View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
3 June 1938

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- SYDNEY WATERSIDE WORKERS
QUESTION
- TIMBER SUPPLIES
QUESTION
- NON-OFFICIAL POSTMASTERS
QUESTION
- EX-GERMAN COLONIES
QUESTION
- STATUS OF WOMEN
QUESTION
- MELBOURNE AIRPORTS
QUESTION
- ALLEGED BOYCOTT OF AUS TRALIAN WOOL
QUESTION
- LANDING OF JAPANESE TROOPS NEAR HONG KONG
QUESTION
- NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY ORDINANCE No. 2 OF 1938
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN DEFENCE FACTORIES
QUESTION
- BOOCK BREAK-OF-GAUGE DEVICE
QUESTION
- DEATH OF LEADING SEAMAN STORER
PAPERS
RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1938
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 10.30 a.m. and read prayers.

page 1808

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

TreatmentofAborigines.

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the reported statement of Judge Wells, that “flogging was the preferable punishment for delinquent natives in the Northern Territory, as jail made them fat and derelicts when they came out “, will the Minister for the Interior, during his projected visit to the Northern Territory, investigate the position generally, and particularly in connexion with the suggestion that the entire native population of Australia shouldbe brought under an administration similar to that which now exists in New Guinea?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– I propose, while in the Northern Territory, to give full consideration to every aspect of native administration. I shall investigate the possibility of applying to aborigines in the Northern Territory methods of native administration similar to those applied in Now Guinea.

page 1808

QUESTION

SYDNEY WATERSIDE WORKERS

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister, on a date to be suitably arranged, accompany representatives of the Sydney branch of the W aterside Workers’ Federation, including the secretary, Mr. Mullins, and myself, on a tour of inspection of the waterfront at the port of Sydney, with the object of seeingat first hand the conditions under which the waterside workers there are picked up for employment? Will the right honorable gentleman also bewilling, at a later date to be conveniently arranged, to discuss with representatives of the Sydney branch the matter of a central picking-up place? Under existing conditions, these men have to remain in the streets - practically in the gutters - a considerable distance from the. places at which their work has to be done, waiting to be picked up. These conditions have prevailed for so long that the men are keenly anxious to have the matter placed on a more satisfactory basis.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– Mr. Mullins interviewed me in regard to this matter some time ago. I understand that the Acting Attorney-General proposes, in company with the Solicitor-General, to pay a visit to Sydney within the next few days, with a view to making an inspection. I also would be agreeable to make a personal inspection on a suitable date, as the honorable member has suggested.

page 1808

QUESTION

TIMBER SUPPLIES

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Some time ago I introduced to the Prime Minister a deputation of representatives of the timber industry. The Minister for Trade and Customs was present, and Ibelieve that eventually the representations then made were handed to him. Has the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs investigated the position ? If so, has he come to any decision in the matter?

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Certain preliminary investigations have been madeby the department, but it has been found neces- sary to make further inquiries. TheChief Investigation Officer of the department is leaving for Adelaide next Monday.He will then visit the principal States concerned, and later present a report to the Prime Minister.

page 1809

QUESTION

NON-OFFICIAL POSTMASTERS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– On a number of occasions, questions have been asked in this House and elsewhere at that time non-official postmasters, and the Minister representing the Postmaster-General has promised to make a statement in regard to the matter. Is the honorable gentleman yet in a position to make that statement?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– A report was received and handed to the PostmasterGeneral, by -whom it was taken to Cabinet. There have been some preliminary investigations, but a definite decision has not yet been made on account of pressure of other business. The Government, however, intends to give effect to certain recommendations, and the improvements to be effected will date from the 1st July, next.

page 1809

QUESTION

EX-GERMAN COLONIES

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether there was any Cabinet discussion of the policy of Australia in relation to ex-German colonies before the Minister for External aif airs left for !New Guinea? If so, are the pronouncements by that right honorable gentleman in New Guinea a reflection of that policy?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– There was no specific discussion of the matter prior to the departure of the Minister for External Affairs for New Guinea. Some months ago - I have forgotten the exact date - a declaration was made by the then Minister for External Affairs (Senator Pearce) on behalf of the Government. The reply given by the Government to questions asked in this House and elsewhere at that time was that it was not considering the return of any colonies.

page 1809

QUESTION

STATUS OF WOMEN

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the reflection which the Treasurer cast on the sex of the Labour candidate for Geelong, Mrs. Brownbill, *ar Geelong West last Monday night-

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).Order! In charging the Treasurer with having cast a reflection the honorable gentleman is expressing his own opinion. That is not permissible when asking a question.

Mr FORDE:

– I am sorry if I have transgressed the rule which governs the asking of questions. In view of the nature of the statement which the honorable gentleman made as Commonwealth Treasurer at Geelong West last Monday night, lias he yet conveyed to Mrs. Brownbill, the endorsed Labour candidate, an apology for the reflection which he cast upon her sex?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable gentleman is entirely out of order, for two very distinct and important reasons. In the first place, the matter to which he refers is in no sense connected with the administration of the Treasurer in the discharge of public affairs, and in the second place, he inferred that the Treasurer had made certain reflections which required an apology.

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister state what steps the Government proposes to take in order to prevent the raising of commodity prices, which action the employers will naturally take “with a view to meeting the additional cost imposed on them by the operation of the national health and pensions insurance legislation? What protection is to be afforded to insured persons in order to prevent such a contingency as their having to pay not only their own contributions but also, by reason of the increased cost of commodity prices, the contributions of the employers?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That question cannot be answered without anticipating debate on the bill, but if the Prime Minister wishes to answer it he may do so.

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I agree with your ruling, sir. Honorable members will be entitled to raise this matter and others during the debate on the bill.

page 1810

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY ORDINANCE No. 2 OF 1938

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– In view of the care exercised by the Government to ensure that no vote shall be taken on private members’ day with respect to the disallowance or otherwise of any Northern Territory ordinance, and also in view of the statement of the Minister for the Interior on the floor of this House - made in all good faith, but nevertheless misleading - that ordinances may be disallowed, will he give the assurance that the usual practice of operating on these ordinances will be discontinued until a vote has been taken on Ordinance No. 2 of 1938, which I have given notice of my intention to move to disallow?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– No.

page 1810

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN DEFENCE FACTORIES

Mr HAWKER:

– Will the Minister for Defence state whether the reports which have appeared in the press, alleging industrial discontent in defence factories and in the aircraft factory at Fishermen’s Bend, give a fair account of the position, or whether they are exaggerated and tend to convey the impression that certain unionists are attempting to “ bail up “ the country by preventing urgent defence works from being carried out?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– There is no foundation whatever for the rumours -or statements that have been made in connexion with works that are being carried out in the various organizations under the control of the Defence Department, or those associated with the aircraft corporation in Victoria. I assure the honorable member that the employees in all government activities arc doing their work satisfactorily, and that I have received no intimation of any industrial unrest.

page 1810

QUESTION

BOOCK BREAK-OF-GAUGE DEVICE

Mr HARRISON:

– In reply to a question which I asked him some time ago about a certain report upon the Boock break-of-gauge device, the Minister for the Interior informed me that that report had been superseded by a report hy a conference of engineers of ways and works in Sydney. I wish to know how many of the members of that conference were mechanical engineers, and what was the nature of their report?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I understand that the engineer for ways and works on every railway system is a mechanical engineer. The majority of the members of the conference referred to, agreed to a resolution definitely adverse to the adoption of this device. The minority favoured qualified opposition to it.

page 1811

QUESTION

DEATH OF LEADING SEAMAN STORER

Formal Motion vor ‘Adjournment.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Gr. J. Bell).I have received from the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ The death of Leading Seaman H. J. Storer “.

Five honorable members having risen in support of the motion,

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

I greatly regret having to take this action, for it may be interpreted as an attempt to make political capital out of the unfortunate death of one of our naval ratings, but as my endeavours by correspondence .with the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby), and also by the asking of questions in the House, have failed to obtain satisfactory information for the sorrowing mother of Seaman Storer, no other course is open to me. The replies of the Minister foi- Defence to my original questions on the subject referred to inquiries from departmental officers and also from the Naval Board of Inquiry, but the mother is still not satisfied. Even as late as the 23rd May I ha’d a letter from this distressed woman, in which she pleaded with me to take the case further. She assured me that naval ratings and also an officer from Garden Island had told her that her son was not drowned, but was left to perish encased in a lifebuoy that was thrown overboard from the Sydney, which followed the Canberra, from which vessel he was washed overboard. The Minister for Defence has admitted that the man was seen after he was washed overboard. We want an open inquiry into the whole matter. The Minister has given permission to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) and myself to read the confidential departmental file on this subject. I absolutely refuse to take this course, for I should not be able to impart to the sorrowing mother and wife the information obtained in that way. It is not fair to invite a member of Parliament to examine a confidential document on a subject of this description and then deny him permission to make its contents known to persons so vitally concerned as are the mother and wife in this case. Many hundreds of mothers, not only in New South Wales, but also elsewhere, in Australia, are seriously concerned about the reports that have been published on this subject. They are asking why an open inquiry cannot be held into such serious allegations. In the first letter that I received from the mother of Leading Seaman Storer it was stated that -

Seaman Storer w&3 washed overboard from the Canberra ami about two hours afterwards ha was seen to give the SOS signal. The lifelines were never taken out from where they were locked away, and one of the. destroyers almost rescued him when the Admiral on the Canberra gave orders for the vessel to proceed. I have spoken to a few’ of the men and they say that if that order -had not been given, Seaman Storer would have been alive to-day.

This is a very serious allegation, and although the Minister may be satisfied that everything was done that could have been done, the information furnished to the mother of this seaman suggests that this is not so. It is said that the visibility was very had at the time this accident happened, ‘but one of the naval ratings is alleged to possess a snapshot of Leading Seaman Storer encassed in the buoy. Yet he was left to perish.

Mr Lane:

– Can the honorable member furnish any statements of this nature?

Mr JAMES:

– I cannot, unfortunately, because the naval ratings concerned would be subjected to punishment if they gave information to me. Regulation 130 dealing with this subject says -

Members of naval forces are forbidden to publish or communicate to the press any information without special authority,’ either directly or indirectly. They will bc held responsible for any statements contained in communications to their friends which may subsequently be published in the press.

The mother of Seaman Storer states that her son was seen encased in the buoy after ho had given the SOS signal, and the fact remains that this lifebuoy was not picked up. The Minister informed me that no regulation required that all buoys should be picked up, but I understand that it is the custom to pick up- all buoys thrown overboard in such circumstances and that vessels are not permitted to leave the vicinity of a happening of this kind until every buoy has been secured. The mother of Seaman Storer also said in her first letter to me : -

I saw an officer from Garden Island and he told mc that the ship must stay and pick up all lifebuoys that had been thrown over. Now why did the Canberra leave when they had not picked up all the lifebuoys that had been thrown overt One was missing, and, in my belief seaman Storer was still in it when they left him to perish.

She also said -

Seaman Storer did not drown: bts perished. Now had such a thing happened anywhere else hut in the Navy some one would have been punished. Why should the officer of the Navy go free? Why not make him answer in open court and show what a blundering idiot LanePoole (Admiral of the Royal Australian Navy) was. I cannot fight it myself, because I have been told I have not enough money. You are the only one that I know of to ask for help.

The unfortunate mother pleads with me to take the matter further. In her latest letter to me she again asks for an open inquiry. The Minister for Defence has definitely declined to grant this request, for he says it would be against all naval traditions. But surely we should break down these old traditions when they are so unsatisfactory and allow to occur such incidents as this and also the recent episode in connexion with the Dorsetshire off the Queensland coast. A certain official in Queensland wished to board that vessel to take charge of the body of a man alleged to have been murdered in Australian territorial waters, but he was told to go about his business.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not discuss that subject on this motion.

Mr JAMES:

– All I say is, Mr. Speaker, that such incidents should not be permitted to occur. The officers of our Navy are mainly selected from British naval officers, and unfortunately they frequently show a degree of truculence when any civil authority has need to deal with them.

