other normal reasons, but if seems to me that the protective tariff is not having the effect of saving people from unemployment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1297</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KOW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HENTY, Norman</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HENTY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This bounty is provided to the company which makes the raw material for Courtaulds (Australia) Limited. Recently the Tariff Board presented a report on man-made fibres. I think that was after an emergency hearing. The duty was increased temporarily by 25 per cent. Prior to that the man-made fibre industry was in the doldrums. I would think that the industry has not yet picked up completely as a result of that increase. I understand from a number of mills that they have been assisted. As the industry picks up, the demand for the product of Courtaulds (Australia) Limited will increase, and con- . sequently the unemployment position will be steadily righted. </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>APPROPRIATION BILL 1961-62</title>
        <page.no>1298</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Reading</title>
          <page.no>1298</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> proposed - That the bill be now read a first time. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1298</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JTT</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DAVIDSON, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Senator DAVIDSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy President,</inline> in addressing myself to this motion I am very mindful of all the circumstances which surround me at this moment and of those that have given me this opportunity to speak in this chamber at this time. Later 1 wish to speak in detail about a matter which, though not specifically dealt with in this bill, has a very real and very distinct bearing upon the measure because it will affect Australia&#39;s progress in this financial year and the years beyond that. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Before turning to that matter, 1 should like to say one or two things, with your indulgence, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, because</inline> of the circumstances of my presence here. May I refer to my predecessor, the late <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearson,</inline> and endorse what has been said already in this place by way of tribute to him. JVlay I say how very much I appreciated his personal friendship and his co-operation in so many places and in so many ways, and how very much I admired his contribution to the national well-being. </para>
          <para>Secondly, I should like to acknowledge my special sense of honour at the opportunity which has been afforded me to sit in this Senate as the result of the decision of the joint sitting of the Houses of the South Australian Parliament. Being a senator is a very great privilege which I value. I trust that in these special circumstances I may be able to exercise the appropriate measure of responsibility and serve as a senator should. Senators have a very special opportunity to serve their nation in this place. At this time we renew our faith in the bicameral system which guarantees for the Australian community an opportunity for the review of legislation by a House in which there is special representation of the States. </para>
          <para>Honorable senators will be well aware of all of the arguments and qualifications in favour of a second chamber. I need not repeat them; but I emphasize that at all points of our history the arrangement which provides for a second opinion on legislation, and for a parity of representation between the States, should be maintained. The Senate is in that unique and responsible position. Apart from what 1 have said, it links together, in quite a wonderful way which is not achieved anywhere else, a group of political communities that work under a common form of government. It provides an opportunity for giving specialized service in that the fruits of mature minds, mature thinking and detailed examination can be given to the nation. </para>
          <para>I now turn my attention, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, to</inline> a matter which, in my view, is of distinct and splendid national importance and is also of great significance to South Australia, the State from which I come. I refer to the Chowilla water storage project which has received wide publicity, which is of great national importance and which will make a valuable contribution to our development in many ways. The Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies)</inline> proposes to convene a conference of representatives of the States of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia to consider the proposal that has been submitted for the establishment of a water storage at Chowilla in South Australia just across the border of Victoria and New South Wales. That storage will maintain a water system which will be of great value and importance. It is a visionary enterprise. If there is one dominant characteristic that underlines the development of the history of any country and particularly our own, it is this element of a struggle to develop, a struggle to create, a struggle to give leadership. This element of struggle in our own history has found expression and exerted its influence in many ways throughout the years. We find it at the beginning in our communications and transport systems. We find it in our industrial development from time to time and, because of our situation, we find it in our relations with other nations. But the basic struggle of all of these and of our life generally is associated with the life blood of any country, and particularly of ours. I am referring, of course, to water. </para>
          <para>Water is always topical, water is always urgent, and its provision, its storage, and its distribution are very much matters of moment and very much matters of struggle. Unfortunately, Australia is less favoured than most nations for water supplies, and if there is any one factor that has limited our development or limited us in any way, it is this position regarding water, lt is interesting to observe that one-third of Australia receives an average rainfall of less than ten inches a year. Some twothirds of this continent - and it is a continent of some considerable size - receives less than 15 inches of rain a year. More than half receives less than twenty inches of rain in a year. I think the average is about sixteen and a half inches, and compare it for a moment, if you will, with the world average of 26 inches, or compare it with the figure for the United States of America, in which country we have some special interest and which is comparable with us in terms of size. The United States of America has a rainfall of 29 inches a year. </para>
          <para>So the Government is at all times deeply involved in the problems of water supply. Many major projects are under way and many have characterized our national development. Honorable senators will be aware of them. But, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline> think it is timely at this point, under these circumstances, to make some reference to this magnificent project, the Chowilla storage project. It is timely that I refer to it to-day, because only within the last few days we have had an announcement by the Prime Minister of the plan that is projected and the details of the scheme which he proposes to initiate. He described it as a matter of wide national significance. 1 should like at this point, if 1 may, to give full marks to the Government for initiating the project. It is an example of the Commonwealth&#39;s continuing concern for the well-being and development of the nation. It is an example of the Commonwealth&#39;s responsible attitude towards its obligations under the River Murray Waters Act. It is timely because the Senate saw - I think yesterday probably for the first time in print - the complete report of the River Murray Commission. It is timely because of the importance of this matter to South Australia. I am sure that honorable senators will appreciate the reasons why I personally am interested in it. </para>
          <para>The report early directs attention to the approach made by the Premier of South Australia to the Prime Minister in May, 1960, suggesting that the proposal to build a major dam on the Murray should be referred to the River Murray Commission for consideration. The commission set up a committee to examine and report on a number of aspects of the proposed storage at Chowilla, and the South Australian Government undertook certain other examinations. During the course of its investigations, the committee examined the effect of additional storages and various other activities above the Hume reservoir, in order to determine whether benefits greater than those from Chowilla could be obtained for a comparable expenditure on an upper Murray storage, and a River Murray Commission storage operated under the terms of the present agreement. </para>
          <para>Obviously, a scheme of this magnitude and of this vision must be prepared with considerable care and with certain things in view. Any investigation of this kind is, of course, very complex. Among the matters that had to be taken into account were indications of present resources and likely future resources of the Murray River. This had to be related to a number of other things, including possible usage, possible demand, and probable needs. </para>
          <para>The commission worked the problem out, as I understand it, on the basis of a 51 -year period. It looked first at the circumstances during a period of that length from about 1905 onwards, and then related these to a similar period in the future, that is, a second period of 51 years. The commission made the assumption that, in general, the weather conditions that existed during the first period of 51 years might well be repeated in the second period. On this basis, it asserted that in the second period of 51 years there could be some fourteen seasons of what it calls restricted supply of Murray water. Now, in these periods of restricted supply the State ratio of water is worked out on a three, five and five basis, making a total of thirteen parts of available water, of which three-thirteenths goes to South Australia. </para>
          <para class="block">The total deficiency during those fourteen seasons of restricted supply is, in general terms, about 13,000,000 acre feet. This is, of course, without the Chowilla project but with the Chowilla project working as a three-State assignment under the direction of the River Murray Commission, the total deficiency during the 51-year period would be only 3,000^000 acre feet. </para>
          <para>I d&#39;d not want to over-simplify the position 6&#39;f to generalize tod much. Obviously, as honorable senators will know, there are very many mote details involved iri an examination df a scheme of this kind. I mention these broad &#39;facts and two figures to &#39;draw a contrast between the situation that occurs without the Chowilla scheme arid the benefits and improvements that could be maintained with the scheme in operation. </para>
          <para>Let us now consider some of the very good reasons for moving on with this project as soon as it is practicable. Very obviously-, South Australia is the State which stands to benefit very much under the proposals. A quick glance at the facts tells &#39;us the story. South Australia has an area of some 380,000 square failes. Some 80 per cent, of it is described as having ari arid climate and 9&#39;6 per cent, of it has ari average rainfall of less than 20 inches. Very obviously, this makes conditions extremely difficult arid water conservation becomes a major issue. The whole matter of collecting and conserving wafer and delivering it to a variety &#39;df places is most important. In South Australia the situation has been reached where, unless there is a substantial augmentation of water supplies by 1968 or 1970 a dangerous situation will develop and the whole progress of the State could be quite notably retarded. So Chowilla, as an Adelaide newspaper has stated, is big news for South Australia. </para>
          <para>The State has not sat back and waited for this kind of thing to be brought along. For many years it has sought to develop its water resources, especially so far as the Murray River is concerned. Honorable senators will know something of the nature 6f the country in the Murray River area of South Australia. They will know of the extensive irrigation areas and schemes in the region we call the upper Murray, and of the lands reclaimed and developed on the lower Murray. There is a pressing need for these areas to be developed. But beyond all this is the establishment in certain areas of industries that are dependent and have been dependent on the river Murray. The Morgan-Whyalla pipeline was established in the 1940&#39;s and is about to be doubled. The Mannum-Adelaide pipeline augments the metropolitan reservoirs to meet the growing needs of Adelaide. From all points in South Australia there comes this urgent cry for more water if the State is to advance. We are becoming more and more dependent in South Australia on storage facilities on the Murray. The South Australian Government has examined all manner of schemes with a view to augmenting the State&#39;s water supplies. For example, Teal Flat, with its high cliffs which would ensure considerable storage, was examined. A storage there would be a distinct benefit. </para>
          <para>When we consider the Chowilla project we should consider it from the viewpoint of a three-State project under &#39;the auspices of the River Murray Commission. We must look at this project not from the point of view of the gardens orchards or irrigation projects that it will provide, but as part of a vigorous pattern of progress. Adelaide, the capital of South Australia, is growing faster than most other cities in the Commonwealth, having regard to its location. According to town planning authorities, within a few years Adelaide&#39;s population will be 725,000. Even to-day the city is very dependent on water from the Murray River. Already large quantities of water are being pumped along the Mannum line to augment the metropolitan wa&#39;ter supplies. Adjacent to Adelaide and to the north is the new city of Elizabeth. I always think of Elizabeth iri terms of a news announcement by the Australian Broadcasting Commission when details of the recent census Were being given. The announcer was contrasting the populations of various places to-day and seven years ago. Elizabeth did not exist when the last census was taken but in June this year it had a population of 21,000. A few years from now it is expected to have a population of 44,000. The  chairman  of the State Housing Trust estimates that by 1976 Elizabeth will have a population of 88,000. I invite honorable senators to make a quick mental estimate of houses, homes, gardens and other amenities, but also of its industries that will be  so  dependent on supplementary water from the river Murray. 1 turn now to the Morgan-Whyalla pipeline, lt has been said that this pipeline made Whyalla, lt also saved and made possible the development of the areas through which it passes. Whyalla has grown so much that by the middle of this decade its population will exceed 24,000 people. In  the  course of time a steelworks costing between &#163;30,000,000 and &#163;50,000,000 will be established there. Whyalla could not exist in this so-called arid  area  without water from the Murray. Whyalla is as clean-cut and attractive a town as one  Would  wish to see. I visit Whyalla from time to time and on each occasion I renew my appreciation  of  the place and What has been done there with the aid of water from the river Murray. On the way to Whyalla is Port Augusta, also fed by the pipeline from the Murray. Port Augusta is at the top of Spencer&#39;s Gulf. It is a very important place, as we have heard in this chamber Only to-day. It is the base for the Commonwealth Railways. Port Augusta is planning for a population of 10,000 people in the next few years. All of those places to  Which  1 have referred, and others, could not contribute to the well-being of the State and the nation without this important commodity - water. The pipeline goes beyond Port Augusta  tor  a further 110 miles. It is part of the 9,000 miles of pipeline in South Australia. </para>
          <para>Let me refer to Woomera. I have been to Woomera many times. I have stayed in the homes there and I have seen something of the projects that are being undertaken there. I have had the opportunity of appreciating some of the magnificent schemes that are being put into operation at this extraordinary place. Although the Woomera rocket range is in South Australia, it is a joint Commonwealth and United Kingdom undertaking. It is of tremendous importance to the nation and, indeed, to the world at this point of time. Fed by the pipeline from the Murray, Woomera is able to develop and engage in experiments in some of the driest country in Australia. </para>
          <para>The Chowilla storage scheme is vital to South Australia. &#39;Chowilla is .not far from Renmark. The project is estimated to cost &#163;14,000,000. It has been described as the greatest single water conservation project in Australia. The scheme will utilize millions of .gallons of water that otherwise Would flow to the sea. The scheme will open up new areas for planting and growing and for industry. It will help to protect South Australia against the ravages of drought. </para>
          <para>I do not believe that the last word has been said on this subject. It is very easy to generalize and become enthusiastic about this project. This may not be the occasion to examine the project in detail, but I hope that by encouraging the Government to proceed with its developmental programme enough has been said to emphasize the importance, of the Chowilla dam to South Australia. South Australia&#39;s Very existence depends on obtaining more water. By 1988 or 1970 South Australia must have augmented its water supplies. I should like to think that enough has been said on this subject to stress the urgency of building the Chowilla dam as far as the CommonWealth is &#39;concerned. The Commonwealth, having demonstrated its concern for national development and national stability, has brought forward this scheme which will resound to its credit throughout the world. The Chowilla project will benefit Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. Chowilla is South Australia&#39;s best hope for development. In 1959 about 80 per cent, of the people of South Australia relied on water from the Murray. At this stage the report of the River Murray Commission has been presented and the Prime .Minister has written to the Premiers of the States concerned. The Commonwealth has undertaken to find one-quarter of the cost of the project. The Prime Minister has agreed to convene a conference of interested parties. I hope that -all honorable senators appreciate fully the issues involved. A project of this kind &#39;does not come to fruition overnight. A lot of work has to be done. Many things must be taken into account. All this will take time. Of necessity there must be a detailed and minute study of the proposals. I hope that an early .opportunity will be taken to carry this matter a stage further so that in due course the project, . which is of State and national importance, will be completed. </para>
          <para>I understand that the aboriginal meaning of &#34; chowilla &#34; is &#34; good hunting ground &#34;. 1 suppose that we in this country must always be a searching and a hunting  people.  I hope that we will use this new hunting ground for the ultimate stability of the State and the nation. </para>
          <para>As I said at the outset, the Chowilla project may not be referred to specifically in the measure before the Senate but I have taken the opportunity to indicate my support for it and for the bill itself. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1302</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>. -  May I offer my congratulations to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Davidson</inline> on his speech and on demonstrating himself to be a great South Australian with a vision of a great Australia. May I say with all the friendliness that I possess that I hope he becomes a greater Australian as he becomes a greater South Australian although I admire the loyalty that he shows to South Australia. Being a man of obvious intelligence, if he examines the problems confronting the world to-day he will see that they affect us as Australians and not as South Australians, Western Australians or Victorians. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I am always interested in a person&#39;s maiden speech. I remember my own maiden speech which, to use Lawson&#39;s words, is remembered now by few. The delivery of a maiden speech is a most amazing experience. I received my baptism, if one may use that term, following the 1949 general election. When delivering my speech I was waiting for the organized interjectors, the organized gangs that used to try to break up the meetings I addressed in 1949, the inevitable drunk, the tramcars, and the dogs that yelped at one&#39;s heels. When I heard none of them, it was indeed a strange experience. I have found, after a fairly long experience in politics, that this is one of the hardest places in which to speak. Therefore, I congratulate <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Davidson</inline> upon his contribution to this debate to-day. </para>
          <para>For various reasons, he may be here for only a brief time. Because anything can happen in this funny old world of politics, the honorable senator may not be here in the more distant future. No matter what happens to him, his lot will not be easy. Let him not think that it is made easy for young men; it is not. That is true on both sides of politics. In spite of all the heat that is engendered from time to time - there is a lot of it in the last week of a session - to be a member of the Parliament is an exhilarating experience. Although one is looked down on from time to time, one can do things in this place that could never be done in any other field of work. To be here is worth all the insults that are sometimes heaped upon one, both in this place and outside it. </para>
          <para>Having said that with a lot of sincerity, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy President,</inline> I wish to turn to one or two matters in which I have been interested for a long time. I find that over a period of twelve months a lot of little problems arise which one is not able to discuss at question-time or by adopting the unpopular method of rising following the motion for the adjournment at night - particularly if <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge</inline> is in charge of the business of the House. So one has to wait until such occasions as this to raise those matters. I am sure, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy President,</inline> that you will recall that I have risen on a number of occasions to discuss the matter of government tenders. This is a non-political matter; it affects every one of us. </para>
          <para>I have asked the Minister for Ai.&#34; <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Wade),</inline> who has been in the difficult position of having to relay my requests to the Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Freeth),</inline> for a clear picture of the position in relation to tendering for government contracts. There are always people in the community who say - sometimes, unfortunately, with justification and at other times without justification - that there is more in the letting of government contracts than meets the eye. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every Minister and every member of the Parliament to make sure that the Government is beyond reproach in the letting of contracts. For some time &#91; have been trying to get  ;i  clear understanding of the various kinds of tenders that are called for government contracts. Of course, there is the open form of tender whereby the party calling for tenders says: &#34; Here are the specifications. How much will you charge us to do the job? &#34; In such cases there is always the legal escape clause to the effect that the lowest tender will not necessarily be accepted. In an open tender that is a very obvious and very necessary provision to have. After all, somebody may tender for a difficult constructional job without having the necessary ability or potential to complete the task. </para>
          <para>Then there is another situation in which the department concerned invites people to register for tendering, if that is the correct term to use. The department examines the ability of those who register and then selects a tenderer. Again in that case there is the legal escape clause to the effect that the lowest tender will not necessarily be accepted. I feel that, after the department has called for tenders and has examined the financial position, the capacity and the equipment of the tenderers, having made provision for the legal escape clause, it has the responsibility, if it does not accept the lowest tender, to tell the public why it has not done so. It will be recalled that the honorable member for East Sydney <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Ward)</inline> has asked about the construction of a bank building and that the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies)</inline> himself has stepped into the picture to ascertain why the lowest tender was not accepted. </para>
          <para>The more I have tried to delve into this problem with the assistance of the Minister for Air the more confused I have become. The particular projects I have in mind are the building of the airport terminal in Perth, the construction of the runway, and more recently the extension of the runway. I am informed that the contract for the original runway was let to a selected tenderer, or whatever the correct term may be, but that since then the department has switched to the open form of tender. The contracts for the original runway, the extension to the runway and the building of the airport terminal have not been let to the lowest tenderer. </para>
          <para>If contracts are not let to the lowest tenderers as a matter of general principle, it is time that this Parliament - if the Department of the Interior or the Minister for the Interior will not do it - examined the principle very closely. If the capacity of two, four, eight, ten or twelve con tractors to do a certain job is examined and if all are found to be fit and proper people to compete in the race, then 1 think the contract should go to the lowest tenderer. I repeat that in regard to the contracts for the construction of the runway, the extension of the runway and the building of the airport terminal at Perth the department did not turn to the lowest tenderer. In regard to two of the contracts it turned to a particular tenderer and in regard to the third contract to somebody else. </para>