Undoubtedly the mother of Seaman Storer has been informed by eye-witnesses that her son was left to perish. If this is so, the responsible person should be pun.ished. The Minister for Defence, in replying to my questions on this subject, said that no useful purpose would be served by holding an open inquiry. He added, in effect, that it was against the traditions of the* Navy to hold such inquiries. That may be so, but are we to tell this distracted mother that nothing can be done to relieve her distress? I am not making any charges in connexion with the case. I am simply requesting that an inquiry be made into the statements of persons who have alleged that they have definite information to divulge ! If such an inquiry were made, it would afford, to those who volunteered information, protection against the regulation which I have quoted. There should be no secrecy about the matter. An inquiry by the Naval Board does not meet the circumstances of this case. Seaman Storer’s mother has declared, on what seems to be reliable evidence, that her son was left to perish in a most brutal and callous manner. Surely it is -in the interests of the Navy that the facts should be made plain beyond all doubt. Otherwise serious reactions may occur. We should ascertain who is speaking the truth about this tragic occurrence. Statements have been made that men on hoard the Sydney, which was the next boat in the line after the Canberra, were able to snap a photograph of him, but as the vessel was ordered to proceed upon its way to Jervis Bay no action could be taken to rescue him. It is doubtful if everything possible was done. Why were not all the vessels allowed to continue the search. The Canberra was the largest vessel and would require more space for manoeuv- ring. The smaller vessels, particularly the Sydney, could have manoeuvred more quickly. The Sydney threw Storer a lifebuoy, which he caught, but the lifebuoy from the Canberra he missed. The alleged photograph was taken by a naval rating on the Sydney, which was not allowed to continue the search. It is admitted ‘that the sea was rough, but many of the men were prepared to go overboard with ropes. That also has been told to the unfortunate mother. They were not permitted to go overboard. Some of them were keen to launch a boat, but they were told that the sea was too rough. I am not anxious to make accusations, but I do say definitelyand clearly that when an unfortunate mother is being told such things as these an open inquiry should be held in the interests of all concerned.

Mr.THORBY (Calare- Minister for Defence) [11.3]. - I regret the way in which the honorable member forHunter (Mr. James) has approached this matter. No doubt every honorable member of this House regrets that Leading Seaman Storer was lost overboard, but 1 am quite sure that no one here will accuse any one on the ships of being callous or brutal in deserting a. fellow seaman on the high seas. That much can be granted on behalf of any seaman of whatever rank, whether serving in the navy or in the mercantile marine. Seamen are at all times willing to risk their lives to rescue fellow seamen in distress. I have gone through the departmental file very carefully, and discussed the matter with Admiral Lane-Poole in my office where we were removed from the official atmosphere associated with inquiries in other quarters.

Thehonorable member for East Sydney interjecting,

Mr.THORBY.- I object to being insulted by the dishonorable member for East Sydney.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G J Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– I did not hear the remark which the Minister says was insulting.

Mr Ward:

– I ask that the reference made to me by the Minister be withdrawn, and that an apology be made.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister must withdraw his remark.

Mr.THORBY. - At your request Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remark, but I object to being insulted and interrupted in such a way.

Mr.Ward. - It is beyond my capacity to insult the Minister.

Mr THORBY:
CP

Mr THORBY:

– Yes. After perusing all the papers, I feel sure that he will feel as satisfied as I am that everything possible was done to save the man’s life, and that the various orders given were given in the best interests of the lives of the other men.

In reply to the statement by the honorable member for Hunter that the smaller craft were more suitable for use in rescue operations, I am satisfied from the information which has been made available to me that if the smaller craft, the destroyers, had been used, serious risk would have been involved not only of losing more men but perhaps also of losing the craft, themselves. It would not have been possible to manoeuvre small craft quickly in the very heavy sea then running. In the parlance of a layman it would have been necessary for them to have turned in a very large circle. That did not apply to the Canberra, which was the largest vessel present. Furthermore, the Canberra was under the direct control of the Captain and the Admiral of the Fleet. In their judgment it was the most suitable ship to be utilized to endeavour to effect a rescue. Admiral Lane-Poole was just about to terminate his appointment to the Australian Station. ljeave to continue given.]

– That would be after the Sydney had passed on, so it precludes the possibility of a photograph having been taken from tha-t. vessel as suggested by the honorable member for Hunter. If such a photograph were available, surely it could have been submitted as material evidence to the Board of Inquiry. As to the Board of Inquiry itself, I suggest that the men composing it are fearless men actuated by a high sense of duty; and absolutely honourable. It is on record that similar boards of inquiry have gone so far as to recommend the court-martial of persons of higher rank than those composing the board. If the photograph mentioned by the honorable member for Hunter were available, surely anyone alleged to be in possession of it -would have endeavoured to see that just punishment was meted out to those responsible for the loss of the life of one of his mates. Our naval ratings are closely bound by ties of comradeship, and the least that can be said is that the mates of this particular man were lacking in comradeship if it is true that they suppressed evidence of this nature. I submit that uo man would be so heartless as to fail to produce such evidence in these circumstances, when by doing so he might lie doing justice to an unfortunate comrade.

Mr Curtin:

– The Acting Minister apparently misunderstands the Opposition. Parliament is responsible for the existence of the Navy, and it should be satisfied that the Navy is properly managed.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The Minister for Defence has already offered to break tradition by allowing the Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) to peruse the files in connexion with this case. If, having perused those documents, they are still not satisfied that justice has been done, it will then be time enough for them to take action such as has been taken today. But until that opportunity has been availed of, the time of Parliament should not be taken up with a motion of this nature. I would be as careful as any one to see that a proper inquiry was made into unfortunate happenings such as the death of the man referred to in this motion, but I have sufficient confidence in the men in charge of the Navy to believe that they would, in every instance, carry out the instructions laid down in the naval regulations approved by this Parliament. I believe that those instructions have been carried out in this instance, and will be carried out in the future, regardless of who may be hurt in the process.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- Every honorable member regrets the unfortunate circumstances out of which this motion has arisen. It would appear either that there has been a fatal misadventure, or that something little short of manslaughter has occurred. If proper precautions were not taken, and every effort made to save the life of this man, those responsible have much to answer for. I disagree with the Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron) and other honorable members who believe that the proper authorities to inquire into these matters are the heads of tho service concerned. On numerous occasions, when fatal accidents to members of our naval or air forces have occurred, a proper investigation by a coronerhas been unsuccessfully demanded. The Minister and those honorable members who support him contend that the only persons fitted to make investigations are the heads of the departments concerned. The logical conclusion of that argument is that only expert criminals who are capable of concocting the perfect crime should be entrusted with the investigation of. a murder. The contention that only the heads of the service shall inquire into the occurrence is ridiculous ; such an inquiry is only an appeal from Caesar to Caesar.

Mr James:

– I said that it was alleged that ratings had photographs. The honorable member s’houl’d not misrepresent me.

Mr LANE:

– I do not wish to misrepresent the honorable member. I want to do the fair thing by the mother and the widow, as well as by the Government. I do not wish to enter into a controversy as to the way in which this case has been presented, but I repeat that this debate could have been avoided if the Minister had wisely allowed the honorable member for Hunter and the Leader of the Opposition to see the documents in the first place.

Debate interrupted under Standing Order 257b.

Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1829

PAPERS

The following papers were pressented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment of C. Belle, Department of Commerce.

CustomsAct - Regulations Amended - StatutoryRules 1938, No. 49. [Quorum formed.]

page 1829

RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1938

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Administrator’s message) :

Motion (by Mr.Perkins) agreed to : -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend section15 of the Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1934-1935.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended ; resolution adopted.

Ordered. -

That Mr. Perkins and Mr. Thompson do prepare and bring in a. bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr.Perkins, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro- Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Eden · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The financial emergency legislation reduced the bounty payable on raw cotton. The object of the bill is to restore the full bounty in respect of raw cotton produced after the 31st December, 1937. In other words, the full rate of bounty speci fied in the principal act of 1934 will be payable on all raw cotton produced from the1938 and 1939 crops. Section 15 of that act, which the bill proposes to amend, reads -

Any amount of bounty payable under the foregoing provisions of this act shall be subject to the reduction specified in section 52 of the Financial Emergency Act 1931.

The Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1934 provided for the payment of a bounty on a sliding scale on a. quantity of raw cotton in respect of each of the seasons from 1935 to 1939 inclusive - such quantity to be determined by the Minister before each season on the basis of Australian users’ requirements, plus 20 per cent. The rates of bounty provided in the act were: -

These rates were intended to assure growers of a minimum average net return of3¾d. per lb. of seed cotton, and it wascontemplated that the financial emergency reduction would be restored later when Commonwealth finances permitted, and if the growers’ position should warrant such action. The average net returns to growers for the first, three seasons were :

Latterly, however, cotton growers, in common with other sections of the Australian community have experienced higher costs in producing their crops, as well as increased living costs. For example, the harvesting or picking rate has advanced from l¼d. per lb. of seed cotton to l½d. per lb., and there have been other advances. On the contrary, as already indicated, the average net return to growers had. fallen by 1937 by approximately one-third of a penny per lb. Moreover, 300 farmers had ceased to grow cotton, and the total production in terms of raw cotton fell from 14,515 to 8,519 bales. However, adverse climatic conditions were substantially responsible for the low yield in 1937.

Tho prospects for the 1938 Australian crop now being harvested, and next year’s crop also, would be much worse but for the assistance proposed in the bill now before the House. Owing to record crops in America, India and Egypt last year, tremendous excess world stocks exist, and the standard price of raw cotton in the open market at Liverpool is now slightly under 5d. per lb. as against from 6d. to 7-kl. per lb. during recent years. Consequently, the average net return for the 1938 crop is likely to be as low as 3-£d. “ per lb. of seed cotton, unless the 20 per cent, by which the bounty was reduced under the financial emergency legislation be restored. Restoration will benefit growers by approximately one-third of a Id. .per lb. of seed cotton, equivalent to Id. per Jb. of raw cotton, and thus give an average price ranging between 3.Sd. and 4d. per lb. of seed cotton, or practically the same as in 1936 and 1937.

The basic principle of the present raw cotton bounty legislation is that the rate of bounty fluctuates according to the spot price of American middling raw cotton in Liverpool each week. The full rate of bounty, if this bill be passed by Parliament, will be 4;ld. per lb. of raw cotton when the Liverpool spot price is 6d. per lb. “For every point - one point equals a one-hundredth of a Id. per lb. - by which the Liverpool spot price is more or ess than Gd. per lb., the Australian bounty automatically becomes one point less or more than 4£d. per lb. Under this system, the total return to our cotton-growers, i.e., market value plus bounty, is thus stabilized at 10¼d. per lb. of raw cotton, which is equivalent, with .various adjustments, to from 3.8d. to 4d. per lb. of seed cotton. This arrangement was devised by the Tariff Board so that all raw cotton, whether Australian or foreign, required by the spinning industry, i.e., the manufacturers of cotton yarns, would always bc available to them at Australian import parity prices free of any customs duty or primage, thus necessitating smaller duties to protect all manufactured cotton goods a.nd rendering such goods cheaper to consumers. The substantial bounty on raw cotton is the means whereby the import parity price paid by local spinners is increased to an amount deemed necessary to enable local cotton-growers to earn a reasonable living.

It is important to remember that, in recent years, most other primary producers have enjoyed the benefit of prices appreciably higher than former depression values, whereas, world cotton prices have not recovered but have actually fallen ; this has resulted in a. diminution of the income of cotton-growers during a period when their costs of production have risen. As the Liverpool price falls, Australian growers lose a small amount equivalent to exchange on the reduction of sterling prices in England.

It was hoped that, under this policy, local growers would .supply all the needs of Australian spinners; but, due largely to bad seasons and partly to rising costs coupled with falling net returns, the annual production of Australian raw cotton since 1935 has fluctuated between 8,500 and 14,500 bales, whereas, the spinning mills require approximately 24,000 bales, per annum, and there are indications that their requirements will increase still further.

The Government believes that, unless the financial emergency reduction is restored, existing conditions as to higher costs and low returns will probably cause many growers to change over from cotton to other agricultural products, the marketing of some of which is already a problem of some magnitude. The effect of any trend in that direction would be still further deficiencies in the quantity of Australian raw cotton available to the spinning mills in Melbourne and Sydney, thus creating difficulties for the mills in the important matter of continuity of supplies of the types of raw cotton to which they have become accustomed.