          <para>In all fairness, we must look at this matter. If six or eight contractors submit a tender for a particular project, there is fierce competition until 5 p.m. on the day on which tenders close. After that there is no need for secrecy. These people, who are associated in the building industry, can get together and one can say, &#34; My tender was such-and-such &#34;. There is then no point in the remaining tenderers concealing thenprice. So it is soon known who is the lowest tenderer. Therefore, within the industry it is expected that Jim Jones, say, will get the contract. If Jim Jones does not get the contract, obviously a reflection is cast upon his character, his business ability or his capacity to carry out the work. It may be thought that the department has him on its black list. Therefore, he is done an incalculable amount of harm. Every member of Parliament knows that that kind of thing happens because we mix with such people every day. They bring cases to us, and we mix with them in our everyday social life, particularly in the smaller States of Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia. Therefore, these matters become more or less common knowledge.  1  sought the assistance of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade</inline> in ascertaining the nature of the projects for which the departments used the open tender system, the selected tender system and the invitation method. I do not want to deal with the latter method because I understand that it is used only in relation to highly technical matters. I propose to refer to the first letter that I received from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade,</inline> who passed it on from the Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Freeth).</inline> The letter stated that after various examinations had been made, a tenderer who, I take it, was not really acceptable to the department, was asked whether he wished to continue with his tender. The Minister for the Interior, in a letter of 23rd August last, addressed to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade</inline> who was good enough to send it on to <inline font-style="italic">me,</inline> stated - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The preparation of a tender for a big job can be a costly procedure-^ - </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That is the reason I raised the matter -  and if a contractor clearly does not have the capacity for the job, he is given the opportunity of withdrawing. </para>
          <para class="block">I had raised that matter because, in relation to the tenders for the airport project, the Suburban Building Company Proprietary Limited of Perth had been asked, &#34; Do you wish to continue with the tender? &#34; The company had answered, &#34; Yes, we do &#34;. It took that question to mean, naturally enough, that as its tender was the lowest, the department wanted to be doubly sure that it would not back out but would stay in the field. It found out, afterwards, of course, that it was not in the race. As a matter of fact, the company was informed by the department one afternoon that no information concerning the contract could be given, but when the company officials switched on their television sets that night they saw a telecast of the contract being signed by another tenderer. If normal television procedures were observed, I take it that the film would have been made some hours before that. I do not know whether it Was a direct telecast, but I should imagine, from my experience, that it would not be. The point I want to emphasize and to which I direct the attention of the Minister is the statement that tenderers are given the opportunity to withdraw. </para>
          <para>I raised this matter with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade</inline> and postulated the thesis that rather than that being a warning, if is more in the nature of an invitation. In effect, it means: &#34; Are you going to stay in the field, because we require your services? You know, because of the grapevine that exists iti the industry, that you are the lowest tenderer.&#34; I have noticed, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy President,</inline> that towards the end of a sessional period Ministers are apt to become testy. I cannot understand why that is so. The Minister for Civil Aviation <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Paltridge)</inline> smiles when I say that. Despite his description of me last evening, I do not think he is the kind of person who gets testy. The </para>
          <para class="block">Minister for Works went on to say, in his letter to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade</inline> - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Although you gave <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline> a good and factual explanation of the registration method of calling for tenders, it seems that he would like some more precise information on the subject. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Isn&#39;t that delightful! A Minister holds a portfolio for a few months and thinks he should not even have to answer questions. He went on to deal with the suggestion I had made that if it was not proposed to use a person&#39;s services, he should be told so. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade&#39;s</inline> answer Was to the effect that this is a private enterprise government. That may be so. All I can say is that the Government could have fooled me. If that is the fact, it has certainly been concealed in some directions. </para>
          <para>The Minister stated that the Government would not prevent anybody from tendering. But What is the good of people tendering if they are not to be told that their tenders are unsuccessful? After all, a similar procedure is being followed by the departments every day. A person who applies for a job with a department may be told by an official: &#34; I am sorry. You have not the qualifications that are needed. We are not going to employ you.&#34; What is wrong with that? Frankness is surely an Australian characteristic. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade</inline> has said, in effect: &#34; Yes, we will let you tender. We will not stop you from doing so, but we are not going to give you the job, anyway.&#34; I think that that procedure is a complete negation of the small degree of belief in private enterprise that I see in the Government. </para>
          <para>Let me give a few excerpts from the letter written by the Minister for Works. He stated that tenderers should be treated with the utmost consideration. I agree with that, but I suggest that tenderers are not being treated in that way. I feel that there are factors which are not known to tenderers and which result in preference being given to persons or organizations whose tenders may well be the highest of those submitted. I have had it put to me that this is similar to the relationship between an employer and an employee, and that if the department Wants to employ somebody, why should I be worried about it. Surely, when the expenditure df &#163;40,000, &#163;50,000 of &#163;60,000 is involved, public interest comes into the picture. If a Minister says, &#34; I am going to spend some tens of thousands of pounds more than the amount of the lowest tender &#34;, he has a duty to answer to the Parliament and to the people for his action. </para>
          <para>Honorable senators will recall that I had objected to the fact that tenderers are not told that they are unacceptable to the department, but are merely asked, &#34; Do you wish to continue with your tender? &#34; The Minister for Works stated in his letter to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade</inline> - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The Department&#39;s procedure, after reviewing registered tenderers, is to call in doubtful tenderers and to tell them . . . </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That is a complete contradiction of the statement made in his first letter. I have been given permission to use the names of the two companies with which I am particularly concerned at the moment. They are Perron and Sons Proprietary Limited and the Suburban Building Company Proprietary Limited, building contractors, of Perth. Representatives of both companies were called to the department; they had the third degree applied to them, to the point of checking with their banks and being asked about the staff that they had, the kind of jobs they had done, and so on. In the case of Perron and Sons Proprietary Limited, there was no warning of any kind. I have checked on this matter. I got the people to come to my office the last time I was in Perth. I read the correspondence to them and said: &#34; I want a complete and unequivocal answer from you people. Were you warned in any way? &#34; The Perron people told me they had had no warning whatsoever. In the case of the Suburban Building Company Proprietary Limited, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Kelly,</inline> the gentleman concerned, told me, &#34; I was asked, Do you wish to continue with your contract? &#39; &#34; We see, therefore, a smattering of the statements used in the first letter to which I have referred. So much for the warning. I do not intend to discuss this matter in great detail in case I am accused of filibustering. Of course, if I do not speak at all I may be accused of laziness. I do not quite know what position to take in order to meet the wishes of the Government, so I am trying to strike the happy medium. </para>
          <para class="block">The Minister went on to say - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>However, and this is another most important point, there may be deciding factors in tenders which the department is unable to judge beforehand and which may still result in a lowest tender being passed over, even although the contractor had been accepted as satisfactory. In this regard, probably the most important debar is &#34;time required for completion &#34;. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">It seems to me that the position is that the department, with the approval of the Minister, lays down a set of conditions for tendering, but if somebody says, &#34; I have extra collateral and could finish this job quicker than any of my competitors &#34;, the department can say, &#34; Although this man is not the lowest tenderer, he could complete the job more quickly than the others, so we will give him the contract &#34;. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1305</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENNELLY, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Kennelly</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Would not that consideration be stated when tenders were called for? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>Senaor WILLESEE.- Not according to the letter from the Minister. If you asked me, as a sensible and a reasonable fellow, to say whether that should be stated, my answer would be &#34; Yes &#34;. If you asked me to quote an authority from the Minister to that effect, I should have to say that I could not produce it. I have read and reread the letters explaining this complicated procedure which seems to have grown up in relation to tendering. I repeat that, according to the Minister&#39;s letter, it seems that this extra-mural type of consideration has been brought into the matter. If somebody says, &#34; I can do the job quicker than those other guys &#34;, the department says, &#34; O K, Joe, the contract is yours &#34;. The Minister went on to say in his letter - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>As mentioned above, the Departmental procedure provides that tenderers considered unsuitable are made aware of the fact- </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">In these two cases they were not made aware of the fact -  and, I should think, the question &#34; Do you wish to continue with your tender &#34; would be limited to those tenderers accepted as satisfactory at the time of registration to see if they were still interested after the delay of the registration period. </para>
          <para class="block">I emphasize three words that occur in that rather long sentence. They are the words, &#34; I should think &#34;. The Minister should not say that he thinks something is so. He should know. He should be laying it on the line, so as to speak. He opens up the possibility of all sorts of wicked thoughts about this matter when he says, &#34; I should think&#34;. I repeat that he should know. </para>
          <para>In his first letter, he told me that that was the procedure. When I raised the matter, he agreed with me that that was the type of thing that would encourage persons to continue with their tenders rather than to drop them. But then he gave an amazing explanation of why he did not accept the tender submitted by Perron Brothers for the runway job. He said that the firm had worked before for the department and was unsatisfactory. Let me pause there to say that Perron Brothers has a perfect defence to that charge. I say that merely to protect the individuals concerned. This is not my business; this is a matter arising between Perron Brothers and the department, but I say on behalf of Perron Brothers that the firm has an answer to the charge made by the Minister which convinces me at least. </para>
          <para>But that is not the point. The point is that if Perron Brothers had done work for the department previously and was unsatisfactory, the firm should have been told when it submitted the second tender that it was regarded by the department as unsatisfactory and, therefore, would not be considered for the contract. That would have been the honest and the straightforward thing to do, but the department permitted the firm to submit a tender, pretended to check its credentials and then accepted it as a tenderer, knowing full well, even before the barrier strands were pulled up, that it would not be in the race. In the case of the Suburban Building Company, the department could not find even that excuse and said that it just did not think the company could finish the job on time. Somebody - either the Minister or an officer of the department - just did not like the cut of that company&#39;s jib, although I believe that I would have been able to do the job myself with a hammer and a chisel. It was an ordinary straightforward job. </para>
          <para>Nothing can be done for these firms now. The all-mighty Minister and the department have spoken, so these firms have been thrown out. I point out that in the case of the contract for the additional runway, for which tenders had to be in last week, the highest tender was accepted again. Surely this is a matter that will disturb any right-thinking person. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1306</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENNELLY, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Kennelly</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  In that case was the successful tenderer chosen from a list of selected tenderers? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1306</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. For some mysterious reason, the department did not adopt the system of selected tenderers for the additional runway job. That system was adopted for the construction job and, so the tenderers believed, for the original runway job, but a denial of that was issued on behalf of the department. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>When tenders other than the lowest tenders are accepted, Commonwealth departments are laid open to charges of graft and so on, although such charges could easily be avoided. As I have already said, if the department adopted the open tender system it could, if necessary, use an escape clause and not accept the lowest tender. But it has adopted the system of, so to speak, vetting the field and saying that certain people will be starters. If, under those, circumstances, the lowest tender is not accepted, there must be good and sufficient reason for that action. The reason for not accepting the lowest tender should be as clear as day. The people should be able to find out, if they want to do so, why the lowest tenderer did not get the contract. If a firm can enter the field and offer the department something extra - something not asked for in the contract - and if that offer influences the department in favour of that firm, that is completely unfair. The department should not allow another firm to step in and, by offering something extra, get a contract at a price above that quoted by other tenderers. That is a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs. If, after checking, tenderers are found to be unsatisfactory, the department should have the honesty and the courage to say to them: &#34; We do not think you have the type of business to meet our requirements. Therefore, tender as you may. we will not employ you. You are not satisfactory to us, the employer.&#34; Surely that is the normal procedure between employer and employee - between the department and a messenger or a telephonist, or between the department and a building contractor. </para>
          <para>There is another very serious aspect of this matter. A firm of builders or civil engineers, having submitted a tender for a certain project which it thinks will be successful, will price itself out of other jobs. It is the practice for firms to submit tenders for jobs, but deliberately to price themselves out of those jobs if they think they have another big job coming to them. </para>
          <para>I have been very patient in this matter, as I think <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade</inline> will agree. I have tried over a period of months to ascertain what was in the mind of the Minister for Works. As an ex-public servant, 1 could not understand why the department should adopt this attitude to people in business. It is their good name that keeps them in business. I rise to-day to protest against what is happening, even though the Minister for Works may have nothing more to say. It is a matter calling for strong protest when tenderers for government projects are treated in such a way that doubts arise in people&#39;s minds about what is, in fact, happening. As I have said, I realize that nothing can be done for the firms concerned. The money that they spent on submitting tenders has been lost. It was money that was expended by them unnecessarily because they were never in the race. The department put them on a black list before the race started. I raise this matter again now, not in the interests of people who, by submitting tenders for government contracts, put their names in public pawn, so to speak. I raise the matter now, no: because I believe that those people will get anything out of it, but so that the position can be cleared up and so that another government department will not go into the shadows into which this department is being forced. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1307</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 intervene in the debate at short notice only because I misjudged the length of the list of speakers. I want to raise two matters for the information of the Senate. Not realizing that this debate would provide me with an opportunity to do so, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline> rather tested your patience earlier this afternoon by dragging in the first of the subjects that I want to raise. I dragged it in then by the hind leg, not realizing that I could deal with it more regularly later. 1 ask the Minister to indicate to the AuditorGeneral that the Parliament is increasingly concerned that his reports shall be clear and complete. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Earlier this afternoon I referred to the Supplementary Report of the AuditorGeneral which was tabled in this chamber only this morning. The committee had dealt with the estimates of the Department of the Interior so I made only passing reference to this matter. The AuditorGeneral has contented himself by stating in paragraph 8 of his report on page 8, under the heading &#34; Transport Section, Canberra &#34;- </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The financial statements, which have since been examined, disclose the following operational results of the Transport Undertaking for the 52 weeks ended 11th June, 1961. Figures for the comparable period for 1959-60 are shown in brackets. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">There then appears a table which, with the concurrence of honorable senators, I shall incorporate in &#34; Hansard &#34;. It is as follows: - </para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="020232196110195_44_0.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para class="block">It will be noticed that under the heading &#34; Omnibus &#34; the earnings for the present year are shown as &#163;239,609. That is a misstatement - an untrue statement. It is contrary to the true substance of the fact. The matter is more serious in view of the fact that it has been the subject of considerable discussion. If the Senate will bear with me 1 shall remind it of the 50th and 52nd reports of the Public Accounts Committee, presented on 8th November, 1960. At page 37, where the transport section of the Department of the Interior is examined, reference is made to the question of including the subsidy of &#163;62,000 under the heading &#34; Earnings &#34;. </para>
          <para>I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate by reading the full report. The committee&#39;s report on this section occupies two printed pages. However, as I read that report, it indicates that it was the clear claim of the Treasury and the Audit Branch that to describe the sum of &#163;60,000, which was a subsidy, as a component of &#39;&#34; Earnings&#34; was wrong; it was a mis-description of the term subsidy. Although I am bound to say, with .great respect, that I find some ambiguity in the report df the Public Accounts Committee, it does show clearly that the committee took the view that a subsidy should not be described as &#34; Earnings &#34;. I find it completely incomprehensible that in 1961 the AuditorGeneral, upon whom we rely to such a degree, should present a document to Parliament which includes a subsidy of &#163;60,000 under the description of earnings, with only one indicator ito attract our attention. That indicator is an asterisk which points us to an item in exceedingly small type at the bottom of the table. The item reads - </para>
          <para>Includes subsidy of &#163;60,000 charged to Division- </para>
          <para class="block">I have looked .at this three times to-day and I am not sure now whether I am reading it correctly. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1308</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WEDGWOOD, Ivy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wedgwood</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Your understanding is not roo good .to-day. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1308</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>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> what a compliment is implied in that word &#34; to-day &#34;! In minute type is this item - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>Includes subsidy of &#163;60,000 charged to Division 766/4/23. (&#163;62,000 &#39;in 4959-60.) </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1308</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>-  Do they show &#39;a normal financial statement such as the equivalent of a trading account, profitandloss account and balance-sheet? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1308</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>-  As I read the report of the Public Accounts &#39;Committee, the transport section accounts were set out in the form of a profit-and-loss statement which should show earnings and expenditure. I think that the statement of accounts that the Auditor-General has put before the Parliament is wanting in material respects. A statement of that sort, even with an asterisk indicating in small type a matter which in itself is not clear, could be construed as false, and has been so construed by the courts. In celebrated cases the courts have never made any equivocation about the fact that you must read a statement in its substantial effect. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>In a case in 1900 some fraudulent promoters informed &#39;the court they had set out their interim profits in subordinate or minute type such as the one to which I have referred. They said, in effect, &#34; If you had read our statement more carefully you would have seen that we .had &#39;referred to interim profits &#34;. The .court ruled that it did not lie -in .their .mouths to say that the ordinary reader did not suspect .them sufficiently. Then there is the more recent case of Lord Kylsant. He put forward a statement of accounts of the White Star Line. He showed a profit for the .year of, let us say, &#163;2,000,000, but omitted to state that a substantial part of it - &#39;let us say, &#163;500,000 - was obtained , oy drawing on past reserves. Even though every statement in the printed document was true in fact, yet it was considered, .in verity, not to be true in substance. I have said sufficient to indicate my bitter disappointment that after this .matter has been discussed by the Public Accounts Committee, as it has .been, we receive a report in those .terms from .the AuditorGeneral. </para>
          <para>The only other matter to &#39;which I wish to refer, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy President,</inline> is one that I have mentioned on previous occasions in the course of budgetary discussions; namely, the anxiety that I felt because the maintenance of income tax rates at constant rates on inflationary incomes has the indirect consequence of taking a greater degree of people&#39;s earnings by way &#39;of taxation than was expressed in the original rates. I think it would !be -satisfactory for me to state to the Senate that I have had examined the various groups of income taxpayers over the years from 1950-51 to 1958-9. During that period :the &#39;mean actual income increased from &#163;705 to &#163;984 and the mean taxable income increased from .&#163;59.1 to &#163;777. It will be seen that the increase is not as large as I expected. </para>
          <para>I am informed by the Taxation Branch that the tax on a mean actual income of &#163;705 and a mean taxable income of &#163;591 in the income year 1950-51 was &#163;50 5s. The tax on a mean actual income of &#163;984 and a mean taxable income of &#163;777 in the income year 1958-59 was &#163;65 19s. In 1950-51 the tax represented 8.2 per cent, of the mean actual income. In 1958-59 the tax represented 8.41 per cent, of the mean actual income. So, I state - I hope to the interest of the Senate - to my satisfaction and the allaying of my anxiety in this respect, that those figures show that the increasing proportion is not of any significant dimensions. </para>