T need scarcely mention that cotton is a very important commodity in the manufacture of high explosives, tents, clothes, motor tyres and other equipment used for military purposes. A war in the Pacific might cut off our cotton supplies, gravely handicapping military and civil activities. A healthy cottongrowing industry, up to the market created by protected cotton manufactures, is there- fore essential. In view of all existing circumstances the Government is satisfied that there is every justification for a restoration of the financial emergency reduction of 20 per cent. of the raw cotton bounty. The cost of this restoration will be about £32,000 ona 15,000 bale crop.

It is hoped that the Queensland Government, and the cotton-growing industry, will supplement this further effort by the Commonwealth to stimulate cotton production. The Commonwealth, by. its protective customs duties on various types of cotton yarn, piece goods, clothing, cordage, &c, has already provided a very large market in southern factories for Australian raw cotton; but unfortunately only from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. of that market has been supplied by local raw cotton during recent years. In this regard, manufacturers who use Australian raw cotton are entitled to be assured of continuity of adequate supplies of this important raw material, without which they will encounter much difficulty in maintaining uniform quality in their own products.

Irrigation or the availability of underground water would give a very substantial impetus to the volume of production and also reduce costs, thus creating a two-fold benefit to growers. Further, a suitable cotton-picking machine, if available, would enable a large expansion of cotton growing to be profitably undertaken in Australia; this extension, in turn, would provide more remunerative vocations for . existing manual pickers as cotton farmers and field workers.

The Government’s announcement ofits proposal to submit to Parliament a bill providing for the restoration of the bounty has already given much satisfaction in the cotton districts. This year there are approximately 3,000 growers in the industry, some 5,000 field workers and pickers are employed, and about 60,000 acres is under crop; Production could easily be doubled and still find a remunerative market in

Australia. I therefore commend this bill to the House as a measure designed to afford well-merited relief to our cotton-growers, which I trust will result in greatly increased production and employment in this important industry.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The Opposition intends to support this measure, because the restoration of the reduction made by the Lyons Government in the Cotton Bounty Act 1934-35 is long overdue. That cut should never have been applied to the new act of 1934-35. There is no doubt that the cottongrowers have had a very trying experience for the past ten or twelve years, having suffered not only from low prices, but also from the ravages of drought and uncertainty as to the future. It is well to remember that the cottongrowers have settled in one of the newest and largest closer settlements in Australia - that on the Upper Burnett and Callide Valleys. Fifteen or sixteen years ago there were 20 or 30 families engaged in pastoral pursuitson land which to-day provides a living for approximately 3,000 cotton-growers and their wives and families, and supports a number of prosperous towns such as Monto, Biloela and Wowan. Unfortunately many growers have experienced difficulties. In some years they ha ve put large areas under cotton, but harvested only one-half of the crop sown.As the result their financial position has become serious. This proposal to restore the bounty will help them to some extent. They have not benefited to any appreciable extent from the payment of the bounty because of the arrangement that as world prices increased, the amount of bounty payable would decrease.

In 1927 the price received by growers forseed cotton was 4.8d. per lb.; in 1928, 4.5d.; in 1929, 4.6d.; in 1930, 4.8d.; in, 1931, 4d.;in 1932, 3.8d.; in 1933, 3.6d.; in 1934, 3.4d.;in 1935, 4.3d.; in 1936, 3.9d.; in 1937, 4d.; and this year the return willbe a little over4¼d. These figures show that during the depression years the price wasunremunerative. The restoration of the bounty will not make growers prosperous, nor will it result in an increase of the price for land, but it will bean inducement to many growers to carry on who otherwise would be inclined to abandon cotton -growing. The new areas were taken up mainly by men with practically no capital. They were obliged to live in galvanized iron “humpies” while they cleared and burnt off the scrub and planted their first Crop between the stumps. Later when they . had saved a little money, or had succeeded in obtaining credit or advances, the majority of them bought a few cows and carried on dairying and pig raising. In this diversified industry they now require all reasonable assistance from the Government in the expansion of the industry and in the eradication of pest3 which have caused damage to their’ crops. A good deal of research work is already being carried out in their interests under the supervision of the Queensland Government.

Mr Thompson:

– ‘Are the growers troubled with pests every year?

Mr FORDE:

– I understand that boll weevil and grubs cause more damage in some years than in others. The research station established by the Queensland Government at Biloela is doing good work, it is assisted by an advisory board appointed by the cotton-growers, but is somewhat hampered for lack of adequate funds. I hope that the Government will see its way clear to make a special grant through the Queensland Government for research work in connexion with this important industry. Action along these lines has been taken in respect of bananagrowing, the eradication of the prickly pear, foot and mouth disease, and diseases connected with the cattle industry. I understand that the Commonwealth Government pays about £3,000 a year for research work in connexion with banana growing, and gives similar assistance to the pineapple industry.

These research stations play a very important part in the development of primary industries. At Biloela, for instance, the experts are breeding cotton plants and modifying the varieties to suit varying local conditions. They also carry out soil tests for the growers. If a farmer wants to know whether his land is suitable for cotton-growing or for special varieties of cotton, he sends a sample of the soil to the experts at the research station, and they advise him what type of cotton to grow, also what kind and quantity of fertilizer he should use to improve the growing capacity of his land. Mr. “Wells, the Director of Cotton Culture in Queensland, is the chief adviser in these matters, and I feel sure that he would welcome further assistance from the Commonwelth Government in the direction I have mentioned. These experts are also developing a very wide variety of staples of cotton to suit the particular needs of Australian manufacturers, who stated that some of the finer staples grown in Queensland were too long for use in the manufacture of certain classes of materials; they preferred a shorter staple, and objected to paying the higher price for the best quality of Queensland cotton for use in the manufacture of lower grade materials which were required for the Australian market. For some time the Queensland Department of Agriculture was opposed to the introduction of these varying staples, but eventually realized that something should be done to meet the demand of Australian manufacturers for a greater variety, of types of cotton. This development of the industry has been made possible by the valuable work done by the research station at Biloela, for which I am now asking the Government to make an annual grant.

Mr Price:

– How much?

– Not completely, but it is a step in the right direction. The cotton-growers, as a class, are keenly desirous to pay good wages and provide better conditions for the workers in the industry. Unfortunately many of the growers are still living in galvanized iron humpies. The accommodation for seasonal workers is even worse, consisting, in many instances, of tents and bag huts. If the growers can be assured of a better return for their labour they will be able to improve the conditions of their employees. For the reasons I have given, I support the bill. .

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- I welcome the restoration of the cotton bounty to its former rate. The bounty was reduced by the Scullin Government

Mr Forde:

– It was cut down in 1935.

Mr FRANCIS:

– It was reduced by the Scullin Government when all bounty payments were curtailed ; but this restoration is essential to the proper development of the industry. [Quorum formed.] I regret very much that only three members of the Labour party were in the House when the quorum was demanded. This is an important bill, in the passage of which all honorable members should be interested. I repeat that the purpose of the measure is to restore the rate of bounty on raw cotton produced after the 31st December, 1937, to that which obtained prior to the reduction imposed by the Scullin Government at the beginning of the depression. Cotton growing is an important factor in the closer settlement of our tropical and subtropical districts, and is a very valuable supplement to the general farming operations of Queensland.

The Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1934 provided for the payment of a bounty, on a sliding scale, on a quantity of raw cotton in respect of each of the seasons from 1935 to 1939 inclusive, to be determined by the Minister before each season on the basis of requirements of the Australian users, plus 20’ per cent. The rates of bounty provided in the act were -

These rates were intended to assure growers a minimum average net return of3¾d. per lb. of seed cotton. It was contemplated that the amount by which the bounty had been reduced under the financial emergency legislation would be restored when Commonwealth finances permitted, and the growers’ position warranted such action. The average net returns to growers for the first three seasons of the scheme were -

Latterly, cotton growers, in common with other sections of the Australian community, have experienced higher production costs as well as increased living costs. For example, the harvesting or picking rate has advanced from lid. per lb. of seed cotton to l£d. per lb. There have also been other increased costs. The average net return to growers had, however, fallen by 1937 by approximately one-third of a penny per lb. Moreover, 300 farmers had ceased, to grow cotton, and the total production, in terms of raw cotton, fell from 14,515 to 8,519 bales. Adverse climatic conditions were chiefly responsible for the low yield in 1937.

The prospects for the 1938 Australian crop now being harvested, and also next year’s crop, would bc much worse but for this bill. Owing to record crops in America, India and Egypt last year, tremendous excess world stocks exist, and the standard price of raw cotton in the open market at Liverpool is now slightly under 5d. per lb., as against from 6d. to 7$d. during recent years. Consequently, the average net return for the 1938 crop is likely to be as low as 3-tl-d. per lb. of seed cotton, unless the full rate of bounty be restored. Restoration will benefit growers by approximately one-third of a penny per lb. of seed cotton, which is equivalent to Id. per lb. of raw cotton, and thus give an average price ranging between 3.8d. and 4d. per lb. of seed cotton, or practically the same as in 1936 and 1937. The Government’s announcement of its proposal to submit to Parliament a bill providing for restoration of the bounty has already given much satisfaction in the cotton growing districts. This year there are approximately 3,000 growers and 5,000 field workers and pickers, and about 60,000 acres is under crop. If production were doubled there would still be a remunerati ve market for it in Australia. I therefore commend this bill to the House as a measure designed to afford well-merited relief to our cotton growers, and I hope that it will result in greatly increased production and employment in this important industry.