          <para>I have followed the explanation of that through because it is. satisfactory for me to be reminded that in 1953-54 there was an overall reduction of 12i per cent, in the income tax rate and in 1954-55 there was an overall reduction of 9 per cent, in the income, tax rate. So, I find that I have been able to resolve with that degree of satisfaction the anxiety that has pursued me for quite a few years. I have ascertained that the rate of income tax on the present inflated incomes in the total exaction is not as disproportionate to the rate that prevailed at the commencement of that period as I expected. I wished to take the opportunity to state those two matters which are of real interest to me and, in my opinion, of real importance in an assessment of budgetary factors in this country. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1309</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 - In a debate of this nature, when the expenditure and the accounts of the Commonwealth are under review, it is natural to expect criticism to be directed at the departments and officers who, in the view of the honorable senator addressing himself to this subject, should be criticized. I listened in stunned silence an|d with patience to my colleague, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright,</inline> who directed criticism at the AuditorGeneral and the preparation of the report which he presented to the Parliament as, may I emphasize, the Parliament&#39;s officer. I would be the last to stifle criticism, but when criticism runs to terms such as &#34; a misstatement &#34;. &#34; untrue &#34; and &#34; false &#34;, as applied to the Auditor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, I rise to express my emphatic protest. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>It has been my pleasure, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy President,</inline> especially as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to work with the Auditor-General and his staff. As a Minister, I consistently have business and dealings with the Auditor-General. I repeat that to apply words such as &#34; false &#34; and &#34; untrue &#34; to a report which that officer has presented to this Parliament is completely inappropriate, to say the least. 1 come to the particular paragraph which gave rise to this, criticism. It occurs at page 8 of the report of the Auditor-General. That report sets forth in a table the revenue of the Department of the Interior. The first classification is earnings, opposite which the report states an amount of &#163;239,609 under the heading &#34;Omnibus&#34;. That amount is asterisked. It is asterisked for the purpose of permitting the AuditorGeneral to direct the attention of the Parliament to the fact that although that amount is included as earnings, he is taking the trouble to direct our attention, to the fact that it is a subsidy. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1309</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KSS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MATTNER, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mattner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That it includes a a subsidy. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1309</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZY</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, that it includes a subsidy. Is that a subject for criticism of the Auditor-General after he has gone to some considerable trouble to direct the attention of the Parliament to that fact? <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> referred - what relevance it has I do not know - to the Lord Kylsant case in which there was an overt action. By that comparison, no doubt, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> sought to criticize the Auditor-General in the same way  as  Lord Kylsant earned criticism and worse. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy President,</inline>I finish the way I commenced. Any member of the Parliament is entitled to comment on and criticize the accounts and officers of this Parliament at the appropriate time. But it is a matter of degree. We have all heard <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> speak on many subjects. I suggest that on this occasion not one honorable member of the two Houses would join with him when he applies a criticism to the Auditor-General in terms such as he has used to-day. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read  a  first time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1309</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1309</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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  bill be now read  a  second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The purpose of this measure is to appropriate from revenue amounts which  are  required to meet expenditure  on the  ordinary  services of  departments. </para>
          <para>The bill provides  for the  appropriation of  &#163;459,687,000  for  the  services of the  year 1961-62. An assessment of &#163;275,970,000 has already been granted under the Supply Act 1961-62 so that the total estimated expenditure from annual appropriations for ordinary services during 1961-62 is &#163;735,657,000. The amounts for the several departments are shown in the second schedule to the bill. The expenditure proposals of the Government were outlined in the Budget Speech and the committee work on the amounts now included in this bill has already been dealt with under the new procedure whereby the Senate in committee has considered the Estimates and has &#34; taken note &#34; of the proposed expenditures. </para>
          <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>APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1310</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1310</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1310</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 bill be <inline font-style="italic">now</inline> read a  second  time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>The provision in the 1961-62 estimates of expenditure for capital works and services is &#163;152,038,000, comprising &#163;146,238,000 from annual appropriations and &#163;5,800,000 from special appropriations. </para>
          <para>This bill in conjunction with the Supply (Works and Services) Act 1961-62 will provide the parliamentary appropriation for expenditure on - </para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="020232196110195_47_0.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>Details of the proposed expenditure are given on pages 236 to 252 of the printed Estimates, in the schedule to the present bill and in the document &#34;Civil Works </para>
          <para class="block">Programme 1961-62 &#34;, which was made available to honorable senators with the Budget on 15th August, 1961. </para>
          <para>The amounts included in the bill have already been examined in detail by the Senate in its consideration of the Estimates. </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>
          <para class="block">Sitting suspended from  5.32  to  8  p.m. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1310</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1310</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 17th October (vide page 1147), 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>1310</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYY</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;FLAHERTY, Sidney</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;FLAHERTY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The bill authorizes the raising of loan moneys for housing purposes. The Opposition does not oppose the bill and I have nothing further to say on it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1310</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>- I wish to pass a few remarks on this bill, particularly in relation to theamount allocated to Queensland. In his secondreading speech the Minister for National Development <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Spooner)</inline> said that the allocation to the States of the &#163;42,900,000 of loan moneys to be raised for housing purposes had been made in accordance with the requests of the States and with the approval of the Australian Loan Council. Under this bill Queensland is to get &#163;3,300,000. If that amount was fixed at the request of Queensland, the Queensland Government was very remiss. I am amazed that the Queensland Government, in view of the plight of the timber industry in that State, the unemployment situation and the tremendous demands for homes, should have requested only &#163;3,300,000. The timber industry in Queensland is in the doldrums. North of Townsville plywood mills have closed Many saw-mills have closed and others are working part-time. In all about 1,500 timber workers are out of work. Most homes in Queensland are built of timber A greater allocation of money to Queensland would have meant a great deal to the people seeking homes there. There has been a decline in the number of houses and flats built in Queensland. If extra finance had been provided to Queensland it would have revitalized the timber industry. 1 would like the Minister to say why the allocation to Queensland is so small, particularly in view of the fact that he was perturbed some months ago when it appeared likely that 100,000 houses and fiats would be erected in the course of the year. He said that the target should be 80,000.  His  view could be understood if there were a shortage of man-power and materials, but in fact there is a surplus of materials and there is certainly no shortage of man-power in Queensland for building houses. I ask why Queensland has received such a miserable allocation under this bill. Was the allocation made at the request of the Queensland Government or did the Queensland Government accept the allocation under duress from the Commonwealth? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1311</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7A</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Vice-President of the Executive Council and 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>. - in reply - As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dittmer</inline> should be aware, it is for the States themselves to decide what proportion of the total amount provided under this bill will be allocated to them. In its wisdom Queensland requested &#163;3,300,000 this year. From recollection that is a greater amount than was allocated to Queensland last year. I am sure that the Queensland Government knows its own business best. It knows what is the right thing to do. I suggest that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dittmer</inline> has got this matter somewhat out of perspective. The extent of housing under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement is comparatively small compared with the total extent of housing in each State. I think that houses built under the agreement represent less than 10 per cent, of the total number of houses built in each State. The problem for any government, if it aims to stimulate housing and the use of timber, is not so much to increase the level of government housing as to do what it can to introduce or attract greater private investment in housing. That has been done in Queensland, because the level of house building there in recent months has shown an improvement on the position that obtained earlier in the year. </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>QUARANTINE BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1311</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1311</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 18th October (vide page 1198), 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>1311</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>.- The Opposition approves of this bill because it remedies an irregularity that has been in existence for many years. The dilatory approach of the Government is revealed in the fact that it has permitted this irregularity to continue for so many years without legalizing the position. Under the act examinations must be made on board the vessel or aircraft concerned, but in fact they have been made in nearby buildings. This bill merely serves to legitimize that practice. The Quarantine Act first came into being in 1908. It was amended on six occasions and consolidated in 1950. The bill now before the Senate seeks to amend the act further. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I commend the efforts of those persons who have been associated with preventing the entry of disease into Australia. They have been particularly concerned with such diseases as smallpox, cholera and plague typhus. They have not had to worry much about yellow fever. But the authorities have been remiss insofar as plant quarantine is concerned. Quarantine involves humans, animals and plants. Speaking of animals, many of the pests that now plague us have been brought into this country in breach of the quarantine regulations. Insofar as diseases affecting the human race are concerned, the authorities have shown a measure of real efficiency. For their efforts in this regard they are to be commended. But it is disturbing to know that the forests of Tasmania are being rapidly destroyed because of the ravages of the sirex wasp, which has been imported into this country. Prefabricated houses imported into Queensland have been found to have been infested with borer. Eradication of the borer has been a costly business. The authorities have been remiss in allowing these pests to enter Australia. There does not seem to be any solution to the problem confronting the </para>
          <para class="block">Tasmanian forests because the infestation is spreading rapidly. It is tragic to see the number of dead trees in Tasmania. Those trees represent timber that could have meant a great deal not only to Tasmania but to Australia generally. </para>
          <para>Section 70 of the principal act is to be amended by omitting sub-sections (1.) and (2.) and inserting in their stead new subsections. I note that the provision requiring any person on board a vessel to submit to a prescribed examination has been deleted.I ask the Minister whether there is provision elsewhere for compulsory submission to an examination. </para>
          <para>I noticed also that only in a few cases is imprisonment prescribed as a penalty. In most cases the penalty is a fine of &#163;20, &#163;50 or up to &#163;500. I think only in relation to three offences, more particularly an offence involving a measure of corruption in relation to the issue of a certificate or a fraudulent practice to permit people to breach the quarantine regulations, is a penalty of imprisonment prescribed. I cannot understand why the penalties are not more severe. </para>
          <para>I compliment the Government upon having introduced this measure, even though it has been dilatory and should have introduced it years ago. At least it is now seeking to regularize something that has been carried on for very many years. When all is said and done, if a sinner repents I suppose he is entitled to a measure of grace and commendation. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1312</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KOW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HENTY, Norman</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HENTY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - in reply - Because of his qualifications, it is interesting to note that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dittmer</inline> supports the bill. Having had his support, I am satisfied that the bill must be a good one. I disregard the last part of his comments. If one wished to play party politics, one could speak about the time when the Sirex wasp entered Tasmania, and during whose regime. But I do not intend to do that. In reply to the honorable senator&#39;s question about section 70 of the act, I point out that the relevant provision has been included in proposed new section 72. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <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>POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1312</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1312</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 18th October (vide page 1199), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wade-</inline></para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1312</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 does not oppose the measure. An Opposition senator who is eager to make a few observations is not present in the chamber at the moment. I am wondering whether the Minister for Air <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Wade),</inline> who is in charge of the bill, would consent to my having leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. We could then adjourn the debate until a later hour of the day. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1312</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAF</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wade</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I shall agree to that course being followed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1312</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 ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Leave granted; debate adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>BEACHES, FISHING GROUNDS AND SEA ROUTES PROTECTION BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1312</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1312</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed (vide page 1271). </para>
        <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1312</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPI</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KENDALL, Roy</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KENDALL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This measure is closely allied to the Lighthouses Bill 1961, which we will be debating later. My reason for rising to speak is not to talk about beaches, fishing grounds, sea routes or protection. I desire to refer to what in my opinion is the underhand method that has been adopted by the Minister for Shipping and Transport <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Opperman)</inline> in relation to the subject-matter of the bill. For twelve years, ever since I became a member of the Senate, I have more or less been waging war against the Department of Shipping and Transport and the Minister of the day, starting with the late <inline font-weight="bold">Senator George</inline> McLeay, who thoroughly agreed with what I was trying to do - that is, to preserve intact the appointment of technical officers to the positions of Director of Navigation and  Deputy  Director of Navigation. Since 1914 technical men, in the vast majority of cases, have occupied these positions with distinction. Only nineteen such persons are affected. Various Ministers and heads of departments seem to think they can do what they like. A previous head of the Department of Shipping and Transport tried to do away with the terms &#34; Director &#34; and &#34;  Deputy  Director &#34; and to substitute the term &#34; Regional Directors &#34;. He was very smartly rapped over the knuckles by the Public Service Board and told he could not do that. So that little attempt was squashed. About six months ago an attempt was made to appoint a non-technical officer as  Deputy  Director of Navigation in Adelaide. That matter is still in abeyance. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The Minister for Civil Aviation <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Paltridge),</inline> when explaining the bill, said in effect that it was chicken feed; he said that it was a small machinery bill which was of no great consequence to anybody. We have been told many times that Cabinet Ministers come out of the Cabinet room speaking with one voice. If that is the case, then the Minister for Shipping and Transport must have said exactly the same to the rest of the Cabinet as he said to me and other members of my party. He said that this was only a small bill. It is not a small bill; it has very far-reaching effects. In his secondreading speech, the Minister for Civil Aviation said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Existing references in some of the legislation administered by the Department of Shipping and Transport to &#34;the Director&#34; and &#34;Deputy Director &#34; refer to officers who hold Public Service offices within that department. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That, of course, is quite true. He continued - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>These specific Public Service titles must be retained as long as the references are in existence in order that they may have significance. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Of course they must be retained. If we are to have a director of navigation and a deputy director of navigation, how are they to be described? They must naturally be referred to as the Director of Navigation and the Deputy Director of Navigation. </para>
          <para>Quite obviously the present Minister for Shipping and Transport has agreed with the head of the department in spite of the action of previous Ministers in holding this matter in abeyance. The late <inline font-weight="bold">Senator George</inline> McLeay promised that as long as he was the appropriate Minister he would not make any such alteration to the legislation. The Minister, in his secondreading speech, then said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>However, the effect of such retention is undesirable because it hampers the processes of review and improvement in the departmental organization and procedures. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Why does it? Surely it is not proposed to do away with our technical officers altogether. Surely it is not proposed to appoint to these positions persons who have served in the office for twenty years as a clerk. I admit that there are many good clerks; 1 am not casting any reflection on them. But such officers are not eminently suited to occupying the position of Director of Navigation or  Deputy  Director of Navigation. They are specialist jobs. Very many years of experience are necessary before one is even in the position to apply for the position of surveyor, examiner of masters and mates, or principal examiner of masters and mates. It takes eight or nine years to get even an ordinary master&#39;s certificate. Then one needs to take another two or three years at university to qualify as an extra master. So a man is well on towards 26, 27 or 28 years of age before he qualifies as an extra master. He intends to try to obtain a position as examiner or surveyor and to rise eventually to the position of Director of Navigation, by way of the position of Deputy-Director in one or other of the States. If it is proposed to take away those top positions there will be nobody from the merchant service applying for positions with the department, because if only the junior appointments are open to men from the merchant service it will not be worth the money and the work that is involved in qualifying. So, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline> object very strongly to the proposal to do away with the titles of &#34; Director of Navigation &#34; and &#34; Deputy-Director of Navigation &#34;. </para>
          <para>I should have thought a lot more of the Minister if he had come straight out and said: &#34;Look, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall,</inline> we are going to try to do away with these people. This is the first step. We are going to take away their titles and to substitute still more non-technical officers between the Minister and the men doing the actual job.&#34; I have pointed out these matters to the Minister, and naturally, he has not agreed with my suggestions. As I have said, I should have taken to the proposal a lot more kindly if he had said: &#34; We are going to do this thing. I will refer to it in my second-reading speech &#34; - instead of just slipping it in and saying that this is merely a machinery bill which does not amount to anything. In my opinion, it amounts to a lot. </para>