I should like to urge that the Queensland Government take a keener and more active interest in the development of the industry. Irrigation is essential to overcome the drought conditions. The areas where cotton is grown are subject to periodical droughts, which interfere with the continuity of supplies. Thus embarrassment and heavy expenditure are caused to the manufacturing side of the industry. It is more than time that facilities for irrigation were provided. Certain definite progress is made by the industry in good seasons, but it slips back during periods of drought. The cotton industry in Queensland began primarily as an export industry, and it had to enter into competition with blackgrown cotton ; it has since developed in four directions. Cotton plants are grown for the production of seed cotton ; raw cotton and various by-products, such as cotton seed oil, linters, and cattle-fodder, are produced from such cotton; cotton yarns are spun from raw cotton; and cotton yarns are used in the knitting and weaving trades, and linters and yarn byproducts for making cotton wool” and bedding materials. The industry has had a very chequered career. It first began in 1S60, when 14 acres was planted with cotton in Queensland. In ten years the area increased to 14,000 acres. That rapid advance was due to the civil war in America, which interfered greatly with cotton production in that country. America usually grows about 60 per cent, of the total world output. Upon the reappearance of American cotton on the European market, shortly after the end of the civil war, the Queensland industry suffered a rapid decline almost to extinction, because practically the whole of its product had to be exported and enter into competition with raw cotton produced by very cheap labour. The first really serious attempt to revive the industry was in 1920. It was then that a definite price was guaranteed by the Queensland Government, after representatives of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation had visited Australia and urged the esta’blishment of the industry. For three years an average price of 5-^d. per lb. for seed cotton -was guaranteed. In 1920 world prices of raw cotton were still abnormally high owing to shortages created by the great war. The loss on realization from, the export sales then necessary cost the Queensland Government £78,928. Nevertheless, the area under cultivation rose from 166 acres to approximately 28,000 acres in those three years of the guarantee, and much new land was settled and additional employment created. In 1922 the Queensland Government asked the Commonwealth Government to assist the industry, and the Tariff Board recom mended the continuance of the system of guaranteed prices for another four years. Finally the Commonwealth Government agreed with all the States, except Tasmania, that it would share equally with the States any loss arising from guaranteed prices for seed cotton. The guaranteed prices were: In 1924, 5d. per lb. regardless of length of staple; in 1925, up to 5d. per lb. according to length of stable; and in .1926, up to 4d. per lb., according to length of staple. There being a very small local market for Australian raw cotton during these years, most of the product had to be exported, and the Commonwealth’s half share of the losses on realization amounted to £170,900. The Commonwealth Government also supplied £2,044 to assist in cotton research. During the last period many more growers entered the industry, the area cultivated increased to 50,000 acres, and the peak production of seed cotton was over 18,000,000 lb. By this time practical experience iu several States had shown that Queensland was apparently the State best suited climatically for the growing of seed cotton. In view of the increasing losses and other difficulties associated with the industry, the Queensland Government in 1925 urged the Commonwealth Government to take over the whole responsibility for assisting the industry. It was claimed that the building up of new industries was essentially a Commonwealth matter meriting tariff and/or bounty assistance. [Quorum formed.] I notice that there are still only three Labour men taking an interest in the bill. The Queeusland cotton-growers asked for a bounty of 2d. per lb. on seed cotton. Early in 1926 the Tariff Board recommended a bounty of 2d. per lb. for six years, this rate to diminish gradually each year until it reached Id. at the end of the tenth year. Concurrently the Tariff Board recommended a bounty of 6d. per lb. on cotton yarns, manufactured in Australia, provided that at least 50 per cent, of Australian raw cotton was used in their manufacture. The Bruce-Page Government decided to create, within Australia, a market for locally produced raw cotton by establishing the manufacture of cotton yarns* Small customs duties were imposed on cotton yarns n.e.i., which meant soft cotton yarns required for the knitting trade and used mainly for such articles as hosiery and underwear. At the same time a bounty of one-third of a penny per count per lb. was granted on such cotton yarns up to count No. 49. Not less than 50 per cent, of the raw cotton used in their manufacture had to be produced in Australia. Furthermore, a bounty of 1-^d. per lb. was granted for five years on all seed cotton produced in Australia. This rate of bounty, with the higher price at which the growers were able to sell their raw cotton to yarn manufacturers by virtue of the customs duties on imported, yarns, resulted in the growers receiving assistance to the extent of 2d. per lb., as recommended by the Tariff Board. The Cotton Bounty Act of 1926 appropriated £180,000 per annum, for five years, for the purpose of these bounties. In both 1926 and 1929 the Tariff Board issued extremely favorable reports concerning the value of the industry to Australia and its future prospects. The Lyons Government gave further assistance in 1932, and withdrew the extra 6d. per lb. duty on cotton yarns imposed by the Scullin Government in 1931, contrary to the recommendation of the Tariff Board. Two months later the rapidly increasing yarn production pointed to the probability of the yarn bounty placing on the budget the heavy burden of £120,000 per annum, or even more. Furthermore, it was seen that the profits of certain cotton yarn manufacturers, which had been quite moderate in the early days of the bounty, were likely to advance much beyond the limit of 10 per cent, prescribed under the Bounty Act. Accordingly, the position was fully discussed by the Minister with all the manufacturers and the general manager of the Queensland Cotton Board, and they agreed that the bounty on cotton yarn should be abolished as from the ;lst July, 1932, and that equivalent protective duties should be imposed on yarns before that date to maintain continuity of protection for the industry. At the same time the manufacturers made agreements with the Cotton Board for the purchase at satisfactory prices of all their requirements of raw cotton from that season’s crop. The gradually diminishing, bounty on seed cotton was allowed to remain. That the withdrawal of the extra 6d. per lb. duty on cotton yarn in February, 1932, did not injure the industry is abundantly proved by the statistics of yarn production. The production of cotton yarns when the Commonwealth started .to assist the industry in 1926-27, was 1,055,650 lb., and in 1933-34 it was 5,417,384 lb. Cotton yarns for cotton tweed, denims, cordage twines, blankets, &c, are now to be made in Australia. The effort to harmonize the primary and secondary sections has meant tho establishment of the industry on a sound basis. It is an industry that is essential, for the defence of the country. Cotton is required in the manufacture of explosives, and if Australia were cut off by war from the rest of the world, local supplies of cotton would be essential. The industry is thus vital to Australia, and is of great importance in the world. I congratulate the Government on introducing the bill, which will restore to the industry the measure of prosperity it formerly enjoyed, and will, I hope, ensure its continued success.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling Downs

– I desire to add my quota of appreciation of the action of the Government in bringing down this bill, which effects a restoration of practically the last of the emergency cuts. It will give assistance to an industry which, I submit, will play a very important part among the land and secondary industries of the Commonwealth. The cotton industry should have prospects of developing in this country as it has in other parts of the world. With its various secondary ramifications the cotton industry is among the biggest in the world. If it can be properly, economically and soundly developed in Australia to enable it to take advantage of the local market for cotton goods which could, and should, be made within our own shores, approximately an additional 500,000 acres of land will be placed under cotton. Due to the sympathetic and practical support lent to it, not only by the Commonwealth Government, but also by the Queensland Government in the early stages of its development in that State, the cotton industry has shown wonderful progress. In 1920 only 166 acres of land were planted in cotton; at the present time approximately 60,000 acres are under cotton. That shows in no uncertain way the developments that have taken place during the intervening years, demonstrates the wisdom of the action of the respective governments in assisting to establish this industry in Australia, and amply justifies the introduction of the bill now before the House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) has stressed what the Queensland Labour Government has done for the development of the industry. For the four years ended 1923 the Queensland Government guaranteed a price of 5½d per lb. for cotton to assist in the proper establishment and development of the industry, but as the result of adverse world prices and other circumstances it was called upon under the guarantee to pay to the ‘cotton-growers approximately £20,000 per annum. Since then the Commonwealth Government has assisted the industry and, for the three years ended 1926, it was called upon to contribute, for the assistance of the industry, an average annual amount of £56,000. In quoting these figures I have no desire to discredit what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in regard to the Queensland Labour Government ; I quote these figures merely to show that whilst that government showed its sympathy for the industry by standing up to a loss of £20,000 a year, the Commonwealth Go- vernment has rendered a greater assistance by contributing £56,000 towards its maintenance.

Mr Ward:

– What wages are paid in the industry?

Mr FADDEN:

– The wages are fixed by the Queensland Arbitration Court. Award rates and conditions are observed. L trust that the cotton industry and, for that matter, all Australian industries, will be placed in a position which will enable them to continue to pay decent wages so that the standard of living of the workers of this country will be maintained in conformity with the White Australia ideal. Only by the introduction of measures such as that now before the House can the cotton industry be assisted towards that very desirable end. The cotton industry, with its collateral activities in secondary industries can, and should, be developed, I repeat, into a very important industry in this country. Its development would provide an extra protection for defence purposes in case of emergency, and would provide the means of peopling our vacant lands in the sparsely developed portions of Queensland.

Mr Blain:

– And the Northern Territory.

Mr FADDEN:

– The expansion of the cotton industry will help very materially towards the solution of our vexed unemployment problem. The Queensland Government took advantage of the possibilities of the cotton industry as a means of relieving the unemployment position in that State within the last few years by granting out of its unemployment relief fund3 approximately £80,000 by way of loans in order to enable cotton-growers to carry out developmental work, scrub felling, clearing and cotton cultivation. That was made possible only as the result of the basic .assistance provided in a measure similar to that now before the House. It is to the credit of those engaged in the industry that bad debts in respect of those loans amounted to less than £700. No less than 85 per cent, of ‘the money loaned has been repaid. That is a very important aspect- of assistance granted for the economic, sensible and proper development of an industry which opens up a desirable means of solving the unemployment problem. I would not associate myself with any scheme of senseless, uneconomic bounty assistance of industry. In my opinion there are very important fundamental principles to be observed before governmental assistance should be granted to any industry. First and foremost an industry should be possible of economic existence under Australian conditions; it should also be conducted by white Australians, and provide employment at rates of pay which will ensure to workers and those engaged in such industry a desirable standard of living; and, lastly, industries should be assisted only towards sound development and establishment. If an industry complies with those requirements after having been helped over its infantile, or initial, stage, it should be possible for it to stand on its own feet. The cotton industry will eventually be able to stand on its own feet if, in the meantime, it continues to receive the advantages conferred upon it by the bill now before the House.- I repeat that I am pleased that the Government has seen fit to make this contribution towards the successful development of an industry, important not only to Australia, but also more particularly to Queensland, in view of its value _ for defence purposes and because it provides a raw material for secondary industries.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- As a representative of a primary producing district, I do not raise any objection to a fair bounty being paid to the cotton-growing industry to tide it over a difficult time. It is important, however, that ample safeguards be provided in order to ensure that the product shall be of good quality, that the bounty is not excessive, and that there shall not be a spasmodic boom, leading to the undue expansion of the industry, such as has occurred in the sugar industry, as the result of which the production is so far in excess of the local demand, that the surplus has to be disposed of outside Australia at an enormous loss to the Australian consuming public. All those safeguards are, to some extent, provided for in the legislation under review, but another safeguard is necessary, particularly in respect of Queensland industries. There is need to ensure that products which can be grown profitably only in Queensland shall he made available to industries elsewhere in Australia. In this connexion I contend that the Queensland Government has not treated the rest of Australia fairly. The establishment of the cotton industry in Queensland has been due, to a great extent, to the financial assistance provided by this Parliament, particularly during the regime of the Bruce-Page Government. I have in my hand a copy of the QueenslandYear-Book which records the development of this industry. It contains a reference to the guarantee by the Queensland Government of a certain price for cotton for the years subsequent to 1924. The book would make it appear that the Queensland Government found all the money, whereas the truth is that half of it was provided by the taxpayers of Australia generally, through this Parliament. Again Queensland has not acted fairly to the manufacturers of ply wood in the other States. It is almost impossible for industries outside Queensland to obtain timber from the Queensland forests for the purpose of manufacturing it into ply wood. Those forests are able to collect a royalty which is made possible by a high protective tariff, but makers of ply wood in Queensland are given preference over manufacturers in the other States. Clearly, that is an abuse of the protection afforded to the industry at the expense of the people of the whole Commonwealth.

Mr Ward:

– What has that to do with this bill?

Mr HAWKER:

– I am sounding . a warning, and showing the need for providing safeguards in respect of industries which, for one reason and another, are concentrated in one State. What has been done in connexion with Queenslandtimber is an example of the way in which the government of one State can receive a double benefit. In the first place, it receives a benefit by reason of the protection given to a primary industry, and secondly, a benefit is given to the secondary industries of that State over similar industries in other States. I mention this matter now because this is the time to issue a warning. I do not propose to offer any opposition to the bill, and I do not intend to move an amendment to it. I am glad to know that, until the recent collapse of prices, this industry was ex panding, and, generally, was in a satisfactory position, apart from setbacks due to seasonal conditions. The protection that has been afforded to it has not led to excessive increases of the cost of the raw materials used in other industries. This bill, which will restore to the industry something taken from it during the depression, is justified, particularly when it is remembered that world conditions make assistance necessary.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I congratulate the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Perkins) on having introduced . a proposal to restore the cotton bounty. Evidently, the Government realizes that the cotton industry is of great value to the whole of Australia, not only in providing employment, but also in developing areas which previously were merely cattle stations. This industry supplies an article used largely by secondary industries throughout the Commonwealth. Probably no other Australian industry has had to overcome so many difficulties ; disease had to be combated, varieties of cotton tested, and droughts faced. The cotton industry has done much to lead to the development of an important part of the Commonwealth by the provision of railways, schools and roads where none existed previously. The producers of cotton have met with many disappointments and there is therefore an obligation on the Government to assist them. Happily, that obligation has been recognized, and the Government has assisted the industry by way of a bounty. We must remember that cotton, like sugar, is another product in respect of which our white labour must compete with black labour in other countries. Allowing for the various costs involved in production, Australian lint sells at a price which compares most favorably with that of the imported article. It is pleasing to note the expansion of our spinning industry, which last year used approximately 13,000 bales of Australian lint. That represents a drop of 1,000 bales on the figure for 1935, and 4,000 bales less than the figure for 1934, but I point out that last year was a bad year for the industry. Thus the production of 20,000 bales was very satisfactory, indeed.