          <para>All that I can do is to object. 1 cannot even vote against the bill because I would be the only one and could not even call for a division. Nevertheless, I direct the attention of the Senate with very deep feeling indeed to the fact that these nineteen men are to be penalized because the department has approached the Minister and said that it would be a good idea to do this. Possibly, the Minister is not very well versed in this subject which has been outside his ken throughout his life, instead of being part and parcel of it, as it has been of mine and of the men for whom I speak. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1314</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 have listened to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall&#39;s</inline> remarks, not merely as a perfunctory exercise, but in an attempt to understand his submission. We know of his special experience in these matters. I have not considered the bill in detail, but I know that the substance of it is to convert the terms &#34; director &#34; and &#34;  deputy  director &#34;, wherever they occur in the act, to &#34;Minister&#34; or &#34;prescribed officer&#34;. The amendment will enable those who make regulations under the act to prescribe officers to exercise the functions which now belong to the Director and DeputyDirectors of Navigation. I should like the Minister to know that 1 am interested in the argument advanced by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall.</inline> I want to be assured that the bill has not been introduced for the purpose of processing, so to speak, these professional, specialist officers, through the ordinary graduations of the Public Service. Anybody who understands even remotely the responsibilities involved in sea navigation around our shores, and the responsibilities of the Director and DeputyDirector of Navigation, ought to be a little careful before he allows functions which belong to those persons to be transferred to officers of no special experience in navigation. 1 am sorry that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall</inline> should have made his submission on the under standing that at the end of the debate he would be the only one to oppose the motion for the second reading. I say that, with no implication as to how my vote will go. I say it in the hope that the debate will help the Senate to come toa proper conclusion on this issue. We have the authority of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall</inline> that the proposed change is most important from the viewpoint of efficiency in Australian navigation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1314</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 think I should say at once that the implication contained in <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall&#39;s</inline> remarks, that the purpose of the measure is to enable a Minister to get something done by back door methods, is without foundation. The second-reading speech, which was necessarily brief described the purpose of the bill. I can say to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall,</inline> on the advice that has been tendered to me, that the nineteen men to whom he has referred are not to be made the butt of any ministerial action because of the passage of this legislation. As the second-reading speech has explained, the purpose of the bill is to abolish the titles of director and  deputy  director because those titles have had an inhibiting effect on the administration of the department. But because those titles are being abolished, that does not mean that these men of special experience and qualifications are to be disadvantaged in any way. As has been explained, this is a machinery measure, its object being to assist in the better and more efficient administration of the department, so that no inhibitions will flow from the fact that a title is ascribed to an office rather than to an appointment made by the Minister. As I understand the position, these men will remain as nautical advisers in every sense. The bill does not seek to disadvantage them at all. </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>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1314</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPI</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KENDALL, Roy</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KENDALL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I accept the explanation of the Minister that the measure has not been introduced in an underhand manner. However, if it is true, as the Minister says, that the proposed change will not make any difference to the officers 1 have mentioned, and that they are merely to be called by other names, why take away the obvious titles of Director and  Deputy  Director of Navigation? After all, that is what they are. They direct navigation. They do not do anything else. When <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. McFadyen</inline> was head of the department, he tried to change the title to &#34; regional director &#34;, but the Public Service Board ordered him not to do so. Is the Public Service Board now going to permit something that it disallowed before? That is the question I now put to the Minister. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1315</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 apply to the debate at the committee stage the remarks that he made during the second-reading debate. Will he state five or six of the duties of the Director and Deputy Directors of Navigation which, if this bill is approved in its present form, will in future be those of the Minister or of any officer designated under the regulations? It may be an officer with navigational experience or it may be an officer with no navigational experience. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1315</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENDALL, Roy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Kendall</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is the point. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1315</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. We will be vigilant when the regulations are issued. However, the protection will not be wholly there, because the Minister will be able to exercise his right. I should like to be told what six of the most prominent duties of these directors and deputy directors will be exercised by the Minister or by any officers prescribed after the bill has been approved. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I ask the Minister whether the objection that has been raised would be met by providing that an officer designated under the regulations must have the qualifications that would be required before an officer would be considered fit for appointment to the present position of director or deputy director. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1315</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>. -  Clause 3 proposes an amendment of section 4 of the principal act. That section, as I under stand, relates only to vessels not being sunk without permission. Sub-section (7.) of the section states -  in this section &#34; the director &#34; means the Director of Navigation and includes the Deputy Director of Navigation for a State. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">I take it that any references to the Director of Navigation that are affected by this bill will relate to the function mentioned in section 4, and that the bill does not propose the abolition of the offices of Director of Navigation or Deputy Director of Navigation. The alteration of the titles is, I assume, solely for the purposes of the function specified in section 4. 1 should like the Minister to confirm or contradict what I have said on that point. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1315</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZY</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Paltridge</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  It is confirmed that there will be no abolition of the actual duties. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1315</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>-  There will be no abolition of the offices of Director of Navigation or Deputy Director of Navigation. The reference to those offices in section 4 is to be deleted for the purposes of that section only. I take it that this bill will not involve any review of the Navigation Branch and that the proposed alteration will apply only to the officers who give permission for the sinking of a vessel. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I should also like the Minister, if he can do so, to make a brief reference to the report of the Public Service Board. In the second-reading speech there was a reference to &#34; a Public Service review of the organization of the department &#34;. Can the Minister tell the committee briefly the import of that in relation to the matter raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall?</inline></para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1315</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 Public Service Board, as a result of a review of the activities, functions and administration of this department, has, despite what was said some years ago, on this occasion itself suggested this alteration, for the purposes explained in my secondreading speech. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1315</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>-  Should not the Public Service Board direct rather than suggest? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1315</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZY</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The board can direct, but on this occasion, after consultation with officers of the department,  the  board suggested rather than directed. There was really no need to direct. There was a consultation with a view to improving the working and the administration of the department. Subsequently, this alteration was suggested by the board and accepted quite willingly by the department. The alteration will have specific and exclusive reference to section 4 of the act. It will have, no effect on the office, or duties of the Director of Navigation. This is an alteration of name only. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1316</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPI</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KENDALL, Roy</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KENDALL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The Minister and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McKenna</inline> have agreed that this alteration will apply only in relation to a function specified in one section of the principal act. I point out that within the next few minutes we shall be considering another bill, which will propose a similar alteration. Who can say  when  these alterations will stop? Let me make a suggestion, arising from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright&#39;s</inline> remarks. One easy way to ensure that only a technical officer would perform this function would be to insist on the officer holding an extra master&#39;s certificate, without which he would not even get into the department, </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>LIGHTHOUSES BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1316</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1316</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed (vide page 1272). </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1316</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPI</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KENDALL, Roy</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KENDALL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This is another bill which proposes that the titles of Director of Navigation and  Deputy  Director of Navigation shall not be used in certain circumstances. This is the second bill to make provision for that. Tomorrow there could be another bill, and before we knew where we were the titles of Director of Navigation and  Deputy  Director of Navigation would be abolished completely. If the titles are taken away, it does not matter very much what we do after that. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Frankly, I cannot understand why anybody in his senses should want to avoid the use of a title which has been used since the days of John King Davis, who is well known in this chamber for his work and who was. the first Director of Navigation in this country. In 1920 the Right Honorable William Morris Hughes made a statement in the House of Representatives to the effect that the people of Australia desired that the Australian navigation laws should be administered by technical officers and that those officers should be known as directors and  deputy  directors of navigation. I have read that statement in &#34; Hansard &#34; and I have directed the attention of the Minister to it in one of the letters that I have written to him. </para>
          <para>I want to say only one other thing. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> apparently suggested that I was wrong in supposing that I would get no support in this matter. I was not wrong in supposing that because, without revealing any confidential matters, I can say that 1 took this matter up in our party room and I had only one supporter, and he did not know much about it. Nobody else bothered to try and help me in my argument. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1316</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 do not know what prompted <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall</inline> to allow that last remark to fall from his lips.I rise to. speak on this bill to express my interest in the concern which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall</inline> feels in a matter which obviously  is  his speciality. I think that the Senate should pay regard to an argument that comes from that special experience. I have looked at this Lighthouses Bill and I see nothing in it.. I see in it no provision for the substitution of the term &#34;  deputy  director &#34; and &#34; director of navigation &#34; with the term &#34; prescribed officer &#34;. I should like the Minister for Civil aviation <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Paltridge),</inline> in his reply to direct his attention to that matter. If something has escaped my understanding, I wish to be informed of the true intention and purpose of the bill </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1316</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia Minister for Civil Aviation</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <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 think <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has stated the  position  correctly. The only reference to a prescribed officer  is  in clause 3. He is an  officer  to whom a report of damage to a lighthouse is to be made. There is no question of any professional function being exercised by a prescribed officer. </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>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1317</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSS</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MATTNER, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MATTNER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I should like the Minister for Civil Aviation <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Paltridge)</inline> to offer some explanation of what he has said in his second-reading speech. He said that the bill had been introduced because as long as references to officers who hold Public Service offices remain in legislation administered by the Department of Shipping and Transport it is necessary, in order to give meaning to them, that the specific Public Service titles be retained, and this has the undesirable effect of hampering the process of review and improvement in the departmental organization and procedures.  1  take it that the person who holds this office would need to have special qualifications. Does this bill mean that to suit the convenience of the Public Service Board, or whoever administers this matter, it is not necessary to have these particular qualifications? It appears to me that any person, simply because he meets with the approval of the department, can be appointed to this specialized job. It seems that, in effect, the Government intends to abolish the qualifications which are necessary for these offices. In my opinion this bill sets out to do that. I ask the Minister: Does the bill protect the office itself and ensure that the person who fills it will have the necessary qualifications? If the Minister can satisfy me on that, I will support the bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1317</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 am sure that I can satisfy <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mattner</inline> at once. The question of qualifications doss not arise at all because obviously a man, in order to do this job, would need to have the qualifications before he was appointed, unless you attribute to the Public Service Board complete irresponsibility, and I am sure you do not. I repeat that it is not a question of qualifications at all. The officer will need to have the qualifications in order to be appointed. It is a question of a name. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1317</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPI</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KENDALL, Roy</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KENDALL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I desire to refer to the matter that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mattner</inline> has raised. The Minister&#39;s reply is completely incorrect because at the present time there is an officer acting as  deputy  director of navigation in South Australia who has no technical qualifications at all, as far as I am concerned. He was a group captain in the Royal Australian Air Force. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1317</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAF</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wade</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is a pretty good recommendation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1317</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENDALL, Roy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator KENDALL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  This is nothing to be flippant about. I am not trying to be funny. This man has no qualifications at all. How on earth can a man whose training has been that of an officer in the Air Force have the qualifications necessary to be a director of navigation? The thing is just nonsensical. The Minister said that no public service board would be so irresponsible as to place a man in this position if he did not have the qualifications. There is such a man holding this position in Adelaide at the present time. I have taken the matter up with the Minister long since and have got nowhere. As I said before, this bill is going to keep people of my cloth out and put a lot of non-technical officers into these positions. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1317</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 do not wish to stifle the debate by any means, but I should like to reply at once to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall.</inline> I wish to repeat what I said some years ago when I started to discuss this matter with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall,</inline> when I was privileged to be Minister for Shipping and Transport. I completely understand <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall&#39;s</inline> personal approach to this problem. I am not being offensive to him, or to any deck officer, when I say that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall&#39;s</inline> approach to this problem is the traditional one, namely, that this sort of job should be occupied by a deck officer. It was occupied by deck officers in the days prior to there being a ship&#39;s engineer afloat. The battle, if I can so describe it, between the deck officer and the engineer officer continues. The deck officers, who by tradition have occupied this sort of position, do not take kindly to the fact that now such positions shall not be retained exclusively for them, but shall be available to men who are not deck officers but are engineers and have qualifications of a type which, in the modern context, are just as appropriate to the post as are those of deck officers. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>In other words, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall&#39;s</inline> argument is that this position must be preserved exclusively for the deck officer. The other approach is that this position can and should be available to either a deck officer or, in the modern context, a man other than a deck officer, namely, an engineer officer. That is the position. I understand completely <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall&#39;s</inline> approach to the matter, knowing his affection for things nautical and for deck officers in particular; but I suggest with great respect that his argument probably is not applicable to to-day&#39;s conditions. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1318</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>. - 1  am inclined to agree with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall</inline> to a large extent. The Minister used many platitudes in explaining his position. In effect, the bill means that the change of name alters the responsibilities of the position and the knowledge required for it. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1318</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZY</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Paltridge</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The act does not have to be changed for that to be done, because <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall</inline> has explained it has already been done. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1318</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K4S</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SANDFORD, Charles Walter</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sandford</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Order! Do not interject, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Minister.</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1318</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>-  1  am very tolerant of interjections because when the Minister cannot defend his position on his feet he tries to defend his impossible position from his scat.  1  believe that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall,</inline> with his vastly greater experience than that of the Minister, has placed before the committee a proposition that is quite defensible. The Government thinks that there has been some disputation about the efficiency of the person who shall do a job which, over a lengthy period of time, has been done by a person with naval experience and a wide experience that qualifies him to do it. As there has been a disputation, the Government says, &#34; We will not change the position and the efficiency requirement of the man who shall till it, but we shall change the name of it &#34;. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>From time to time I have been an advocate in industrial disputations. On one occasion when I was before Judge Walter in Western Australia he said to me: &#34; <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cooke,</inline> it is not the glorified name that you give to an officer that counts, but the experience he has to carry out the job. lt is not the change of name that alters the position. The important things are the responsibility the man has, his training and his capacity to carry out that responsibility in the best traditions of the industry.&#34; I congratulate <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall</inline> on fighting for a case that is worth sustaining. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1318</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPI</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KENDALL, Roy</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KENDALL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The Minister mentioned a battle. I am not quite sure which battle he meant because, generally speaking, there is no battle between the deck and the engine room except in a very warm and lighthearted way. Taking the matter further, at the present time there ate eighteen engineers holding positions as ship surveyors from the engineering point of view and examiners of other engineers who wish to sit for the higher examination in engineering. The engineers, who are the opposite numbers of the deck officers, hold chief engineers&#39; or extra chief engineers&#39; certificates in the same way as deck officers hold extra masters&#39; certificates. Would the Minister suggest that a man holding an extra master&#39;s certificate is capable of examining an engineer and determining whether he is fit to be an engineer surveyor? Or vice versa, would the Minister suggest that an engineer should examine deck officers? Of course he would not.  1  say that there is no conflict between those men. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The Minister should not talk so much about people with qualifications. There are two completely distinct services, although they both deal with ships and the sea. They arc distinct services; the examinations are completely different; and, as I have said, the positions are not interchangeable. The Government might just as well take away the term &#34; engineer-surveyor &#34; as it is taking away the term &#34; Director of Navigation &#34;, because they both explain what the positions are and what the occupants of them do. </para>
          <para>This is the last point I wish to make: I cannot understand how an officer without the training to give him an extra master&#39;s certificate can possibly hold down a position in which he has to examine masters, mates and ship surveyors. That is completely beyond my comprehension. The Minister has suggested that the fact that that is being done does not make any difference to the actual terms.  1  disagree. I believe that the changing of and doing away wilh the terms will gradually mean an influx of non-technical officers into positions on both the engineering and the deck side. The civilians - if I may use a war-time term for people who are neither engineers nor deck officers - will eventually hold positions which to-day are held by engineers and deck officers. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1319</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>.- From the Minister&#39;s last contribution I gathered the impression that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall</inline> was puncturing the boom. I thought that he drove a hole in the Minister&#39;s previous contribution and revealed that there was a cleavage between deck officers and other officers. I believe that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall</inline> has made a point which is incontrovertible; namely, that none of us would be content to put a mere engineer into a position of director of navigation&#39;, although wc would give the engineer full confidence in respect of the mechanism of a ship. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Having stated that, I go on to say that I am a little perplexed by the submission made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kendall,</inline> but I think my concern would be allayed if the Minister answered a question for me. We are dealing with a bill which, as I understand it, simply alters the designation of the person to whom damage to a lighthouse must be notified. Under the present act it must be notified to the  Deputy  Director of Navigation. Under the bill now before us, the notification must be made to a prescribed officer. I expect that under the Navigation Act certain qualifications are laid down statutorily for appointment to the position of  Deputy  Director of Navigation. If it is proper that there should be statutory qualifications for that job, it is possible that similar qualifications for the prescribed officer, under the proposed new section, should be specified in the statute. I just leave that with the Minister, so that he will tell us whether or not I am correct in understanding that appointees to the position of  Deputy  Director of Navigation can bc selected only from people possessing statutory qualifications. I am glad to hear the comment of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mattner</inline> that that is the crux of the whole matter. I shall be glad if the Minister will state the position. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1319</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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>. - 1 reply .first to the point made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Kendall, who implied that it would be possible for a nautical officer to sit in examination of an engineer officer, or vice versa. I point out to the honorable senator quite emphatically that that is not the case. It does not happen, and it is not proposed that it will happen. Boards of examiners appropriate to the various types of officers sit in examination of applicants. Nautical officers examine applicants for nautical rank. Engineer officers examine applicants for engineer rank. A  deputy  director of navigation, who perchance is an engineer, does not sit and would not be required to sit in examination upon a nautical applicant. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline>raised the next point, as to the actual prescription of the qualifications necessary for appointment to the office of  deputy  director or director. He asked whether they were statutorily prescribed. The qualifications are prescribed, I am informed, in the Public Service Act. Applicants have to meet the qualifications, which are examined on application by the Public Service Board. </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>POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1319</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1319</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed (vide page 1312). </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1319</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 bill, which has been long awaited by every decent-minded citizen of Australia, is very simple; it is most unusual for the Government to bring down a simple bill. It proposes the repeal of section 16 of the Post and Telegraph Act, which prohibits the Postmaster-General from entering into contracts for the carriage of mails with any one who employs coloured labour. In our modern times, this is obviously an unnecessary provision. It is also a harsh provision, which would be misjudged in other countries and particularly in the United Nations, lt is long overdue for removal from the act. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The provision was included in the act in 1901, when the attitude in Australia, unfortunately, was anti-coloured people. To be fair to the legislators of those days, I should say that it was introduced having in mind the conveyance of mails by ship and it was intended that only white labour would be used in that operation. In this day and age, it is very easy to be critical of that attitude, but in those days there was a kanaka problem in Queensland and the atmosphere of the pre-federation meetings prevailed. Maybe we can be charitable enough to say that we understand the attitude. </para>