Thanks to the development made possible by governmental assistance to this industry, the Cotton Board in Queensland estimates that production will reach its peak next year. The care and diligence exercised by the board in the interests of the industry is apparent from its very excellent annual reports, and the board is to be congratulated on having produced such interesting documents in order to enable the people generally, and members of Parliament in particular, to see just what is being done by the industry. The board is now endeavouring to improve the class of cotton produced. - The varieties are gradually being standardized, and it is the object of the board eventually to concentrate on those classes which experiments prove to be most suitable to manufacturers. Last year the lint percentage of seed cotton produced in Queensland was 34.658 compared with 32.76 per cent., which was the first figure recorded. This fact reveals that scientific efforts are being made to eliminate the worst of the sixteen varieties being grown at present. I congratulate the Government on having increased this bounty, which is equivalent to an additional benefit of 1.05d. per lb. to the grower. As the rate of wages bas been increased from lid. to lid. per lb., honorable members will readily realize that on. the basis of an annual production of 20,000 bales, the industry is a big payer of wages. The greatest problem confronting it is the occurrence of dry spells at unfavorable periods in the planting season, and I suggest that this is one industry in respect of which irrigation schemes could be most profitably undertaken. If proper irrigation were provided in the Callide and Upper Burnett districts of Queensland, and other cotton belts, growers would be enabled to obtain greater returns, and the resulting development of the industry would enable them to compete with their surplus production on overseas markets. I again express my pleasure at the action of the Government in having restored this emergency cut to the cotton-growers.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– In supporting this measure, I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) for the excellent case he made out for the development of the northern districts of Queensland. So far as the bounty itself is concerned, I nin not satisfied that under present conditions equity is achieved as between the prices enjoyed by the manufacturers of cotton piece-goods and those received by the growers. There is a lag in that respect. I am not unmindful of the fact that in recent, years the manufacturers have not been making big profits, but I point out that they are able to drive a hard bargain with the growers, because the latter are forced to sell at the manufacturers’ price. Unless we can arrive at a more equitable adjustment in this direction, not only in respect of this industry but also in respect of other industries, our endeavours to develop the north must fail. It would appear that Australians as a whole are sorry that they have been endowed with that portion of the Commonwealth north of latitude 28, although it is undeniable that it is immensely rich in natural resources. Indeed, one country has just waged a war in order to occupy land many times inferior to this portion of Australia. If we do not make more serious efforts to develop the north, I cannot see how we can establish any industry there apart from the sugar industry. When I recall the attitude adopted by some honorable members towards the cotton piece-goods industry, I wonder whether, when they ask for a bounty for the growers, they are not speaking with their tongues in their cheeks. My interest in this subject is dictated solely by the reason that assistance to this industry will enable areas abutting on the Northern Territory to be rapidly developed. Cotton can be grown on second-class land. One of the main reasons why the primary section of the industry has not yet proved successful is that, the manufacturers demand that the northerners shall grow cotton, and practically give it away to the southerners who convert it into the finished product.

The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) has pointed out that, owing to the wide range of climates experienced in Australia, the growing conditions vary so much that Australia might well be 30 different countries situated in varying latitudes. Unless this

Parliament will face the facts, and assist in the production of cotton crops in the portions of Australia where they can be economically grown, the inevitable result “will be a pauper population in

Borne parts of Australia and over-wealthy sections in others. If we are not prepared to give this primary industry the support it deserves, we may as well declare that we are sorry Providence has endowed us with any regions north of the 2Sth parallel of latitude. It is gratifying to know that we have one very valuable activity in our tropical regions in which capital has gone back to the primary industry. I refer, of course, to the sugar industry, on which the economic structure of Queensland, and, in fact, our export policy, depends. The primary producers have every right to look to this Parliament for a lead.

I shall briefly indicate to honorable members why the cotton-growers in Queensland are in a bad way. They were previously downhearted because they were not in a position to drive a hard bargain with the southern buyers of their crop. Now the bounty is required to give them fresh heart. If we make it all embracing, they can still put 500,000 acres under cotton, and supply the whole of the cotton requirements of the Com.monwealth. We have men in Queensland who can do this work, and, if necessary, cotton can also be grown in the Northern Territory. We must admire the pioneers of the industry for their efforts in fighting pests, and proving that cotton can be successfully grown without black labour. Seasonal variations are such that in some years it is necessary to plant the seed three or four feet apart in the rows, and at other times, when the seasons are more propitious, the space can be reduced to 2 feet 6 inches. A man who starts out with 400 acres under cotton may experience an unfavorable season and fail badly; but, if our yeomanry, whose lands lie in suitable areas, planted from 15 to 20 acres of cotton as a sideline, they could afford to take the risk of seasonal conditions, because they could count on a living from their dairying and other activities. The further one goes north into the tropics, tho le3s the variety of crops that can he grown economically. The result is single ifr. Blain. cropping activity in most instances. Sir Henry Parkes thought that Australia would be able to develop its tropical regions, and cotton is one of the crops which should be encouraged.

Mr PERKINS:
Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Eden Monaro · UAP

– in reply - The Government is in agreement with most of what has been said by honorable members regarding the cotton industry. We all desire to promote its welfare. Admittedly, the progress up to the present time has not been rapid. No doubt, the reduction of the bounty gave the industry a considerable check, but the main drawback has been drought, and, probably, one or two other difficulties experienced in Queensland. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) asked that, in addition to the bounty, an annual grant should be made for cotton reserves. The Commonwealth is now bearing practically the whole of the cost of assisting the industry, and the expense to the Government this year in that regard will be £120,000. Neither the Cotton Board nor the Queensland Government has asked for the additional assistance suggested. Indeed, it is contended that the research station at Biloela is quite capable of meeting the further requirements of the industry.

The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) urged that care should be taken to see that Queensland does not abuse the bounty by giving preferential treatment to Queensland users of raw cotton. I assure the honorable member that there is no danger of the bounty being abused in this way. Raw cotton must be supplied to all users at the import parity price of foreign cotton, free of customs duty and primage. While that safeguard exists, there is no danger of exploitation.

The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) said that the growers were not protected against the manufacturers. I remind the honorable member that selling prices have been based upon the import parity price as it may vary from time to time. The fluctuating bounty increases this value always to 10id. per lb. for raw cotton, which returns the growers an average price of 4d. per lb. for seed cot- ton. This price is a halfpenny more than the Tariff Board recommended as a sufficient price, and was fixed by the Lyons Government three years ago. I assure the honorable member for the Northern Territory that the Government desires to foster this industry, because it realizes that it is destined to be of considerable importance in the tropical parts of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- Clause 2 is as follows -

Section fifteen of the Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1034-35 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following proviso: - “ Provided that the foregoing provisions of this section should not apply in respect of bounty payable upon raw cotton produced after the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven “.

The clause amends section 15 of the Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1934-35, which section reads as follows -

Any amount of bounty payable under the foregoing provisions of this Act shall be subjected to the reduction specified in section fifty-two of the Financial Emergency Act 1031.

Mr Francis:

– What Government was in power when that act was passed?

Mr FORDE:

– It was passed while the Lyons Government was in power, and the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) was at that time a Minister, and voted for it.

– Order ! This discussion must cease.

Clause agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1843

ADJOURNMENT

Forestry Operations at Mr Burr - Members’ Postage , Allowance - Overseas Air Mails - Pearl Shell Industry : Japanese Competition - Canberra : City Plan : Residence fob Mr. Casey : Community Hospital - Australian Broadcasting Commission : Engagement op Count Von Luckner : Hobart Stud.to - Broadcasting Legislation : Need for Review - Northern Territory Ordinances.

Motion (by Mr. Perkins), proposed: -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- During the depression, the Commonwealth made available a sum of money which was devoted to provide employment for a number of youths at Mr Burr Forestry Camp in South Australia. This has served a useful purpose, and the youths are much better off at the camp than they would be walking the streets in idleness, and drawing ration relief. Unfortunately, the money is nearly exhausted, and only a fortnight ago twelve youths were sent away. There are still 28 there, but if the Government does not make some further financial provision for them, they, too, will be compelled to go.

Mr Blain:

– That is one of the few places in Australia where forestry is being carried out on correct lines.

Mr MAKIN:

– I am glad to hear the honorable member say that good work is being done there. The Government should make a further grant to enable this work to be continued during the winter months. Winter is not the time when men should be forced on to the streets.

Mr Blain:

– Is the honorable member seeking a grant by the Commonwealth to the Government of South Australia for forestry operations ‘?

Mr MAKIN:

– I have not the full details, but I imagine that what is wanted is a renewal of the grant for forestry work that was made three years ago by the Commonwealth to the States. At the end of this month no more money will be available, and 28 young men, at the worst season of the year, will have to leave the camp, and, possibly, walk the streets. of _ Adelaide without means of sustenance.

I should be glad if the Treasurer would take into consideration the need to make available to honorable members for this month a larger stamp allowance than is the custom, for the reason that the introduction of the national insurance legislation has caused them to use the mails to a greater extent than normally. They have been called upon to post copies of the National Health Insurance Bill and speeches delivered thereon, particularly those of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), and further calls upon their stamp allowance have been made by the great flood of correspondence on the subject.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- It is reported in to-day’s press that there will be a delay of twelve months in arranging for overseas air mails to Australia to be distributed from Darwin, and that in the meantime the distribution will be made from Sydney. When the air-mail scheme was introduced, the idea was that the mails should be carried to Sydney, and, after sorting, be distributed from there to the other States. That met with opposition, particularly from the outlying States, and, after consideration, the Government, about six week ago, came to the conclusion that the distribution should be made from Darwin and not from Sydney. That decision was highly acceptable to the people in the outlying States. It is now reported that twelve months will elapse before this can be done. The first seaplanes are expected to be in operation a month hence, but it will be twelve months before Darwin will become the centre of distribution of the mails. In the meantime they will be sent to Sydney, sorted, and then sent by train to their destinations. As the result, mails destined for Perth will not arrive there until four days after their arrival in Sydney. 1 appreciate the fact that some little time must be spent on the organization of Darwin as the distributing centre, but I cannot see that there need be a delay of twelve months. I regret that the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby), who administers the Civil Aviation Department, is not in the chamber; he was here a few minutes ago. Some statement on the position by either the PostmasterGeneral or the Minister for Defence would, I hope, be more reassuring than the reports which appeared in the press this morning.

Mr GREEN:
Kalgoorlie

– I direct the notice of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen), under whose department the Australian pearl shell industry comes, to the following telegram which I received to-day: -

Primarily owing Japanese shell fished Darwin waters being dumped American market no shell sold here this year. Position pearlers and town critical. Some help must be forthcoming otherwise collapse by end August. Position so serious we have asked State Government make urgent .appeal Prime Minister that Mr. McEwen visit Broome and see position first hand. Wyndham to Broome only four hours’ flying. Posting precis- next mail. (Signed) Broome Pearlers’ Committee.

Four years ago I predicted _the state of affairs that this telegram discloses. I do not place the blame immediately at the door of the Government, but I recall to the minds of Ministers the frequency of my representations for the establishment of a coastal patrol in the northern waters. A long time elapsed before a patrol boat was provided in the waters of the Northern Territory. The indiscriminate and wholesale pearl shell fishing in the Northern Territory waters by cheap coolie labour is responsible for the fact that the market in the United States of America has been glutted, depriving the Western Australian pearl shell industry of a purchaser. The slump is not due to the fact that there are foreign competi- tors in other parts of the world, but to the fact that foreign competitors are fishing, i;i 30-ton boats, waters which are morally Australian, and depleting pearl shell beds which were discovered by Australians, who were compelled to use boats that were not able to fish more than eight tons of shell. The foreign competitors will finally destroy the beds, but that is not their worry.

In matters of this kind it is well to talk frankly. Japan is responsible for 45 per cent, of the fish production of the world, but that is due, not to the quantity obtained from the waters around the islands of Japan, but to the fact that they have fished indiscriminately all over the world, without regard to the rights of other countries. That is characteristic of the race. It must be apparent to all that the Japanese race has no respect for the moral rights of other peoples. By duress the Japanese forced the Russian Government to permit them to have a free lease to fish off the eastern coast of Siberia. They have now, as may be seen from the press, extended their activities to Alaska. They tried for some time without success to cultivate salmon spawn in their own waters, and last year they went to Alaska and started to fish off Bristol Bay in that country. The Japanese, who were operating outside the 3-mile limit with high-powered vessels, equipped with steel nets 3 miles long - the Americans were restricted to nets 900 feet long - secured the salmon as they returned to home waters. The habits of the salmon are most peculiar. After spawning in fresh water rivers, they spend a year or two in local waters before proceeding to sea. Two years later they return to their home waters to spawn and die. When returning across Bristol Bay, they am caught and sent to Japan. Coastal fishing groups provide the nucleus of an industry that employs 30,000 persons, and its product is valued at £12,000,000 per annum. When the raids were first observed, more than a. year ago, an appeal was made to the United States Government on the ground that the Japanese were engaged in theft and that the entire fishing ground would be ruined within a few years if the activities of foreigners were not restricted. Representations were made to Japan in November last, but no reply was made for four months. A bill was introduced into Congress providing that salmon spawned and hatched in the United States of America was the property of that country. The Government’s jurisdiction was extended over the waters concerned. The Alaskan fishermen have since declared that salmon poaching by the Japanese continues, and that they will, if necessary, take the matter into their own hands and drive out the intruders by force of arms. I have been asked by a former Broome pearler now in Melbourne if our men would be justified in equipping a boat with a machine gun and securing by force the shell which foreigners are taking from Australian beds. Will the Treasurer ask the Acting Attorney-General to make some inquiries concerning the action taken in America so that we may know what can be done to protect our fisherman on the northern coast of Australia? It is suggested that if foreigners were kept beyond a distance of, say, 13 miles, from the coast, a procedure which was adopted years ago during a seal fisheries dispute, it would be impossible for them to fish, because they must have access to the coast between certain tides. I trust that the Minister will study all phases of this important problem which I have presented somewhat sketchily, to see if those on whose behalf I speak cannot be protected.