          <para>It is heartening to see the PostmasterGeneral <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Davidson)</inline> at long last taking action to remove this provision from the act. I really wonder whether over the years he has abided by the provision. I certainly hope that he has not. I think I can recall, in some of my outback experiences, seeing coloured people delivering telegrams, which under the act, are, I think, included in the definition of &#34; mail &#34;, and that people delivering goods to outback stations, of which mail was only a small item, employed persons of coloured blood. I nope that the provision was not applied against those people. If that was breaking the law, I hope that the law was broken. It has taken a long time for the Minister, under continuous pressure, to move for the repeal of the section. For about three years I have been asking questions on the subject in this chamber, and 1 know that members of another place have written to the Minister, asking for the withdrawal of the provision. Not only is it unjust from the point of view of human rights but also it is a weapon in the hands of other peoples to misinterpret and use against Australia. </para>
          <para>The Australian Labour Party, of courses, completely endorses the removal of the restriction. The provision should never have been put in the act. Perhaps we can, in all charity, understand the motives for its inclusion, but we are completely mystified as to why it has taken so long to seek repeal of the provision, particularly as the Minister&#39;s attention has been directed to it frequently over the last few years. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1320</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAF</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Air</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - in reply - I am grateful to the Opposition and the Senate generally for the very speedy passage it is giving this legislation. I merely want to place on record the objectives of the bill. It is something we should emphasize to-day, for it eliminates discrimination against coloured people. In the present social climate of our community, there is no room for such discrimination. Every citizen should be eligible for engagement on duties associated with mail contracts. There is also a responsibility to have regard to the contribution that coloured people are able to make in community life, of which communication by mails is such an integral part. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <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>EXPLOSIVES BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1320</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1320</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed (vide page 1273). </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1320</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 does not oppose this measure, which in effect consolidates three acts of 1952, 1957 and 1960 and which adds a new provision. The provision arises primarily from the establishment of Point Wilson as a Commonwealth explosives area and which, by arrangement with the State Government, is also to be deemed an area for State explosives - in other words, non-defence explosives. The Commonwealth might well have acted under its interstate and overseas power to legislate directly to cover all of the field except the intra-state transfer of explosives by sca. However, the arrangement has been made. The opportunity has been taken also to declare areas other than Point Wilson as explosives areas under the act. The Opposition supported the earlier pieces of legislation that are now consolidated. We have no objection to the projected scheme of explosives areas. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <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>RAILWAY AGREEMENT (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1320</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill <inline font-style="italic">(on</inline> motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Spooner)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading. -</title>
          <page.no>1321</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1321</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 bill bc now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This bill seeks the approval of the Parliament to an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Western Australian Governments relating to reconstruction of the Kalgoorlie-Fremantle-Kwinana line of the Western Australian railways. In February last the Prime Minister in an economic policy statement announced the Government&#39;s interest in certain major projects in the States as projects which could make a significant contribution to national growth and development, particularly in the promotion of increased export earnings. One of the undertakings was a railway project which would aid the establishment of a major iron and steel industry in Western Australia in respect of which the Government of Western Australia had sought Commonwealth financial assistance. </para>
          <para>The Commonwealth has closely examined this railway project in consultation with both the Government of Western Australia and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. Undoubtedly the construction of the railway is vital for the company&#39;s plans for a major expansion of the steel industry. Indeed, if the railway is not built the prospects of an expansion of steel production, which would substantially assist in bringing about a major contribution to our export earnings, would be adversely affected. </para>
          <para>As background to the measure for which the approval of the Parliament is now sought, I should state it was conditional upon the construction of a standard gauge railway for the establishment of an integrated iron and steel industry allied with the development of the iron ore deposits at Koolyanobbing. The objectives of that agreement were that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited undertook, by the end of 1968, to set up at Kwinana a blast furnace with a capacity of 450,000 tons per annum of pig iron, and to establish within the following ten years a steelmaking plant and additional rolling mill facilities to produce 330,000 tons per annum of finished steel products. The ore requirements for the steel works at Kwinana, and for shipment from Western Australia to other steel works, will be in the region of 2,000,000 tons per annum, and it is planned that the extensive ore deposits at Koolyanobbing and Bungalbin situated 33 miles north-east of Southern Cross, will be developed for this purpose. </para>
          <para>The existing narrow gauge railway is not capable of carrying tonnages of this magnitude economically and, to be able to cope with the likely traffic, would need to be substantially reconstructed. A standard gauge line would have the capacity to carry heavier loads and to cope with the speeds of modern trains, and because of the tonnages which would be involved a standard gauge line will make the enterprise economically sound and attractive, and it is essential to reconstruct the track on standard gauge rather than on the existing 3-ft. 6-in. gauge. </para>
          <para>The Western Australian Government proposals are therefore for the reconstruction to standard gauge of the railway between Southern Cross, on the main east-west railway, and Kwinana, south of Fremantle, plus construction of a spur line from Southern Cross to Koolyanobbing, for the purpose of carriage of ore from the Koolyanobbing deposit to the site of the steel works. Such reconstruction, if done in isolation, would leave the main line between Kalgoorlie and Southern Cross on narrow gauge. The State Government therefore proposes that the section between Kalgoorlie and Southern Cross should also be reconstructed to standard gauge as a part of the overall project. </para>
          <para>The cost of all of these railway works at current cost levels is estimated at &#163;41,200,000. An analysis which has been made of the estimated expenditure and operating results of the line shows that, based on the carrying of 2,000,000 tons per annum of iron ore and on general traffic at existing levels, the new line should be a thoroughly sound economic proposition, and the completed work will attract additional general traffic, thus further improving the economics of the line. The Western Australian proposal is an essential part of a general expansion in steel-making capacity planned by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited for the purpose of producing a substantial quantity of steel for export, and thus will make a most valuable contribution to the export potential of this country. 1 think it will be quite clear to all that the establishment of this industry will bring a most important and valuable industrial undertaking to the State of Western Australia. The establishment of a basic steel industry will inevitably attract a number of ancillary industries. These will contribute further to the general economic expansion of the State and will represent a remarkable new advance in the development of Western Australia. </para>
          <para>The Government concluded that the proposed railway undertaking merited the assistance of the Commonwealth in financing it, as it was clear that because of the very large cost of the project the State Government would bc unable to go ahead without financial assistance. Following discussions, the Commonwealth was quickly successful in reaching agreement with the Western Australian Government on the work to be done, the manner in which it would be performed, and terms under which it would be financed. </para>
          <para>As 1 have indicated, the undertaking has clements related both to development and to rail standardization. In its industrial developmental aspects it has in it features very similar to the proposal for the reconstruction of the Queensland railway from Collinsville to Mount Isa. Insofar as it is a standardization project, it resembles the Victorian and South Australian rail standardization projects in which the Commonwealth has participated. The matter was discussed at some length and agreement was reached with the State Government that as a matter of broad judgment the cost might be divided into two equal parts, one half of which could bc regarded as representing the developmental element and the other the rail standardization element in the project. This is not to say that particular components of the overall project are to bc treated as developmental components and others as standardization components. The arrangement is rather that all expenditure on the project as a whole, irrespective of the particular nature of that expenditure, will be treated as comprising equal parts of developmental and standardization expenditure. </para>
          <para>For the developmental portion the Commonwealth will provide 70 per cent, of the funds initially required and the State 30 per cent. The money provided by the Commonwealth will be repaid by the State from its Consolidated Revenue over a period of twenty years commencing from the completion of the project, with interest at the long-term bond rate ruling at the time the advances are made. Interest accruing during the construction period may bc capitalized if the State so desires. These provisions follow closely the now accepted arrangements in the case of the Mount lsa railway. </para>
          <para>For the standardization portion the Commonwealth will provide the whole of the finance initially required, and the State will repay from its Consolidated Revenue, over a period of 50 years, 30  percent,  of the amount provided during each financial year together with interest al  the  long-term bond rate ruling at the end of each such year on the outstanding amount from time to time. These terms follow those in the Victorian and South Australian rail standardization agreements except that some special sinking fund provisions in the South Australian agreement - but not the Victorian - will not apply in this case. </para>
          <para>The overall effect of these arrangements is that the Commonwealth will provide 85 per cent, of the total initial finance  -  70 per cent, of the developmental part and 100 per cent, of the standardization part - and that the State will provide 15 per cent, of the total initial finance, being 30 per cent, of the developmental part. On the basis of an estimated cost of &#163;41,200,000, the estimated amounts to be found by th? Commonwealth and by the State in the first instance arc &#163;35,000,000 and &#163;6,200,000 respectively. The effect of the provisions relating to repayment by the State is that the State will eventually meet 65 per cent, of the total cost  -  100 per cent, of the developmental element and 30 per cent, of the standardization element. The proportion of the overall cost to be finally met by the Commonwealth will be 35 per cent.  -  70 per cent.  of the standardization clement. On the basis of an estimated overall cost of &#163;41,200,000, the respective figures are: State, &#163;26,800,000; Commonwealth, &#163;14,400,000. </para>
          <para>Provision is made in the agreement for the furnishing of estimates of funds required each year and for annual statements showing the expenditure incurred on the project from time to time, together with a revised estimate of the amount required to complete the work. The usual provisions are made for the keeping of accounts and records and for the audit of accounts by the Auditor-General for the State. </para>
          <para>The work to be done under the agreement is set out in some detail in schedules annexed to the agreement. Briefly, what is proposed is a new standard gauge line parallel to the existing track from Kalgoorlie to East Northam, with a new line from Southern Cross to the site of the iron ore leases at Koolyanobbing. The existing 3-ft. 6-in. gauge track between Kalgoorlie and Coolgardie will be retained as a third rail, in addition to the 4-ft. 8i-in. gauge, to permit the working of the exist- 3-ft. 6-in. line between Kalgoorlie and Esperance. From East Northam the line will take a new route via Toodyay and the Avon river valley to Midland. This deviation from the existing route is necessary to provide the required grades for the heavy trains which will be operating and which could not be operated over the present route. </para>
          <para>The line will then follow the existing track to Perth and Fremantle and on to Kwinana. There are associated works necessary in and around the metropolitan area and some narrow gauge works, especially between East Northam and Midland, which are needed for the maintenance of services on the State&#39;s narrow gauge system. There are also some ancillary works made necessary by the provision of the new standard gauge line, including new station buildings, workshop facilities, marshalling yards and the like. Standards for the construction are also set out in a schedule to the agreement. There is provision for variation of the schedules if the Commonwealth and the State agree that variations are necessary for the more effective fulfilment of the objectives of the agreement. </para>
          <para>Rolling-stock to be provided is also set out In a schedule. It consists of the rolling stock necessary to lift 2,000,000 tons per annum of iron ore, together with rolling-stock needed to carry general traffic at the present level. The estimates for rolling-stock include a component representing the minimum requirements for general traffic which generally constitutes the extent of the intention of the agreement for that particular type of rollingstock. The agreement provides, however, that the objectives in regard to the general traffic rolling-stock may be varied by agreement following a review to be carried out about the end of the year 1966. It is intended that this review shall take into account the quantity of rolling-stock which the State may have available for conversion to standard gauge at that date and any other factors which may be relevant at that particular time. </para>
          <para>The work entailed is to be carried out by the Western Australian Government, the intention being that it will be completed by 3 1st December, 1968. In the interest of the more efficient and expeditious completion of the project, it is provided that, except where special circumstances may dictate otherwise, the work will be carried out by the letting of contracts after public tenders have been called. The agreement provides for close collaboration and agreement between the State and the Commonwealth for the programming, planning and carrying out of the work. Expenditure on work done under the agreement is subject to the authority of the Minister for Shipping and Transport. There are several miscellaneous provisions. In the unlikely event of any dispute arising, it is provided that the matter in dispute shall be determined by the Commonwealth Treasurer. </para>
          <para>Another clause provides that the parties affirm the principle that their respective railway authorities shall collaborate with each other in the matter of standards of design and construction of rolling-stock and also its operation to the end that an efficient co-ordinated service over the Commonwealth and Western Australian railways will be achieved and inter-system traffic be facilitated. This provision is an important one. </para>
          <para>I am sure that this railway project, which honorable senators will agree is of considerable magnitude, will have most beneficial effects on the general development of Western Australia. It can indeed be regarded as a great step forward in the progress of the State. I feel that this measure will have the wholehearted support of both sides of this chamber, and I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the Senate. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL (No. 2) 1961</title>
        <page.no>1324</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the House of Representatives. </para>
      <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
      <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1324</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1324</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This bill, in conjunction with the sales tax bills to be brought forward later, is designed to give effect to the Government&#39;s Budget proposals for sales tax relief. The purpose of this bill is to exempt certain goods for use in the provision of railway and omnibus transport services for the public and certain classes of motor vehicles and trailers for use in the transport of live-stock in the more remote areas of Australia. Full details of the terms of the new exemptions, including certain explanatory notes, are set out in the statement which is being circulated for the information of honorable senators. </para>
          <para>The exemption proposed for railway undertakings will cover goods for use exclusively in the establishment, operation or maintenance of privately owned railways which provide passenger and goods transport services for use by the public. Exemption is also being granted in respect of omnibuses providing seating accommodation for not less than twelve adult passengers for use exclusively or principally in the transport of passengers for reward. Chassis for the construction of such omnibuses will likewise be exempt in order to provide for complete exemption of the omnibuses in those cases where omnibus proprietors follow the practice of purchasing a chassis which is then delivered to a body builder who completes the construction of the omnibus by building a body thereon. Honorable senators will appreciate that sales tax exemptions are already available to Stateowned railways and in respect of omnibuses used by State and other public transport authorities. Private operators who conduct transport services for the public will thus be placed on a comparable footing by the proposed exemptions. </para>
          <para>As I mentioned earlier, it is also proposed to exempt certain motor vehicles and other vehicles commonly known as live-stock road trains used in the transport of live-stock in the more remote and sparsely settled areas of Australia. This exemption will assist pastoral production in these areas where the continued growth of the cattle industry in particular depends to a large extent on the availability of efficient means of transporting live-stock from grazing properties. This need has increasingly been met, in recent times, by the use of road trains, and the Government proposes to encourage this development by exempting from sales tax the large and powerful units of the type generally required for this purpose. </para>
          <para>The proposed exemption will apply to motor vehicles and prime movers of the prescribed power and weight, to trailers, including semi-trailers, and to stock crates or live-stock carriers designed to be carried on vehicles. Exemption will be conditional on the vehicles and equipment being used primarily and principally for the transport of live-stock and also on their being for use exclusively in the areas which comprise Zone A and Zone B for the purposes of Section 79a of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1936- 1961. Specific details of the terms of the exemption are set out in the explanatory statement which has been circulated. </para>
          <para>I think it is appropriate, at this stage, to mention also the Government&#39;s proposal to reduce to <inline font-style="italic">2i</inline> per cent, the rate of sales tax on all household furniture and equipment of the kinds which have formerly borne tax at the rate of 8-J- per cent. This proposal is the subject of associated sales tax bills which are to follow. The goods in question are specified in the Third Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act and include such items as refrigerators, washing machines and floor coverings. Details of the goods affected are also listed in the explanatory statement. There is evidence that sales of these goods had shown a downward trend with a resultant adverse effect on the manufacturing industries concerned. The Government believes that this measure should encourage the buying of these classes of goods, thus assisting the industries producing them, as well as suppliers of materials and components used in their manufacture. </para>
          <para>The amendments are deemed to have commenced on 16th August, 1961. The concessions involve an annual loss of revenue amounting to approximately &#163;11,575,000, or &#163;9,200,000 for the current financial year. I commend the bill to honorable senators. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McKenna</inline> adjourned. </para>
          <para>SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1a to 9a) 1961. </para>
          <para>Bills received from the House of Representatives. </para>
          <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> put - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of al&#93; or several of the Sales Tax Bills Nos. 1* to 9a being put in one motion, at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such bills together in committee of the whole. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>The ACTING <inline font-weight="bold">DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood).</inline> - There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Standing Orders suspended. </para>