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

.- I support the complaint of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) concerning the distribution of overseas air mails. I understand that within a month the seaplane air-mail service between England and Australia will be inaugurated, and that for at least twelve months the air mails to all parts of Australia will be sorted in Sydney, instead of at Darwin as was promised. It is very disconcerting, particularly to people in South Australia and Western Australia, to learn that for so long a time the air mails to those States will be unnecessarily delayed. I trust that the Treasurer will confer with the Postmaster-General, and that an assurance will be given that all air mails will be sorted at Darwin so that residents in the States I have mentioned will not be at a disadvantage.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- The honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) referred recently to the alterations being made in the plan on which Canberra is supposed to be developed. The accepted design of the late Mr. Burley Griffin has been varied somewhat, but for some time the amended plan has been observed fairly closely. There now appears to be some foundation for the fears expressed that Canberra is not being developed in conformity with the Seat of Government (Administration) Act, section 12 of which reads - (1)The Governor-General may make ordinances having the force of law in the territory.

Every such ordinance shall -
1. be notified in the Gazette;
2. take effect from the date of notification or from a later date to be specified in the ordinance;
3. be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within 30 days of the making thereof, or, if the Parliament is not then sitting, within 30 days after the next meeting of the Parliament.

The act further provides -

The Minister may at any time by writing under his hand, modify or vary the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, published in the Gazette on the 19th day of November, 1925 . . . but no such modification or variation shall be made until after the expiration of 30 days after notice of intention, published in the Gazette eo to modify or vary the plan has been given.

A copy of the instrument by which any modification or variation of the plan has been made shall be laid before both Housea of the Parliament within fifteen days of the making thereof if the Parliament is then sitting, or, if not, within fifteen days of the next meeting of Parliament.

It is admitted that the plan for the development of Canberra has not been strictly observed. The latest instance of departure from the plan is the erection of the high school building in the area reserved for the university. I cite this to show that things are not altogether right, and I know that other members are not satisfied with all that is being done. Canberra will be a beautiful city if the plan is adhered to. It is useless for the Government to say that the development of the city cannot proceed more rapidly because money is not available. I have no doubt that if it wished, the Government could find all the money necessary for the development of this city in conformity with the accepted plan. The latest venture of the Government is to build an expensive house for the Treasurer. It is common knowledge that the Treasurer was, for some years, occupying a house at Duntroon, and was obliged to vacate it following the decision of the Government to re-establish the Royal Military College at Duntroon.

Acting within the powers which it possesses, and without consulting Parliament, the Government has decided to build a house for the Treasurer in a new area. I have had a look at the site. The estimated cost of the house is £6,332, but this does not include drains and paths, estimated to cost another £175. The house is to contain fourteen rooms, excluding lavatories, bathroom, laundry and garage. As it is to be erected in an entirely new suburb expenditure will be necessary on other works such as street forming, sewerage and plantations to conform with the general plan of the city, so the whole expenditure will probably be £10,000. I admit that building operations will provide employment and that after the house is built some additional labour will be required for the maintenance of the area. I have no objection to the proposal to provide a house for the Treasurer, but when I remember that there is a long list of people who wish to settle here with their wives and families, and cannot get houses, I think the Government might have spent the money more wisely. On Tuesday, in answer to a question which I put to the Minister for the Interior, I was informed that there are 310 people on the waiting list for houses in Canberra. Of this number 24 need four-roomed cottages, 45 require houses of five rooms, and 41 need houses of six rooms. The Minister added that the Government has been giving this problem special attention with the object of increasing the housing programme as much as possible. My contention is that instead of deciding to build an expensive house for the Treasurer, without consulting Parliament and obtaining money in the orthodox way, thus apprising members of what was proposed, the Government should have utilized this money in the erection of houses for some of the people on. the long waiting list. I am informed that there are, or were in December last a number of houses available, one of which could have been occupied by the Treasurer temporarily until housing was provided for at least some of those public servants who wish to bring their wives and families to Canberra. Now there is a “ nigger in the woodpile “. This thing has been going on for a long time. The Government has definitely withheld information from Parliament with regard to what is being done, not only in connexion with its building programme in Canberra, but also in respect to other matters. Members of this House have a perfect right to expect that the statute relating to the development of Canberra shall be observed in every particular by the Government.

Mr Brennan:

– Does the honorable member know how many of these Ministerial houses are to be built, or on what principle they are ‘being constructed?

Mr BARNARD:

– Under the present policy of this Government, anything is likely to happen behind the backs of members of Parliament. If a house is being built for the Treasurer to-day without the authority of Parliament, tomorrow one may be built for another member of the Cabinet. I take the most forceful exception to that. The effect is to break down the democratic form of government under which we are supposed to be living, and I resent that very strongly. The act of 1925 was definitely intended to insure not only the development of Canberra along certain lines, but also that this Parliament would control that development. To-day the press of Australia is criticizing this Government because of its “hushhush “ policy. We were told recently that we had to vote money for defence purposes, without having placed before us any particulars of what was proposed. Whether we accepted that decision or not, docs not matter; it was another instance of the Government’s failure to give to members of Parliament an opportunity to examine the details of its proposals. The same practice is adopted in connexion with many items of the budget, and it is being followed also in the development of Canberra. Whatever argument there may be in favour of a “ hush-hush “ policy in regard to defence matters, surely there is no excuse for it in relation to the development of the national capital! Speaking broadly, it may be argued that it does not matter one iota whether or not the people of Australia know how Canberra is being developed. But members of Parliament who are their elected representatives, should be kept informed. The act to which I have referred, was supposed to protect them against a government which attempted to adopt “ hush-hush “ tactics. The residence being built for the Treasurer will cost approximately £10,000, a sum sufficient to build ten or more fourroomed cottages for those unfortunate people who now have to live under very distressing conditions. The Government has made no effort to. improve the shocking accommodation at Molonglo, while year after year the number of persons on the waiting list for houses is growing larger without any attempt being made by the Government to reduce it. I do not blame the present Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen), because he has not been in charge of the department long enough to effect an improvement of the position.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I wish to make a few observations, following upon those of the honorable members for Perth (Mr. Nairn) and Boothby (Mr. Price), in connexion with press references to the proposed inland air-mail service. If those press references are correct, inevitably great dissatisfaction will be caused in every capital city west of Sydney. Only a few weeks ago, business people in Melbourne were very much perturbed at the news that they would probably receive their air mail via Sydney, instead of Adelaide. Representations were then made, and although the Government intimated that at that stage its plans were not definite, I was under the impression that if it were found necessary to send mails to Melbourne via Sydney, they would be sent by air mail at no extra charge. It would now appear that, for some months at all events, mails for Melbourne will be sent from Sydney, but not by air unless the normal surcharge of 3d. is paid. That is thoroughly inequitable. .Even if the air mail be used, Melbourne business men not only will receive their mail a day later than Sydney business men, but they will also be compelled to pay a surcharge which will not have to be paid on mail addressed to Sydney. I sincerly trust that the Government is in a position to make immediately a clear statement which will have the effect of dissipating any fears entertained in commercial circles, not only in Melbourne, but also in Adelaide and Perth and possibly in Hobart. Apparently there is no equitable reason why capital cities west of Sydney must not only receive their mails days later but also pay the air-mail surcharge. In common with many other honorable members who come from States west of New South. Wales, I hope that the Government will furnish information that will clarify the position, and allay concern.

Mr MAHONEY:
Denison

– I direct attention to the manner in which the Australian Broadcasting Commission is treating the public of Australia, by withholding information from honorable members generally regarding the conduct of its affairs. Doubtless the Minister representing the Postmaster-General will say that the commission is beyond the jurisdiction of this Parliament. I am dissatisfied with the refusal of the commission to furnish me with a satisfactory reply in regard to the amount paid to Count Von Luckner for the broadcast lecture that he gave about a fortnight ago. I have nothing of a personal nature to urge against this visitor from overseas, but I consider that we are entitled to know the amounts paid to lecturers and artists who broadcast over the national network. I understand that a very substantial sum is being paid to Count Von Luckner, a sum out of all proportion to the value of the lecture that he delivered to the people of Australia. The enormous number of persons who pay a high fee for a listener’s licence are entitled to have their wants properly catered for. It is time that this Parliament said to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, “ You must conduct your affairs on better business lines “. Any artist or lecturer who receives a high fee from the commission should give value for its money. The dictatorial attitude of the commission is sufficient to justify the introduction of legislation, as the Government has promised, to replace tlie present commission by a body which will include one representative from each State. Not only has the commission refused to supply information, but the Government also seems to be satisfied to adopt a “ hush hush “ policy in connexion with the matter. It could demand information from the commission if it wished to do so. Unless Parliament takes a strong stand on this issue the Broadcasting Commission will undoubtedly take to itself power which only Parliament should exercise. The chairman was forced by a Labour government to resign his former position as Chief Commissioner of Railways in New South Wales, but unfortunately this Commonwealth Government saw fit to place him in an office which permits him to continue to fill the role of a dictator. I do not wish to make any personal reflections upon this person, but I am anxious to preserve the full rights of the Parliament and of the people to obtain information and to exert a helpful influence on broadcasting in this country.

It is deplorable that we cannot ascer tain the fee paid to Count von Luckner for the lectures that he has delivered. I have no wish, nor have the Australian people, to listen to this individual telling us how he sank allied ships during the war or to see him tear telephone books in two. Why was he engaged to lecture on Buffalo Bill?- What do the people of this country want to know about that subject? What can Count von Luckner know about it that is worth broadcasting? We are entitled to know the fees paid to this man and also to other persons to whom the national broadcasting network is made available. To expend on trumpery broadcasts the hard-earned money of the working class who pay at too high a rate for a listener’s licence is, in my opinion, reprehensible.

People living in the less populous States of the Commonwealth have good reason to complain of the policy of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in bringing artists to this country to perform only in the Sydney studios. Visiting artists under contract to the commission should give programmes from each State capital. The adherence of the commission to the present policy, which has been so frequently criticized, is a definite indication to rae that retired public servants are not fit and proper persons to manage its affairs. Something must be radically wrong’ for the commission to refuse to make available information to which we are entitled. It is high time that greater opportunities were given to Australian artists. The Australian people would far rather hear good local artists than the “ dud “ performers from abroad. I offer no complaint about the payment of proper fees to thoroughly qualified performers, but I resent the payment of extravagant fees to artists of mediocre ability. The fact that the Postmaster-General’s Department shows a profit of more than £1,000,000 from it proportion of listeners’ fees since broadcasting has been in vogue in Australia is surely sufficient evidence that the fee should be reduced.

The failure of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to fulfil the promise made by its chairman to build an uptodate studio in Hobart is another matter of bitter complaint. Hobart is entitled to a proper studio. Until it is provided local artists will be denied adequate broadcasting facilities, and the present objectionable system of centralized programmes will be continued, although it has proved to be a complete failure. The B class stations present much more satisfactory programmes than do the national stations. This is surely a complete condemnation of the management of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

I sincerely trust that the Government will not delay the introduction of a bill to replace the present Broadcasting Commission by a body more thoroughly representative of the whole community. Until this is done I fear that the grievances I have referred to this afternoon, and those voiced by other honorable members in this House from time to time, will remain unrectified

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

.- I rise mainly to associate myself with the remarks of the honorable members for Perth (Mr. Nairn), Boothby (Mr. Price) and Fawkner (Mr. Holt) with regard to the announcement that has appeared to-day that the Government may not implement its promise to distribute the overseas mail from Darwin. That would not only cause great disappointment and dissatisfaction in the outlying States - in fact, everywhere except, possibly, Sydney - but it would also create a deplorable impression that the Government’s promise that the air mail would be distributed through Darwin was given more or less with the tongue in the cheek. It has been generally supposed, on a good deal of evidence, that the Postal Department has been uniformly hostile to the distribution from Darwin, and that it is only the prior consideration of assisting air defence, and the sense of justice of members of the Government, that have led to the adoption of the policy of distribution from Darwin. If the proposal is now pigeonholed, shelved, or even seriously delayed, it will be without definite evidence that it is possible to speed up the service, and it will create a feeling that will be not only undesirable in the Government’s interest, but will also tend to mar the good feeling that should exist between the States themselves and between the States and the Commonwealth.