          <para>Bills (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Paltridge)</inline> read a first time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1325</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1325</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZY</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>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 bills be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">These bills are machinery measures which are necessary to give effect to the Government&#39;s proposal to reduce from 83 per cent, to 2&#177; per cent, the rate of tax on certain household furniture and equipment. The bills have no other effect. The Government&#39;s proposals for sales tax relief have already been explained to honorable senators in my speech on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill (No. 2), and details of the goods affected are set out in the explanatory statement which has been circulated. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McKenna</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1325</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1325</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed (vide page 1274). </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1325</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> I ask for leave to make my remarks on this bill at a later stage. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Leave granted; debate adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1325</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1325</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed (vide page 1275). </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1325</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TANGNEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The Opposition has several comments to make on the scope of the bill and on the methods that the Government should adopt to assist the gold-mining industry. Coming, as 1 do, from a gold-mining State - a State in the development of which goldmining has played a not unimportant part - I regard any bill to give assistance to the gold-mining industry as very important. The gold-mining industry has twice saved Western Australia, and indeed other parts of Australia, from economic disaster. In the 1890&#39;s, after the bank crash in the eastern States, many people came to the West to try their luck on the gold-fields, and in that way they helped to develop the West. The discovery of gold in the Kalgoorlie-Boulder area materially assisted the development of the country between Perth and the gold-fields. The gold-fields water scheme not only brought water to the gold-fields but also helped in the development of the farming community in the districts between the State capital and the gold-fields. Later on, during the depression years, it was the gold-mining industry that helped to rehabilitate Western Australia. Encouragement was given to prospectors to fossick and do what they could to find gold, not only to give them employment but also to assist in the development of the industry. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>We have in the West, in our gold-fields, thriving communities. Perhaps I should not say they are thriving, because at present they are passing through a difficult stage. At any rate, we have in our gold-fields very fine communities of which we are justly proud. We hate to see, as we do see from the census figures, any reduction of the populations or any deterioration of the business life of those gold-mining communities. I do not think there is anything more sad than to go to some of the outback districts of Western Australia, where once upon a time there were flourishing communities, and to find there only sheds and relics of the past. 1 was present at the death of a couple of Western Australian goldmining towns. One was Kanowna. I went there on the day that the last hotel was being dismantled. That was really the death throes of a town which had been very important in the heyday of the gold-mining industry. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1326</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Vincent</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Was there a wake? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1326</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TANGNEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There was a bit of a wake but there were not many people to participate in it. The life of a gold-field town is always very precarious. Many people who went to the gold-fields in the early days did not dream that the towns that were established there would have as long a life as they have had. Quite recently, however, in a review issued by the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia, it was stated quite authoritatively that there are still many years of life and of production for some of the very fine mines in the golden mile in the Kalgoorlie and Boulder areas. We in Western Australia know what an important part the gold-mining industry has played in the history of the development of the State. Moreover, the production of gold has assisted the Commonwealth to pay for imports and so on. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>We welcome any legislation that will encourage and bring stability to the industry. However, the purpose of this amending bill is really to iron out some of the anomalies or to adjust some of the inequities, as the Minister calls them, which arise from the operation of the principal act. We know that when any act of Parliament authorizes payments a stage is reached when anomalies arise in borderline cases. The social service legislation, for instance, provides that if a pensioner&#39;s income rises above a certain level, a pension can no longer be paid to him. Under that legislation, cases of hardship occur because some people come just within the provisions of the legislation and others are just outside them. So it is in relation to the subsidies that have been granted to the gold-mining industry by the Federal Government. This bill has been introduced in order to reduce the impact of some of the inequities that have appeared. </para>
          <para>Under the principal act, gold-mining companies or gold-miners - I nearly said gold-diggers - are divided into two groups, the large producers and the small producers. The large producers are those whose output of gold exceeds 500 ounces a year. The small producers arc those whose output of gold is below that level. It is interesting to look at the figures and see how many people or companies engaged in gold-mining will be affected by this legislation. The latest figures that I have been able to obtain are those for 1959. At that time those producing between 500&#39; ounces and 1,000 ounces of gold a year numbered three; those producing between 100 ounces and 500 ounces a year numbered 26, and those producing less than 100 ounces a year numbered 121. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1326</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Vincent</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Are you giving figures for Western Australia? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1326</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TANGNEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Yes. I am confining my remarks mainly to Western Australia but what I am saying applies, I think to other places also. Then we come to the large producers of gold. Those producing between 1,000 ounces and 2,000 ounces a year numbered five, and those producing between 2,000 ounces and 100,000 ounces a year numbered twelve. The total number of producers, apart from prospectors, was 167. I do not include <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Flaherty</inline> in the list, although occasionally he finds a streak of gold on his prospecting expeditions. Some of those who were producing between 100 ounces and 500 ounces a year might have been able to produce more if the upper limit for the subsidy had been lifted, but I do not think that that would have made a great difference. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Under the present act, those who are mining less than 500 ounces of gold a year receive a subsidy of &#163;2 8s. an ounce and do not have to produce any figures to show their costs of production. Those who are mining more than 500 ounces a year can bc divided into two classes. The first class consists of those who have agreed voluntarily to be treated as small producers of &#163;old and to receive a subsidy of &#163;2 8s. without having to produce figures showing their costs of production. If they prefer to be called big producers they can receive a larger subsidy of &#163;3 5s. an ounce, provided their cost of production - proof of which has to be given to the department - does not exceed &#163;13 10s. an ounce. It became rather a gamble whether they should remain small producers or whether they should go into the class known as large producers. </para>
          <para>When you reach the stage of producing 500 ounces of gold, you find that an anomaly occurs. There is a difference between the person who produces 500 ounces of gold and one who produces 501 ounces. With the subsidy as it is at present, a man who produced 500 ounces of gold could have a gross income of &#163;7,800, whereas if he came into the larger income group, by producing 501 ounces, his income would bc appreciably reduced. It was in order to guard against such an anomaly that this bill was introduced. Now, those who produce gold in the 500 to 1,075 ounces group can continue to receive a &#163;2 8s. subsidy, less a Id. an ounce for every ounce that they produce over 500 ounces. The subsidy cuts out when the ceiling is reached. The Opposition maintains that the ceiling is not high enough. We think it should be a little higher even though it might mean - 1 notice that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Scott</inline> is laughing - giving a subsidy to some of the larger companies. This would help employment. We realize that gold-mining companies do provide employment. On the Golden Mile itself wages paid by gold-mining companies amount to about &#163;250,000 a month, and that money is put back into the community. As soon as it is earned it goes back into the community and helps to keep towns in existence. </para>
          <para>One of the big difficulties confronting the gold-mining industry is that the price of gold has remained almost static for the last twelve years. For instance in 1949 the price of gold was &#163;12 3s. 2d. an ounce. By 1961 the price had risen to &#163;15 12s. 6d. an ounce, an increase of about 28 per cent. </para>
          <para class="block">In 1949 the basic wage was &#163;6 9s. a week. The basic wage in 1961 in the metropolitan area of Perth is &#163;14 8s. a week, an increase of 123i per cent. We have an industry which has a set price for its product - it has risen by only 28 per cent, over the last twelve years - whereas the main item of expense of the industry which is wages, has gone up by 1231 per cent. Of course, in addition to wages there is the item of maintenance. </para>
          <para>What is happening is that although the cost of production has gone up alarmingly many of the lodes are not being fully worked because they are not economical propositions. If some assistance in the form of a direct grant were given to companies it would enable them to work lodes which are at present being by-passed because it is no: economical to work them. Once a lode has been by-passed it is impossible to return to it. Therefore, the Labour Party puts the proposition to the Government that it would be of great assistance to the industry if, in addition to the subsidy, the suggestion that our leader made recently on the goldfields were carried out, namely, that an annual grant of &#163;500,000 be made to the industry. That is apart altogether from the subsidy. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1327</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Scott</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- How would that be spent? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1327</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TANGNEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I shall tell you how it would bc spent if you have a little patience. Wc suggest that a grant of &#163;500,000 bc made over a set period of years so that the industry will have some idea of what it can do. It will be able to plan for the development of the mines. We also suggest that money be lent to some of the mines which are not in a position to carry out developmental work. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>As I said earlier, because of the high cost of labour and the high cost of production some mines are by-passing lodes, which could be quite productive, but at the present time are not productive enough to repay the cost of working them. As honorable senators know, once you by-pass one of these lodes, you cannot go back to it. We suggest that one way of assisting the industry would be to grant a subsidy on a &#163;1 for &#163;1 basis to be used for drilling purposes by some of the companies in areas which at the present time are not receiving the benefits of any legislation. For instance, under the act some of the mines cannot get any subsidy, or grant, if their profit is more than 10 per cent, of their capital investment. That provision can operate in a discriminatory fashion against the older companies. Because the original capital of some of the older companies is calculated on a different financial basis from that of some of the newer companies, the older companies are at a disadvantage. The older companies require assistance to bring their machinery up to date, but because of the outmoded financial arrangements they are debarred from receiving this assistance. Newer companies can be granted assistance because they are not making a profit of more than 10 per cent, on their capital. </para>
          <para>The Labour Party is not suddenly deciding that these big gold-mining companies which are making big profits should be given further assistance. That is quite a wrong conception. We realize that the gold-mining industry is one which will eventually work itself out. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1328</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Scott</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You just want votes? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1328</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TANGNEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Definitely not. Many of these companies in the goldfields are now turning their attention to other minerals. In a vast State like Western Australia one thing that is of great importance in the development of many of our remote areas is the mining industry. That has already been proved. For instance, at one time, in the north-west there were only a couple of jackeroos working on a pastoral station. They were doing a very good job, too. However, when portion of the station became a mining lease a very flourishing community of hundreds of people was established - at Wittenoom Gorge. When that area was part of a pastoral station there were, of necessity, only a few people in the area. If we are to maintain our population in these remote areas the mining industry will be of the greatest assistance. The Opposition is not interested only in the continuation of the gold-mining industry. lt realizes also that those who have the greatest skill in the gold-mining industry are now turning their attention to other mineral deposits which will be of great importance to the State. It is necessary to provide mining companies with the necessary finance. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The gold-mining companies provide employment and keep some very fine communities together. I do not think in any other community in Australia one would find a better spirit than exists among the people on the goldfields. There is a great community spirit there. We hate to see, as we see in the recent census figures, that the populations of those districts are diminishing. That presents difficulties for businessmen and others, including people who own their own homes and have families growing up in these districts, in planning ahead, because they do not know whether the district will remain or will die out suddenly. </para>
          <para>We welcome this bill as far as it goes. However, we do not believe that it goes far enough in helping the gold-mining industry in general. The Opposition suggests that a grant of &#163;500,000 should be made to the gold-mining industry for a set period of years. From that amount a grant of 4s. per ton of ore treated should be made for developmental expenditure in excess of that in a base year to be determined by the industry or by an independent board. That would help to finance further developmental work. At present, under the mining act &#34; development &#34; is defined as work carried out with the object of ascertaining the existence and extent of gold in the mining property and includes the preparation of that property for the continuous production of gold-mining materials by diamond drilling. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1328</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Vincent</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In which mining act is that? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1328</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TANGNEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In the Western Australian Mining Act. The effect of that definition is that the subsidy is granted for normal development by diamond drilling, but is not given for exploratory diamond drilling. If one just goes exploring or looking for gold, he does not receive a subsidy at present. That is not regarded as exploratory work or developmental work. We suggest that a subsidy should be paid on a &#163;1 for &#163;1 basis for exploratory diamond drilling to assist the industry. We are not referring to just any wildcat scheme. If people are genuinely trying to find new fields, they should be assisted from that grant. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Secondly, loans should be given to selected properties which are good risks in order to bring mines into production or increase their efficiency. Since 1959 the estimated yield to this nation from gold produced in Western Australia has been in the vicinity of &#163;14,500,000 a year. That makes the industry a very important one. In addition to the actual return, that yield is also a very big factorin helping Australia&#39;s balance-of-payments position. Perhaps more important than that is the amount that is paid out each month in wages. Almost &#163;250,000 a month is paid to the people of the gold-mining community in wages. If the gold-mining industry goes out of existence those people will be thrown out of employment and the gold-mining towns will become ghost towns similar to the many ghost towns that are dotted around various parts of the outback of Western Australia. </para>
          <para>To-day, some of the gold-mining companies arc entering other fields of mining. The skills which those companies have gained from their gold-mining operations are of great assistance in the development of other forms of mining. As I said earlier, that will lead to greater development of W.s&#39;.ern Australia and of Australia generally. </para>
          <para>The propositions that the Opposition offers to the Government for its consideration are, first of all, that an annual grant of &#163;500,000 be made to the industry. That  io  not a great d:al of money when we consider that we deal with budgets which involve more than &#163;1,000,000,000. Al. hough this bi il is an attempt to remove anomalies, this year the amount included in the Budget for assistance to the goldmin:ng industry is &#163;178,000 less than the amount budgeted for that purpose two years ago. That shows that there is something wrong. The industry must be declining if the Government is giving only that amount of money in subsidies, although it expects to give increased subsidies under th s bill. </para>
          <para>Subsidy is paid at present if the cost of production is more than &#163;13 10s. an ounce. We believe that that amount could be reduced. If the cost of production is &#163;10 an ounce the subsidy should still be paid. Whatever the cost of production is, the subsidy should be paid. Although that would help the big companies, they are the chief employers of labour. Many of the people who will receive assistance under this amendment of the act are self-employed people or perhaps a man who works with another man. The big companies give employment to many hundreds, or even thousands of people. If we can assist them, we are assisting not so much the big companies but every workman in the industry. So, we say that more subsidies should he given to the large companies as well as to the small ones. </para>
          <para>Thirdly, we believe that the upper limit for the payment of this subsidy should be raised beyond 1,075 ounces, again in order to assist those people who are really trying to keep this great industry going or build it up. This industry has proved its value in the past, not only to the parts of Australia in which gold is found but also to the economy of this whole continent. </para>
          <para>Whatever the people who go out and do the actual work of mining receive, I do not think it is too much, because they take great risks and their life is hard. Gold is not picked up in the streets, as some people seem to think it is. Even on the Golden Mile, apart from other parts of the gold-fields, living conditions are always hard. Despite the modern amenities that have been introduced into the mines and the homes of miners in recent years, the miner&#39;s life is a hard one. He has to contend with the climate, for instance. </para>
          <para>The Opposition supports this bill because it gives some relief to the people engaged in the gold-mining industry; but wc should like to see a long-range plan for this industry introduced into this Parliament because this is one industry which has proved its worth over the years. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1329</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5K</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I am pleased to hear that the Opposition is not opposing this measure. I should like to congratulate <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Tangney</inline> on her speech. Although she spoke for only about half an hour, she covered all aspects of the gold-mining industry. That is a pretty good effort for a girl from Western Australia. She commenced by referring to the finding of gold in Kalgoorlie and the tremendous problems that faced Western Australia in the initial stages of the development of the gold-mining industry, particularly in the provision of water to Kalgoorlie and the establishment of the large township of Kalgoorlie as the result of the finding of gold. Then, in typical Opposition style - I do not blame her for this, of course; it is politics - she went on to say that the Australian Labour Party would go one better than we have gone. However, we must remember that the Labour Party has never had any ideas about producing a subsidy scheme for the Australian gold-mining industry. I do not think it has ever produced a scheme for the payment of a subsidy by the Commonwealth Government to small producers on a production basis. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Tangney</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is never too late for us to learn. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is so. My Western Australian colleague, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Vincent,</inline> says that a subsidy was introduced by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chifley,</inline> but I do not think that it was for small producers. The bill is designed to lift the level of production, above which subsidy is not paid, from 500 ounces to 1,075 ounces. A producer whose output in a year falls in the range from 501 to 1,075 ounces will, if he elects to be treated as a small producer, be paid a subsidy at the rate of &#163;2 8s. per ounce, less Id. for each ounce by which output exceeds 500 ounces. The reason, of course, is that the Government is eager to encourage as many small producers as possible to come into the industry. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Tangney</inline> said that in her belief this would affect only two or three small producers. There are only two or three small producers producing in the range between 500 ounces and 1,075 ounces, probably because if they produced one ounce over 500 ounces they would cease to qualify for a subsidy. The subsidy will be payable on a diminishing scale. I congratulate the Government on the bill. I believe that this scheme of subsidies was thought out by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Browne).</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ormonde</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  It will be very helpful, too. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It will be a great help to the gold-mining industry, not only in Western Australia, but throughout the country generally. It is no mean feat for a young man such as the honorable member for Kalgoorlie to get the Government to alter the subsidy in this way. I do not think that any member of the Opposition would be able to come forward with such a proposition and be able to persuade a government to accept it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Tangney</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  We will, with the next government. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I still say that it will not happen, even if honorable senators opposite are in government after the election. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ormonde</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Why? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Because Labour has never done it in the past. It has no record. Of course, I do not want to be political. I am interested in mining industries, as a member of the mining committee which travels from one end of Australia to the other. In the twelve years that 1 have been in the Parliament, this is the first time that a new member of the Parliament has come forward with a suggestion for helping goldminers to this extent. This is a new idea, initiated by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Peter</inline> Browne, of Kalgoorlie. It was never thought of before by any member of the Parliament on either side. If any other member had thought of it, he would have come forward with it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Small producers, producing 500 oz., without a subsidy, would have a gross income of &#163;7,802 10s. a year. That is calculated at the rate of &#163;15 12s. 6d. per oz. With a subsidy of &#163;2 8s. per oz., they would receive &#163;9,012 10s. I believe that the lack of this subsidy previously has stopped some producers from producing more than 500 oz, a year. The gold mines of Australia, particularly those of Western Australia, are to be congratulated on their efficiency. In 1949, the basic wage was &#163;6 9s. a week, and the price of gold was &#163;12 3s. 2d. per oz. In 1961, the basic wage is &#163;14 8s., but the price of gold has risen only to &#163;15 12s. 6d. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</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 has restricted the price of gold? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We could talk about that for a long time. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1330</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K8N</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TOOHEY, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Toohey</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  In short, he does not know. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1331</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I shall return to that in a moment and tell the ignorant senator opposite. Although the basic wage rose in that period by almost 125 per cent., the price of gold rose by only 28 per cent. To combat increased costs, it is necessary to have efficient production. At Kalgoorlie we have seen an increase in the use of the carbon tungsten bit and compressors, and improved methods of hauling ore to the surface. These have all played their part in lowering the cost of production of gold, but efficiency is at present at a stage beyond which it is doubtful whether an improvement could bc made. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1331</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>asked why the price of gold had not risen. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Toohey</inline> said that 1 did not know. It is my belief that the price of gold was fixed under the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 at 35 dollars per oz. and it has not since increased from that figure. The price of gold has risen in Australia on a number of occasions as a result of sterling being devalued. I cannot remember the dates when those increases took place. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>We have in this country an industry almost at the peak of its efficiency. The ore bodies in Australia in many instances are not rich. The gold-mining Industry has suffered because of the price fixed under the Bretton Woods Agreement. Notwithstanding the fact that on several occasions the Australian Government, with the support of South Africa, Canada and Great Britain, has sought an increase, the United States of America has always refused to agree to an increase. I am sure that the Government will not relinquish its efforts to obtain an increase in the price of gold. I firmly believe that at some time in the future the price will be increased. We know from press reports that up to 70 dollars an ounce can be obtained for gold on the black market overseas. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1331</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Vincent</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Seventy American dollars? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1331</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, double the official price. Gold buyers may sell only to approved purchasers. They can sell the gold for dollars anywhere- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1331</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Vincent</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You said that it could be sold on the black market for 70 American dollars. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1331</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5H</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>CP; NCP from May 1975</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Douglas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am sorry, I meant that it could be sold for the equivalent of 70 dollars. In most instances it is sold to Communist-controlled countries. We had an instance recently where people  endeavoured  to ship gold out of Australia. Detectives detained two people in Adelaide but instead of the purported thieves having a quantity of gold in their possession it was discovered that they had some other metal. But I have no doubt that there was something behind the incident. Probably the people who wanted to export the gold from Australia were successful. Although we have very efficient detection officers dealing with gold trafficking, on this occasion I do not think they were successful. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>There is no better way of obtaining income for Australia than by exploiting our mining industries, including the goldmining industry. At present a person investing in a gold mine is able to deduct for income tax purposes one-third of calls paid to the company. Of course, such an investor takes a risk. Gold mines are very risky things in which to invest. Undoubtedly a person with money to invest to-day can obtain at least 7 per cent, on his money without any risk at all. If he is prepared to accept a slight risk he may obtain a higher return. 1 am not now speaking of investment in gold mines but of other forms of investment. Why should a person invest in a mine, whether it be a gold mine or some other type of mine, when he can obtain 7 per cent., 8 per cent, or 10 per cent, outside the goldmining industry and with little or no risk? If he invests in gold he may get 25 per cent, or he may lose his investment. </para>
          <para>In the interests of the gold-mining industry and its future development the Government must give consideration to encouraging investment in the industry. No other industry is capable of giving a greater return for the money invested in it, provided the investments are handled wisely. I do not believe that people will invest in gold-mining while other avenues of investment are open to them. The Government, if it is to assist the gold-mining industry, must accept some of the propositions that I have expounded. The Government is using every endeavour at its disposal to  increase Australia&#39;s export income. The Government gives concessions to export industries in respect of pay-roll tax. lt gives other forms of encouragement to companies that wish to export their products overseas and so improve our balanceofpayments position. One of the easiest ways to increase our export earnings is to encourage private investment in mining industries by allowing as deductions for income tax purposes 100 per cent, of applications, allotments and calls in respect of shares in mining companies in this country. If that were done we may be able to increase the export income earned by our mining industries by as much as 100 per cent, in a few years. The gold-mining industry is as efficient as we can expect it to become. The same observation applies to all base metal mining industries in this country. </para>
          <para>I have referred to the increase that has taken place in the basic wage in the last twelve years. I have also given details of the way in which the price of gold has risen in the last twelve years. The increase of about 30 per cent, in the price of gold does not compare favorably with the increase in the price of other base metals such as lead, zinc and tin. </para>
          <para>Debate interrupted. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>1332</page.no>
        <type>adjournment</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>The ACTING <inline font-weight="bold">DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKellar).</inline> - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, 1 formally put the question - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>That the Senate do now adjourn. </para>
      </quote>
      <para>Question resolved in the negative. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1961</title>
        <page.no>1332</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1332</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1332</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5K</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
              <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not wish to delay the Senate much longer. Since 1935 the price of gold has remained stationary. If I remember correctly, the price of lead in that year was approximately &#163;20 a ton. lt has since risen to more than &#163;140 a ton, although at the moment it is approximately &#163;66 sterling a ton, or &#163;A100. In other words, since 1935 the price of lead has risen by 500 per cent, while the price of gold has remained static. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1332</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ormonde</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Why is that? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1332</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have told you. It is not the fault of the Australian Government. The government of the day, irrespective of its political colour, has always pushed for an increase of the price of gold. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1332</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ormonde</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The world may not want gold. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1332</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I think the world will want gold. There has been some speculation in the last two years. The free price of gold rose from 35 dollars an ounce to almost 40 dollars within a few weeks, because some people in England and Europe thought that America intended to devalue the dollar. But that increase lasted for only a matter of weeks; the price has since receded to 35 dollars an ounce. But at that price the production of gold is uneconomic. The industry will find it increasingly difficult to survive if the price is not increased. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>We must also look at our costs. Wages are rising year by year, but the price of gold remains static. 1 believe that in order to keep the industry going the Government will be obliged to increase the subsidy over the next two or three years. This Government has been very sympathetic to the industry. The larger mines which produce gold at a cost of more than &#163;13 10s. an ounce receive a maximum subsidy of &#163;3 5s. an ounce - something that was not dreamt of in earlier times. If costs do not recede or become static, the stage will be reached where all gold-mining companies will have to be subsidized - that is, if the Government cannot persuade the International Monetary Fund to grant a substantial increase in the price. </para>
          <para>I again congratulate the honorable member for Kalgoorlie upon his efforts in producing a formula that he has been able to persuade the Government to accept. Small producers will receive a subsidy of &#163;2 8s. an ounce for the first 500 ounces. It will diminish by Id. an ounce until it ceases at a production of 1,075 ounces. I also congratulate the Government upon having accepted <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Browne&#39;s</inline> recommendations. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1333</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>. - I agree with the statements of the other two honorable senators from Western Australia who said that the gold-mining industry has done extraordinarily well in being able to keep the cost of production down to the point where it has been able to keep the mines in operation. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Scott</inline> has said, those mines which have been able to keep their cost of production below &#163;13 10s. an oz. - and which therefore do not receive a subsidy, have cone remarkably well. In a period of inflation they have been able to remain in operation. But they have not employed the staff or carried out the degree of development that is desirable. As the Opposition has pointed out, a certain amount of low-grade ore has not been treated because it has not been economic to treat it, with the result that it has been lost to the national economy. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Scott&#39;s</inline>memory is rather poor in regard to the subsidy that is paid to the small producer. I have a very clear recollection of what happened in 1954 when, as a result of the representations of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Victor</inline> Johnson, the then member for Kalgoorlie, and the prospectors&#39; association, the small producer was brought into the picture. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Arnold</inline> Crudace of the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia, the prospectors&#39; association, and many businessmen in Kalgoorlie and other areas made representations on behalf of the small producer and the prospector. They pointed out that any subsidy which was given to the larger companies would be acceptable, but that if prospecting was to be continued and if the industry was to expand some cognizance would have to be taken of the small producer. Honorable senators need not accept my word for that. They will find recorded in &#34; Hansard &#34; the fact that the Government took cognizance of the representations of the then member for Kalgoorlie, the business people of Kalgoorlie and the prospectors&#39; association and that the subsidy for the small producers was introduced in the 1954 legislation. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1333</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Scott</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I did not say that it was not brought in. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1333</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>-  First let us get our basic facts in relation to that matter straight. I give credit to the Government for having listened to the representations of the prospectors&#39; association, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Victor</inline> Johnson, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Arnold</inline> Crudace and a number of other people and for having taken cognizance of the position of the small producer. The granting of the subsidy to the small producer has proved to be a good investment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>This amending legislation will not consolidate the gold-mining industry by any means. The .additional benefit will be very acceptable, but it will be only a palliative to an industry which has pressed on very courageously in the face of heavy inflation and the static price of gold. The goldmining communities are worried because, although some companies are able to continue under the present conditions and perhaps to pay a dividend of 10 per cent, or more, without benefit of subsidy, the development of the industry is not being advanced so as to provide employment for the many people who live in gold-mining areas, such as Kalgoorlie. Developmental work is simply not being done. Therefore, while I admit that the extension of the subsidy provisions is a palliative given by the Government, it is not being given with as much sincerity as we might be led to believe by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Scott&#39;s</inline> remarks. </para>
          <para>Let me refer to some facts and figures. The estimated amount of subsidy for 1961-62 is &#163;660,000, whereas the amount paid in 1960-61 was &#163;698,658. Therefore, on the Government&#39;s own estimate, &#163;38,658 more was paid by way of subsidy last year than it is expected will be paid this year. So much for the sincerity surrounding this measure. It will assist the producer who can increase production to more than 500 ounces. Some producers may be encouraged to increase their production to as much as 1,075 ounces, which is the maximum amount of the small production category. The fact that they may do so will not alter the economic circumstances of the goldfields in regard to the employment of labour. The producers know the industry, and no doubt they will try to increase their production, but, nevertheless, the provisions of this bill will not enable all of them to become employers of labour. </para>
          <para>The big gold-mining companies will still be in the position they were in before this measure was introduced. They will still have to by-pass low-grade ore. They will continue to take the rich ore and leave in the ground an asset that will never be recovered. That is all too clear. 1 say to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Scott</inline> that I like <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Peter</inline> Browne; he is good company, but whatever may be said of his views on this matter it cannot be denied that they are contrary to those of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Collard</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Elvy,</inline> of the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia. If honorable senators would care to see it, I have written acknowledgment of the fact that this bill represents only a part of the proposition put forward by the Chamber of Mines. That proposition involved the development of mines and the making available of real employment for people on the gold-fields. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1334</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5K</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Scott</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  At how much a ton? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1334</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>-  You will get that information in time. As a matter of fact, the matter is not as simple as the honorable senator may think it is. He understands gold-mining and he should know that a simple answer cannot be given to many of the problems that are involved in it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The Government knows that the proposed amendment that we are discussing will not provide very much additional assistance for the industry. On the other hand, if an amount of, say, &#163;500,000 were to be set aside for a number of years and made available to the industry for developmental purposes, that would allow the producers to open up the low-grade ore bodies which they will otherwise be forced to by-pass. That is not <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Peter</inline> Browne&#39;s suggestion, cither, but if it were adopted it would provide employment for the people of Kalgoorlie. I admit that the extension of the subsidy in relation to small producers may increase gold production because it will be economical for producers to do so. </para>
          <para>When we look at the statistics in relation to gold output, we find that the measure before the Senate will not affect many more than three or four producers in the Kalgoorlie area. There are approximately sixteen producers at present operating there. The gold output figures, as given by the Chamber of Mines, not by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Peter</inline> Browne, show that there are four producers who produce more than 100.000 fine ounces of gold. Their total production in 1959 was 517,525 ounces. There were three producers who produced between 50,001 and 100,000 ounces, and their total production was 238,014 ounces. There was only one producer who produced between 30,001. and 40,000 ounces, and his production was 33,469 ounces. There were three producers who produced between 10,001 and 20,000 ounces, the total production being 41,782 ounces. Then there was a big drop. There were no operators producing between 4,000 and 10,000 ounces. There was one producer producing between 2,001 and 3,000 ounces, the production figure being 2.217 ounces, and there were only five producing between 501 and 1.000 ounces. Their total output was 4,219 ounces. </para>
          <para>In the small production category - those producing between 101 and 500 ounces - there were only 26 producers. They may be able to step up their production, and perhaps a few producers will be able to increase production to more than 500 ounces. There are only 121 operators producing up to 100 ounces. I suggest there would have been no extension of the subsidy at all if it had not been for the business people of Kalgoorlie, the Chamber of Mines and the prospectors&#39; association. </para>
          <para>I suggest that the sincerity of this measure can be gauged from the fact that the amount of subsidy being paid this year is about &#163;39,000 less than it was last year. Of course, a certain section of the industry will benefit from the measure. I hope that the Government loses on the deal, because the proposal that we are discussing really represents a thimble and pea trick so far as the gold-mining industry is concerned. The extension of the subsidy is acceptable, and we do not criticize it. It cannot do any harm and it may even result in increased production, but it will not solve the problem of developmental works. As an appropriation figure, the total amount of subsidy payable may sound impressive, but as I. have said, the amount of subsidy this year, on the Government&#39;s own estimate, will be considerably less than that paid last year. </para>
          <para>Then I come to a document issued by the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia (Incorporated). The document states that the chamber appreciates the assistance that has been given and is still being given by the Federal Government to the gold-mining industry and continues - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>While in no way contributing towards inc eased gold  production,  it  is keeping some marginal minet in operation. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I suppose that Peter Browne acknowledges that. That is the opinion of the members of that organization. The document states further that the Chamber of Mines -  requests that the Federal Government vigorously ar.d at every opportunity press the case for an increased price of gold. </para>
          <para class="block">That is always in the forefront of the minds of the members of that organization. The document continues - </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">
              <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Menzies</inline>has indicated that, as one of the world&#39;s strongest trading nations, Australia has a right to state its case in world councils, and we feel that this should apply to our desire for an increase in the price of gold. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">We all agree with the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies)</inline> on that. But how vigorously has the case for an increase in the price of gold been pressed? What we must always try to ensure is that the gold and the other metals that we bring to the surface will maintain their prices. We must also try to ensure that there will be no waste, but waste is occurring at present through ore bodies being by-passed, through minerals being left in the earth because the Government docs not make it economically possible for the mines to bring those minerals to the surface. The present system makes it necessary to by-pass payable dirt, as it is called, or payable ore bodies so that the miners can reach the richer pockets of ore. I think that the Government will be deceiving only itself - it certainly will not deceive the goldmining industry - if it claims that this amending bill will be the salvation of the industry in Australia. It will not be the salvation of the industry. All that it will do will be to make an improvement of the present position. The document issued by the Chamber of Mines states also that the organization -  requests that the Federal Government recognize the importance of an increase in the production of gold as a valuable source of export income. </para>
          <para class="block">I do not think that this Government, even though it has subsidized production, appreciates how valuable exports of gold have been to this nation. At this stage  1  want to emphasize that when almost every State and almost every industry in Australia had a debit trading balance and was importing more than it exported, and when the Government applied the credit squeeze because it went into a great panic and believed that the nation was going to the wall, Western Australia had a surplus of exports over imports to the extent of &#163;78,000,000. That was due partly to the production of gold in that State and the export of that production. I believe that the production and the export of gold could be increased. The Government should take note of the fact that Western Australia showed an excess of exports over imports at a time when, every other State was imperilling our reserves overseas. The gold-mining industry, which was responsible for &#163;15.000.000 of Western Australia&#39;s export income, made a great contribution to that position. The document issued by the Chamber of Mines states further - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Surely there is a case for conceited action by South Africa, Canada and Australia as gold producers to challenge the unilateral action of America in pegging gold at its present price. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">There has been some action, but it has been weak and feeble. I have yet to learn that there has been strong and concerted action in this matter. Even if such action were taken to have the pegged price increased, probably we would not get very far, but, even so, it seems that the Federal Government does not recognize the great potential asset represented by a strong gold-mining industry. </para>
          <para>There is a large community relying upon the industry in Western Australia. This bill will do something to help, but it will not provide a solution to the problem of how to keep our gold-mines in production and how to utilize assets in the form of ore bodies that now are being by-passed because it would not be an economic proposition to try to bring them to the surface. The Chamber of Mines says also - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The Federal Government should recognize gold as an export commodity for which there is and will be a continuing demand. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That demand will always exist. Gold will always be acceptable on this side and the other side of the iron curtain. Gold is, so to speak, an international currency. The Chamber of Mines makes a further point. In the document that it has circulated, this statement appears - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>While appreciating the assistance given under the Goldmining Assistance Act, we consider that its application is too narrow because - </para>
            <list type="loweralpha">
              <item label="(a)">
                <para>Sec. 12 discriminates against the older established mines by limiting the amount of assistance in accordance wilh an  out-moded  capital structure. </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The older mines have to do a certain amount of developmental work and they are faced with the cost of replacing equipment. They have good ore bodies that could be worked, but, because the companies are very big and employ a good deal of labour - they are really the backbone of the industry - they must, in order to remain in production under the present system, by-pass workable ore that should be taken out. They must by-pass that ore because, under present circumstances, it would not be an economic proposition to work it. A new mine, however, comes into operation and the owners say, &#34; We have a good body of ore, we have no great developmental costs and we do not have to replace machinery &#34;. Such a mine can work within the structure of the present system and do reasonably well. It can pay a dividend of 7 per cent, or 91 per cent, and still get a subsidy on its production. This Government, or any other government that comes into power after it, must have regard to the anomalous position described by the Chamber of Mines as follows: - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>An anomalous situation can arise whereby two adjacent mines with practically identical plants and installations, and treating comparable tonnages of ore, would be treated quite differently merely because their theoretical capital structures are influenced by the age of the mines. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The Government has not considered that situation. The basic provision for the small producer was not made as the result of a suggestion by the present Government, or by Peter Browne or anybody else like that. That provision was made as a result of representations by the prospectors&#39; association, by the Chamber of Mines and by businessmen, who were prepared to stake the people from whom they had got their money in earlier times. The document issued by the Chamber of Mines states further - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>A development allowance is requested for those mines not eligible for assistance under the Act. It is again suggested thai an allowance bc made of 4s. per ton of ore treated for extra development expenditure over a base year or years to bc determined. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>That statement w-.s not made by Peter Browne. It was made by somebody who has really been in the industry. Incidentally, where is <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Scott</inline> now? He was screaming for this information a few moments ago, but apparently he could not wait to hear it. This document goes on - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The probable cost of such an allowance to the Federal Government is estimated at approximately &#163;500,000 p&#187;r annum. For such  a  relative small amount the life of the industry would be materially lengthened, and population and assets would be preserved in mining towns and centres such as Kalgoorlie-Boulder. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I have no doubt that this document is in the hands of the Government, but the Government apparently has not taken cognizance of it. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1336</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZY</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Paltridge</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  It was circulated to all Western Australian members. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1336</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>- T  am the only one who is taking notice of it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1336</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZY</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Paltridge</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Indeed, no. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1336</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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 Government has not taken notice of it. The document continues - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>It is essential for continuity of mining operations that sufficient development be carried out to maintain ore reserves. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1336</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>-  Why not incorporate the document in &#34; Hansard &#34;? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1336</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>-  If I did, you would forget it. If I read it to you and you have enough intelligence to remember and understand it, some results may come from it. Let me continue. The next statement in the document is - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>With continually increasing costs against a fixed price for gold, mines are finding greater difficulties each year in financing adequate development work. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That is fair enough. I do not think that any Western Australian member of the Parliament could refute that statement. There are two Ministers who come from Western Australia and they could have presented this document to the Government, with credit to themselves. If they did so present it, apparently they achieved no results. The document goes on - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>This circumstance has been and is being worsened in an endeavour to counter rising costs by increasing ore production to maximum capacity of mine plant and equipment. A spiral is thus created whereby additional development is required to chase greater production - thus again adding to the cost structure. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This is quite clear economics. It is not Peter Browne&#39;s idea, it is not Malcolm Scott&#39;s idea, it is not the Government&#39;s idea and it is not Joe Cooke&#39;s idea, although Joe Cooke is the only member in the Parliament that has submitted these ideas for the purpose of obtaining results. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1336</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Tangney</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I just put up the ideas, too. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1337</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>- I do not know whether you did or not. However, the Chamber of Mines&#39; document continues - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>Another factor relating to costs is that all mines have fully explored the possibilities of major economics by further capital expenditure. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1337</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Drake-Brockman</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You will get a civic welcome at Kalgoorlie! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1337</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>- I do not want a civic welcome at Kalgoorlie. I will be received there as I have always been received, as Joe Cooke. That has been the case whether I was in or out of the Senate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1337</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ormonde</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You will be accused of filibustering! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1337</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>- Our friend who does that has been missing from his seat since the inception of this debate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1337</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Drake-Brockman</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He has just walked out. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1337</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>- He was in here for only a very brief time. This document continues - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>Again, clue to increases in costs, substantial tonnages of ore have been deleted from reserves as uneconomical to mine. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Many mines have been closed down. They did not even have the advantage of being kept free from water, as they were during the war when the Labour Government had to close them down. However, that is what the Chamber of Mines has stated. Finally the chamber makes the following submissions: - </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(c)">
              <para>We request a subsidy on &#163;1 for &#163;1 basis for exploratory diamond drilling - as distinct from normal development diamond drilling as defined in the act. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(d)">
              <para>We request Government loans to bring selected properties into production, or for approved capital works to increase the efficiency and better economic position of operating mines. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>That is a position that the Government has not assessed. The Labour Party is sincerely putting up a proposition that will be beneficial to the industry. I admit that the provision introduced by the Government, even though it is estimated that the cost of the subsidy this year will be less than it was last year, will not be other than beneficial to the industry. It cannot restrict any small producer. He will get something out of it. Operators of mines producing more than 1,075 ounces may say, &#34;If we reduce our production we will be able to conserve an asset and will not by-pass any reasonable ore bodies &#34;. They will back their capital asset against their immediate return. They may be able to improve their position as a small mine. But this form of assistance will not create any additional employment in the goldmining industry. I do not know whether the Government thinks it will do so. </para>
          <para>I think that on the basis of the submission made by the Chamber of Mines in Western Australia the Government is open to criticism. It has not conceded one point in the various requests made by the Chamber of Mines. I say, therefore, that its attitude is disappointing. The Labour Party does not oppose the bill, which will give some assistance to small producers. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1337</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2N</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RIDLEY, Clement</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Ridley</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Be thankful for small mercies. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1337</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQN</name.id>
                <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>- Yes. One operator might say, in effect, &#34; As a small producer I can save my capital asset &#34;, and another operator might say, in effect, &#34; I will bypass reasonably workable ore to work lodes that will give good returns &#34;. Either operator may elect to do so. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The Labour Party is concerned about the position, and, indeed, most Western Australians are concerned about it, regardless of whether they support the Government or the Labour Party. The position is we should maintain this great asset. The gold-mining industry in Western Australia is by no means worked out and defunct. If the asset is preserved it will probably come to the aid of Australia as it has in the past. Indeed, Western Australia is the only State which had a favorable overseas trade balance last year - a balance of &#163;78,000,000. The goldmining industry can come to the aid of Australia again, and the Government is short-sighted in not having a better plan for the industry. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1337</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAC</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
              <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  It is most heartening for me to support this measure and to say that I have never heard a more enthusiastic debate on gold in this chamber during the last twelve years. I can remember when I made my first speech on gold in the Senate. I think I was the only speaker on that occasion. I have made many speeches on gold since. I shall not weary the Senate to-night since I understand that as soon as I stop speaking the Senate will proceed to pass this bill. I shall not repeat the oft-repeated remarks that I have made about gold. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>It was nice to hear honorable senators opposite taking such an enthusiastic interest in this debate on gold. I do not think 1 have heard such interest on their part for a long time. Perhaps it is merely coincidental that there will be an election in a few months&#39; time and honorable senators opposite have suddenly discovered there is a place called Kalgoorlie and are taking a very active interest - and deservedly so - in our gold-mining industry. </para>
          <para>This bill does one thing and one thing only, and it does not purport to do anything else. It amends the Gold-mining Industry Assistance Act in one respect only; that is, it widens the eligibility for the subsidy of &#163;2 8s. an ounce payable to small gold producers. Up to the time this bill becomes law, a small gold producer producing less than 500 ounces of gold a year is entitled to the subsidy. Thereafter the definition of a small producer will bc widened to include those producers who produce up to 1,075 ounces of gold a year. They will receive at least some part of the subsidy. A lot of discussion has taken place on this matter to-night, but I can recall having advocated this idea in the Senate about twelve years ago. I think I was the first one to do so. I am very pleased that the Government has seen fit to bring in this amendment. It shows that if you keep trying long enough you definitely will persuade governments to do these things. It is heartening for me to be able to stand here and praise the Government for its initiative. </para>
          <para>Other speakers in this debate have been talking about gold in terms of the desirability and importance of increasing its production. That, of course is a very worthy thought, but the matter is not as easy as all that. I suggest that all the speakers have overlooked one very important factor in relation to increased production, and that is that Australia happens to be a party to the Bretton Woods Agreement. Under the international formulas that apply, as a member of the International Monetary Fund, Australia is not entitled arbitrarily to subsidize gold for the purpose of increasing production. In other words, under the international agreement this Government cannot pay a direct subsidy or, for that matter, an indirect subsidy for the purpose of increasing the annual production of gold in Australia. It is very silly for members of the Opposition to produce schemes which would have that effect, because they just cannot bc implemented. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1338</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Tangney</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- How will this bill affect the production? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1338</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This bill will not increase substantially the gold production in Australia. It will put a bit of money into the pockets of the small producers. I do not profess to be an authority on goldmining, and so many authorities on it have spoken to-night that I must respect their views. I would be very interested if anybody can show me that this increased subsidy will have an effect upon the production of gold as such. The only effect it will have is that it will put a few more pounds into the pockets of prospectors. Whether it will actually increase production is extremely doubtful. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1338</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Tangney</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Will it encourage the marginal producer? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1338</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It will encourage gold-mining. There may be an overall increase in production at a later date, but it would be most difficult to attribute such an increase to this increased subsidy. It will certainly encourage gold-mining. Nobody will deny that. But it could not be proved conclusively that this increased subsidy will increase the production of one particular producer. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I wish to get back to the matter of increased gold production because that is the critical factor in any consideration of the gold subsidy. Many cases have be&#171;n put to the Government. They have been referred to by members of the Opposition to-night. I am very well aware that a case has been put to the Government by the combined chambers of mines in Australia for some modification of the present law. I want to say something about that case in relation to the Government&#39;s dilemma or problem within the context of the Bretton Woods Agreement. The traditional attitude of the Government - probably I should say of the Treasury - when we are discussing an increase in the subsidy, is that Australia as a member of the International Monetary Fund cannot pay a direct subsidy on  gold  if that subsidy will have the effect of increasing production substantially. </para>
          <para>In fact, only last year Canada attempted to do something of that nature and the International Monetary Fund, with great alacrity, interfered with the Canadian legislation and actually prevented its implementation. The Canadians were not able to implement their proposed legislation for an increased subsidy. The Canadian goldmining industry is in a similar situation to that of our own industry, it is true that a direct, or even an indirect, subsidy that will have the effect of increasing production cannot be implemented by this Government because of the international agreement. We have to ask ourselves: Where do we go from there? ls there any scheme that can be put into operation that, will assist gold-mining without increasing production substantially? Of course, the answer in a nutshell is, &#34; Yes &#34;. </para>
          <para>There is nothing to prevent the Australian Government granting a subsidy that will maintain or preserve the production of the industry at approximately its current level. That is exactly what this bill seeks to do. The existing act purports to do that, but there are divergent views as to whether it is doing so. Personally, I do not believe that it is doing so properly, but some people argue that it is. That is the purpose of the present act. This is the point I wish to make about this argument that I am now buying into: From that it follows that there is nothing objectionable in an increase in subsidy that has the bona fide purpose - I emphasize those words - and effect of preserving the industry, if incidentally that increase also has the effect of increasing gold production. I hope that I have made  myself  clear. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1339</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Tangney</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  No. Will you say it again? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1339</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I put this to the Minister: There is nothing to prevent this Government modifying the present subsidy, increasing it or altering it in some substantial way - such as the way that the chambers of mines have put to the Government - if it can be shown that that is a bona fide alteration only for the purpose of preserving the industry even if. incidentally, it increases production. The increased production would be incidental to the main purpose which would be to preserve the industry. That may sound double Dutch to many people, but to a person who knows the elementary facts of life about goldmining or any other form of mining, it does not become complicated. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The whole problem in a mining industry stems from the fact that a mine is a wasting asset. Every ton of ore that is taken from the ground depletes that mine&#39;s capital by that ton of ore. So, any scheme for the assistance of a mining industry which preserves production at a constant level is depleting that industry unless sufficient funds and resources are available for continuous development and exploration, not necessarily at one mine but in the whole of the industry. </para>
          <para>We get back to my proposition that I do not think the Government should be violating the Bretton Woods Agreement if it were to amend this act substantially to assist the industry still further, provided the amendment had the bona fide purpose of preserving the industry and even if, incidentally, it increased production. It would still be proper and valid for the Government to pursue that course. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1339</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Tangney</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The end justifies the means. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1339</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No, not at all. There is nothing fishy about this; it is  a  perfectly simple proposition. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1339</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Tangney</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  You need to be  a  bush lawyer to understand it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1339</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
                <name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  No, you do not even need to be a bush lawyer to understand it. I have tried to make myself clear. I will not repeat my proposition again. I think I have already repeated it twice. If <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Tangney</inline> does not understand it now, I will explain it to her later. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I submit that proposition to the Government. As the Minister well knows, the chambers of mines have put to the Government a request for some modification of the present act, which would have the effect of assisting all the mines in operation. At present, whilst many of the goldmining companies are paying dividends, it is perfectly clear that ultimately they will all run into trouble because of their increased cost of production. Once  a  mine runs into trouble and starts losing money it closes down. That must never happen in the Western Australian goldmines. They have plenty of ore there and within the framework of our international obligations there is still scope for alterations to the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act. </para>
          <para>I commend what I have said to the Minister and the Government because I believe that ultimately we must face up to the fact that as much assistance as possible has to be given to the gold-mining industry. A tremendous investment is involved and some thousands of men work on the goldfields, where there are quite substantial towns. Further, gold is still and will always remain the most salable commodity overseas. We are building roads for the promotion of increased beef exports. We arc embarking on an exciting programme of iron ore exports. All of these things are very good, but is any one prepared to stand in the Senate and say that in twenty years we shall be able to sell oneton of ore overseas in competition with the rest of the world? Who is prepared to say that in ten years we shall be able to sell overseas successfully large quantities of beef? I am not arguing that we should not export beef and iron ore. However, not only now but also in ten years, twenty years or a hundred years gold will be the best and most salable commodity that we have. It always has been so and always will be. </para>
          <para>Now, when the Government is most anxious to increase export income, the time is ripe for us to do something about preserving the industry for posterity. That is the critical factor. It is not a matter of keeping the industry alive for five years. We must make certain that it is alive for 50 years or 100 years. That is our obligation and our problem. </para>
          <para>This is a very fine bill. It will give to the prospector and the small syndicate a great deal of encouragement. The day of the small syndicate is not over. There is great scope for the small mine. There is tremendous scope for small syndicates of from 4 to 30 employees, who collectively can produce an enormous quantity of gold. There is really a great deal of promise for many of the small shows if they can get assistance. I commend Peter Browne and the Government on the good work that has been done. </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>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1340</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TARIFF BOARD</title>
          <page.no>1340</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">Reports on Items. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1340</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KOW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HENTY, Norman</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HENTY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I lay on the table of the Senate reports by a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Internal combustion engines not exceeding 10 brake h.p. </para>
          <para>Weftless narrow fabrics of man-made fibres. </para>
          <para>I ask for leave to make a short statement. </para>
          <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin).</inline> - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1340</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>- Tariff proposals to implement the findings of these reports by  deputy  chairmen of the Tariff Board were introduced in another place this afternoon. Honorable senators will recall that during the debate on the tariff bills this afternoon there was some discussion as to the period of operation of temporary duties. I thought it would be of interest to the Senate if I were to furnish details of the position. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>A temporary duty may be imposed by gazette notice when the Parliament is in recess. In that event, a tariff proposal must be introduced within seven sitting days of the resumption of the Parliament. If Parliament is in session, the temporary duty is introduced directly by tariff proposal. Such tariff proposals are acts of the Executive, to which Parliament has accorded protection from legal processes for a period of six months or until the Parliament is dissolved, whichever is the sooner. It follows, then, that the tariff proposals must be debated within that period. When enacted, the temporary duties become law. </para>
          <para>As a condition to the imposition of temporary duties, the Minister for Trade is required first to refer the question of tariff protection to the Tariff Board for full-scale inquiry and report. The temporary duties continue to apply until three months after the final report is received. Within that three months, the temporary duties have to be replaced by normal duties or they will lapse. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <adjournment>
      <adjournmentinfo>
        <page.no>1340</page.no>
        <time.stamp>23:26:00</time.stamp>
      </adjournmentinfo>
      <para class="block">Senate adjourned at 11.26 p.m. </para>
    </adjournment>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>