With reference to the remarks of the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney), I wish to put in a word on behalf of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The commission has the duty of providing programmes’ covering a wide range of subjects for a great diversity of tastes. It is to be hoped that the radio services will not suffer the deterioration we have observed in newspapers as the result of the necessity for appealing to those who like matter of the cheapest possible type. The commission should be commended for its efforts to give the discriminating section of the people opportunities to hear the very best music and entertainment it is possible to obtain in the world. Such entertainments do not compete with the work of Australian artists. The commission gives the whole community opportunities for experiences which tend to create the desire in Australia to hear better music and more high class entertainment. Such entertainments as the commission provides tend to create opportunities for Australian artists. I hope that too much attention will not be given to the efforts that are being made in certain quarters to level down the commission’s programmes to suit tastes of one type. Such tastes are amply catered for by the B class stations, and it would be deplorable if the B class programmes were the only service available.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

– I had hoped that the Ministry would arrange an opportunity for Parliament to resume the debate on the fifth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That item still appears on the notice-paper. In a few weeks the financial year ending the 30th J une, 193S, will have been completed, but we have had no adequate opportunity to review the report for the year that closed practically twelve months ago. I wish to direct attention to a wider aspect of the matter without attempting to discuss the report. The Australian Broadcasting Commission Act has been on the statutebook for more than six years. It was practically the first comprehensive piece of legislation to regulate broadcasting in the Commonwealth. Without making any reflection on the commission, or on anybody else, I submit to the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), as Leader of the House at the present time, that the developments in broadcasting in Australia in the interim have been so tremendous that it is very desirable that broadcasting should be once again the subject of legislative review by Parliament - I mean legislative review rather than mere scrutiny of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It appears to me to be necessary to make a number of changes in policy, so that we may take advantage of the experience we have gained since the Broadcasting Commission was established. I cannot but feel that the administration of the commission is very, very wasteful. I know that it is costly, but I fear that it is also wasteful. I duri, without discussing the- report, that the enormous increase of fees paid in connexion with concerts does not com pletely cover the very great outlay of the commission. I have yet to learn whether the commission has formulated regulations for the management of its staff. I do not know how applications for appointment to its staff are arranged or how appointments are made. I do not know whether vacancies are advertised. I do not know whether the applicant states the salary he is willing to accept, or whether the commission indicates the salary it has ‘ fixed for the particular vacancy. I know that the commission has made appointments that have not been the subject of competition; it has made definite offers to certain persons to fill certain offices. It has a subeditorial staff, and I very much question whether the gentlemen on that staff have had any journalistic training. Much doubt exists in my mind regarding the qualifications of many members of the staff for the offices they hold. I understand that there is a controller of celebrity concerts, and that he is stationed in Sydney the whole year round. I do not know what his salary is. I know that there is a federal director of music, and, in addition, there are artists’ managers in the various States. I know that it is the practice of the commission to give rather lavish entertainments to mark the arrival of distinguished celebrity artists, and that those entertainments are an occasion when representative citizens are privileged to meet the very distinguished visitors. I do not know the cost of these entertainments, and I very much question, in view of the fact that many of the artists give public performances, whether the receptions are justified, more particularly as the commission is apparently unable to continue with its constructional programme because it says it lacks resources. I believe it has made application through the Postmaster-General for money from loan funds or other sources to. proceed with the construction of up-to-date studios from which transmission can be more effectively made. Frankly, I say that I believe the time is overdue, not so much for a review of the work of the commission administratively, as for the Government to review the whole position of broadcasting in Australia, in order that Parliament might be given an opportunity to deal with the matter legislatively. In my opinion, the A and B class stations ought to be regarded as co-relating agencies in the Australian broadcasting service. I have the utmost dissatisfaction in connexion with the manner in which certain commercial stations have been given increased power, although they had accepted licences for reduced power, while other stations in a similar position have had their applications refused. The reasons given to me in this connexion are, of course, full of technical argument, but I say here that the reasons which the PostmasterGeneral (Senator A. J. Mclachlan) advances for an increase in one case, are the very opposite of the reasons which he advances for refusing an increase of power in another. When an instrumentality at Fremantle applies for increased power, he says it would be wrong to increase it, because it had accepted a licence for a reduced power; but when stations owned by a newspaper in Perth applied for increased power because they were at a commercial disability in competing with other B class stations transmitting on a higher power, the applications were granted. This inequality is a matter which calls for some scrutiny by the Parliament. It is many years since we have had a reasonable opportunity, as members of this legislature, to deal with broadcasting as such, let alone to deal with the work of the commission legislatively. The whole subject is due for review, and a new bill to control broadcasting should be submitted to this Parliament. I do not ask for an amendment of the existing act, because I think there should be an entire reconstruction of legislation in connexion with broadcasting in Australia. If the Government does not feel disposed to do that, at least it ought to avert the sorry spectacle of this Parliament being asked to review the administration of a body eighteen months or two years after the period we are asked to review has expired.

Mr BAKER:
Griffith

.- I desire to bring under the notice of the House an important matter affecting the citizens of the Federal Capital Territory as the result of the publication in the Commonwealth Gazette of yesterday’s date, of the Canberra Community Hospital Ordinance above the signature of the Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron). I would prefer to see the honorable gentleman present while this subject is being discussed, but as it is a matter which obviously must have been decided by the Cabinet as a whole, even though an individual Minister is nominally responsible for it, the Cabinet must accept full responsibility. The position at present regarding the franchise for the election of the Hospital Board in Canberra is that two of the five members of the board are elected on a universal franchise, but under the new proposals, all of the six members of the new board are to be elected on a restricted franchise. Though I regard as an advancement that portion of the ordinance providing for the election of all the members of the board, I have very different ideas regarding the disfranchisement of a considerable number of electors who at present are entitled to vote for the elected members of the board. At present the only votes which persons resident in the Federal Capital Territory possess, are in connexion with the election of members of the Canberra Community Hospital Board, and the Advisory Council. Although the population of the Territory consists very largely of public servants of all grades engaged in administering legislation, sometimes of the highest complexities, residents are hot entitled to vote for the election of a State or the Commonwealth Parliaments. Most people in Australia express astonishment when they hear that in the Federal Capital itself, residents are disfranchised even in respect of Commonwealth elections. That is not the point, however, that I intend to debate now; the point to which I wish to draw attention is that the only semblance to democratic franchise possessed in the Federal Capital Territory is the right to vote for the election of two members of the Hospital Board, and certain members of the Advisory Council. Under the new ordinance, members of the Hospital Board are to be elected only by hospital tax contributors. Under the ordinance imposing the hospital tax. every employee in receipt of £2 a week or over is compelled to pay tho tax. That provision is not affected by the ordinance with which I am now dealing. In the ease of persons who receive board and lodging, it is further laid down in the taxing ordinance that in respect of those who reside with their employers, 15s. a week shall lie taken as the value of their board, and as. a week as the value of their lodging. That means that a person in receipt of a wage of £1 a week and keep is compelled to pay hospital tax, and for the purposes of the ordinance, is regarded as a contributor. I object to the franchise being restricted merely to contributors. This provision is reminiscent of the old custom that prevailed in connexion with elections in Great Britain, and in this country also, that only those persons who possessed property of a certain rental value, or who were in receipt of a certain annual remuneration, were entitled to vote. That has been abolished in all parts of Australia, and as far as I know, also in Groat Britain. In Australia, however, in some places - in this respect Queensland is a shining example to the contrary - the franchise for local authority elections Ls limited to ratepayers. The party to which I belong has objected to that time and time again, pointing out that citizens generally have as much interest in local matters as in State or Commonwealth affairs and that, therefore, they should have the right to vote for the election of local governing bodies. Apparently the process of reasoning on which the Government has proceeded in this matter is the same old argument that only those persons who contribute towards the assistance of the Canberra Hospital should be permitted to vote for the election of members of the board. ,1 point out that the Canberra Hospital is a community hospital giving assistance to all persons in need, irrespective of whether they are contributors or not. The new ordinance in this respect reverts to a practice long discontinued. Arguments in its favour have been destroyed time and time again, and the more advanced the country in which they have been raised, the less the credence given to them. A considerable number of anomalies arise with respect to the proposed method of electing members of the Hospital Board. Tu the first place, the Government is acting contrary to “its undertaking to accept the advice of the

Advisory Council before altering ordinances governing the administration of the Federal Capital Territory. In the second place, the ordinance provides for voting by post. What reason is there for this departure from established practice. I protest against such a retrograde step. Apart from that, however, there is another aspect of the ordinance which adversely affects the citizens of Canberra, and particularly the women. A few weeks ago, when the matter of the Canberra Hospital Board was under discussion in this House, I expressed the hope that the Acting Minister for Commerce, when formulating this ordinance, would not allow his notions about women being an inferior breed to influence any decision he might make. I confess that, when I made the remark, I did not seriously think that there was any danger of women being denied a vote under the ordinance, despite the words of the Minister. It is not long ago since he said that the proper place for a woman was in the home, and that she should not take a position which could be occupied by a man.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).The honorable member is not in order in referring to what was said in a previous debate.

Mr BAKER:

– Those statements also appeared in the press. As the ideas expressed by the Acting Minister are analogous to those which find favour in Germany, this may explain why he chose to greet and entertain the notorious Count von Luckner when he visited Parliament House a few hours ago. Only recently the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) made some remarks about women not being entitled to become members of Parliament. I mention the matter because there have now been several instances of ministerial expressions of opinion on this subject. The first was by the Acting Minister for Commerce, the second by the Treasurer, and now we have this ordinance, which was published yesterday in the Commonwealth Gazette. Only those persons who are employed in the Territory, and have paid hospital tax for 26 weeks out of the twelve months up to the end of May before the elections, are entitled to a vote for the election of members to the Hospital Board. Apparently,the Government has become so enamoured of the contributory system, following on a bill recently before this House, that it regards the system as something from which all blessings flow, and that only those who contribute, whether it be to the insurance scheme or to a hospital, are entitled to receive any benefits. The effect of the ordinance will be that very few women will be entitled to vote, and those who cannot vote will not be able to nominate for- election. At the first election to the Hospital Board held a few years ago., a lady resident of the Territory nominated and was elected. Under this new ordinance, assuming that her position was still the same as it was then, namely, that her husband was employed in the Service, and she attended to domestic duties, she would not be qualified to vote or to stand for election. Only a small percentage of females in Canberra will, under this ordinance, be entitled to vote. No age limit is mentioned in the ordinance, so presumably a boy or girl of fourteen years of age, who is in employment, and pays hospital tax, may vote. Another anomaly is that, if the wife of the Prime Minister, Dame Enid Lyons, were in residence in Canberra at the time of the election, she would be debarred from voting, though domestics employed ‘by her, who receive £1 a Week, plus lodging, which is equal to another £1, will enjoy a vote. The same thing will apply to the wife of the Treasurer when he takes up his residence in the house now being built for him. She will not have a vote, but the gardener and other employees will. Surely the Government should recognize the democratic principle of one person one vote, irrespective of sex or social condition. The strange thing is that, although the Acting Minister for Commerce has expressed the opinion that the most praiseworthy women are those who stay at home and look after their families, and has suggested that he has not much time for those who go out to work, under this ordinance the women who stay at home will be denied a vote, while those who go out to work will be given one. A national Parliament should not tolerate a Gilbertian situation of this kind.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– I support the remarks of the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Baker) with regard to the Canberra Hospital Ordinance. I am not familiar with the facts, but there seems to be an analogy between it and many of the ordinances by which the Northern Territory is governed. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) should realize that government by ordinance is abhorrent in principle, and unjust in application. Ordinances are of two kinds - penal ordinances and remedial ordinances - but who is to judge when they are to be invoked? Is the decision to be left to a few bureaucrats, or is this Parliament to decide the matter? That is all I am asking for. Because I regard him as one of the most positive members of the Cabinet, I realize that the Minister personally would be agreeable to myrequest that all legislation should be discussed on the floor of this House, and I feel sure that, before long, he will see the wisdom of my contention, particularly in respect of legislation directly affecting people in remote areas. I remind honorable members that people generally form their opinions, not so much on facts as they exist, as on what they think are the facts; and that applies particularly to people living in outback districts. In their interests, therefore, the question as to whether a particular ordinance is a penal ordinance or a remedial ordinance should not be discussed behind closed doors. It should be discussed on the floor of the House. I am fortified in this view by the remark made some years ago by Lord Chief Justice Hewart that the people’s liberties were being filched by means of regulations left open to bureaucratic interpretation. I submit that this is a danger against which there is a need for constant watchfulness in Australia. To the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) I point out that, whilst we have a Regulations and Ordinances Committee of the Senate, there is no such committee of this House.

Mr Drakeford:

– That is an injustice to honorable members of this House.

Mr BLAIN:

– As this House is supposed to be the more positive, the non- existence of a similar committee of the House of Representatives is an injustice to the Federal Capital Territory and the Northern Territory in respect of which so many ordinances are promulgated. The House should appoint such a committee. I warn the Government that the matter of ordinances will be discussed rather fiercely in the future both in this chamber and in the Senate. Again, I ask the Minister for the Interior to give an assurance that he will not act either on the last ordinance which he tabled in respect of the Northern Territory, or on any ordinance tabled in this chamber in the future until it has been voted upon by honorable members.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · Indi · CP

– The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Green) asked if i would visit Broome on my visit tothe Northern Territory in order to inquire into the condition of the pearling industry at that centre. I am pleased to be able to inform him that I have already arranged to do this. Following conversations which I had with the honorable member and certain honorable senators from Western Australia, the Government concurred in my decision to go to Broome, and I shall be pleased to meet representatives of the pearling industry there to hear any representations they may have to make and to submit these to the Government for its consideration. I promise to inform the honorable member as soon as possible of the date of my visit to Broome. The honorable member stated that, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the pearlers themselves, the industry at Broome was in a serious plight because of the offering for sale on the American market of pearl-shell fished in northern Australian waters by Japanese. He used the words “Darwin waters “. The position, of course, is that the control of territorial waters adjacent to the coast of a State is a matter for that particular State government. I have no doubt thatadequate provision exists in the laws of Western Australia to prevent any poaching by foreigners within the territorial waters of that State. The Commonwealth Government, of course, controls fishing in waters adjoining the Northern Territory, and an ordinance already exists to enable it to prevent any poaching in those waters. It is necessary also to provide for the policing of that ordinance. This work is watched by a patrol service which this Government instituted some time ago, but we are prepared to admit that that service is not so effective at present as it should be, and certainly not so effective as we should like it to be. Honorable members know that two additional patrol vessels will shortly be available; one will be under the control of the Department of Trade and Customs and the other under the control of the Department of the Interior. It is believed that these vessels will be able to patrol completely the waters of the Northern Territory and prevent poaching of pearl-shell or other fishing in those waters. I have called for a report from departmental officers and the Administrator of the Northern Territory as to whether these two patrol vessels will besufficient to do that work effectively, and I assure the honorable member that if those officers recommend it the Government will secure additional boats for the purpose. The honorable gentleman has presented a strong case based on what he accepted as facts, for some assistance to be given to the pearl-shell industry at Broome, and for something to be done to ensure that pearl-shell in contiguous waters to the Australian coast is not poached by foreigners. I point out to him that there is a territorial limit to our authority, but I shall act upon his suggestion and confer with the Acting Attorney-General in order to see whether it would not be possible for the Commonwealth to extend the limits of its authority in these waters. I take this opportunity, however, to appeal to the honorable member himself to use his eloquence in an endeavour to influence some of his friends in WesternAustralia to apply the point of view they hold in respect of the protection of our fisheries to this Government’s action in preserving for the use of Australia this country’s iron ore resources.

Mr Green:

– Would the Minister object to armed parties dealing with the Japanese ?

Mr.McEWEN. - I certainly would object to private individuals taking upon themselvesthe responsibility of interfering with foreigners in that way, and I am amazed that the honorable member should advance such a suggestion, knowing him to be a peaceful man.

The honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) has referred to certain alterations of the original plan of the city of Canberra. He has advanced severe criticism of the Government and of the Department of the Interior for concurring in certain minor alterations which have been made from time to time. He has expressed the opinion, very strongly, that no action of this kind should be taken without consulting Parliament, or, at least, giving it an opportunity to disallow any proposed departure from the original plan. To support his case he has actually read the statute dealing with the matter. The act, of course, is specific, and’ provides that the Minister for the Interior of the day may authorize a departure from the plan, and, in doing so, must follow a certain procedure. The proposal must be gazetted, with a plan showing the exact nature of the proposed departure, and particulars of the proposal must be tabled in the Parliament. Having acquainted himself so fully with the statute, I am surprised that the honorable member has not made himself more familiar than he apparently has with the details of the only recent departure that has been made from the originalplan. As a matter of fact, on the 2nd December last, I, as Minister for the Interior, authorized a departure which merely consisted of an extension of the radius of a crescent road by several chains. It was a most trifling departure from the plan, with the object merely of slightly extending the area of land upon which the new high school for Canberra is to be built, to make slightly more land available for the playing-fields and gardens, and to conform to the local topographical features. The proposal was gazetted in accordance with the law which the honorable member has read, and was tabled at the first opportunity in both Houses of the Parliament on the 27th April last. In accordance with the same law, it was the prerogative of the honorable member, as it was of every member of this Parliament, to move, within fifteen days, for the disallowance of the departure from the original plan. Ratherthan advance criticism of the action taken, the honorable member might have availed himself of his privileges under the law, and moved in this House in accordance with his thoughts regarding the matter.

The honorable member for Bass has also made reference to the shortage of houses in Canberra. I shall merely repeat what I have previously said in reply to questions by honorable members. The Government recognizes that there is a shortage of houses in Canberra. I told the House a few day ago that I was in conference withthe Treasurer (Mr. Casey), and with officers of my own department, who are conferring with officers of the Treasury to formulate a definite plan to overcome the shortage. I am now able to tell the House that tentative arrangements have been made under which a substantial sum of money will be placed on the Estimates next year for the purpose of embarking upon a much wider home-building programme in the Territory than has been adopted in the last few years. I have no doubt that the present shortage will be substantially overcome during the next twelve months. The honorable member for Bass referred to what he described as the “ hush-hush “ policy of the Government in regard to its various proposals. All I need Bay is that members of the Cabinet are subjected daily to severe cross-questioning, and any information sought is readily given.

The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) has spoken regarding the promulgation of ordinances relating to the Government of the territory which he represents. He has on the notice-paper a motion dealing with the matter to which he referred this afternoon, and that will be dealt with in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Mr Blain:

– Will the Minister undertake that the latest ordinance which has been promulgated will not be acted upon until my motion has been discussed?

Mr McEWEN:

– I cannot give the honorable member that assurance, for the ordinance is in accord with, and is actually part of, the law to-day.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

. - in reply - The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) referred to grants that have been made by the Commonwealth Government during the last few years, to assist the State governments in certain forestry work. These giants, like several others, were made originally to combat theworst effects of unemployment during the depth of the depression. They have been tapered off as the unemployment situation has improved. I cannot give any undertaking that they will be continued after the 30th June.

In reply to the honorable member’s suggestion that an additional postage allowance should be provided to enable honorable members to cope with the very heavy correspondence they have been obliged to deal with, arising out of the national insurance legislation, I am glad to say that the Government has agreed to make an additional postage allowance of £2 to each honorable member of the House for the current mouth.

The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price.), the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) and the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker), referred to a statement in the press to-day to the effect that the distribution of air mail from Darwin southwards under the new service is likely to be delayed for twelve months. I have been in touch with the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) and the PostmasterGeneral (Senator A. J. McLachlan) on this subject, and I can give no reason for the publication of a story that a delay of anything like twelve months is likely to occur. A general re-arrangement of air routes within Australia, including the distribution of mail matter, is under consideration. I shall consult the PostmasterGeneral and the Minister for Defence to ascertain whether a considered statement may be made at an early date on this subject.

The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) discussed matters relating to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and also broadcast programmes, and voiced some strictures on the Post master-General in this regard. I join with the honorable member for Wakefield in deploring this broad criticism of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which, in my opinion, is doing a reasonably good job under rather difficult conditions. However, I shall bring the honorable member’s- remarks under the notice of the Postmaster-General.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) spoke broadly regarding a legislative review of broadcasting by Parliament. I have no authority to say that this subject will be brought before Parliament at an early date, but the Government has been giving a good deal of consideration to it in the light of the experience that has been accumulated during the last five or six years. I cannot say that any action will be taken. I assure the honorable member that our general broadcasting policy in respect of A grade stations has been under the notice of the Government for some time. I shall bring his remarks under the notice of the appropriate Minister.

The honorable member for Griffith (Mr: Baker) discussed matters relating to the Canberra Community Hospital, and the franchise and other matters referred to in the new ordinance. I shall bring his remarks under the notice of the Acting Minister for Health.

In elaboration of the remarks of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) on the observations of the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) about Lord Hewart’s book, The New Despotism, I may say that I read this volume some years ago. Speaking as one who was a public servant and has subsequently become a politician, I venture the opinion that a good deal may be said on the other side. It would be extremely’ difficult to carry on the business of government without a fairly broad power to make regulations.

Mr Blain:

– That is admitted.

Mr CASEY:

– We could have a very interesting debate on whether the new or the old despotism was preferable.

I shall bring the remarks of other honorable members that have not been referred to under the notice of the Ministers concerned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.

page 1857

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Canberra:Housing

Mr Stacey:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

y asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

What number of (a) permanent officials, and (b) other persons, in Canberra, have applied to the department and are waiting for houses to be built?
What is the location of the available building blocks in Canberra?
What conditions are imposed in making building blocks available?
What is the rental price of the blocks?
What is the term of leases?

Mr McEwen:
CP

– The information is being obtained.

On the 1st June, the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

How many houses with eight or more rooms havebeen built in Canberra by the Government?
Are any such houses at present unoccupied? If so, how many are unoccupied, and what is the number of rooms in each house?

The information desired by the honorable member is as follows : -

Twenty-seven.
All houses are occupied.

Wheat Industry: Home Consumption Price

Mr Nock:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

k asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the fact that the price of wheat based on export parity has dropped to 2s. 6d. a bushel in some States, and 2s. 9d. a bushel in others, at country sidings, will he undertake that the Federal Government will cooperate withthe State governments as soon as they are willing, for the purpose of providing a stable home price for a period of years for wheat consumed within Australia?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The Commonwealth Go vernment will consult with the governments of the States on this matter, at the appropriate time.

Defence: Purchase of Aircraft

Mr Green:

n asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Bolingbroke reconnaissance aeroplanes, ordered in Great Britain nearly twelve months ago, are not likely to be delivered to the Defence Department because of the large demand for these aeroplanes by the British War Office?
Is it probable, as reported in the press, that the department may decide to obtain the Manufacturing rights of a long-range American machine?.

Mr.Thorby. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - .

The Commonwealth Government has recently been in communication with the United Kingdom Government regarding the delivery of general reconnaissance aircraft “on order, and the position is reasonably satisfactory.
No action has been taken by the Commonwealthto obtain the manufacturing rights of a long-range American machine.

Mr Green:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

In view of the fact that the British aircraft experts who have returned to England from the United States of America have advised the Air Ministry to buy 300training aeroplanes and bombers from that country, does the Defence Department, under the circumstances, propose to insist on the delivery of war aeroplanes, the orders for which were placed in England nearly twelve months ago. andwhich, it is said, the British manufacturers willfind difficult to deliver because of the British Air Department’s urgent need of war aeroplanes ?

Mr.Thorby. - The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

Arrangements have already been made for the new aircraft on order, both from England and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, to be delivered by the time they will be required to equip the new units included in the Air Force development programme.

Defence Forces: Marriage Allowances

Mr Harrison:

n asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that a marriage allowance is granted to men of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force and that no similar allowance is made to men of the Permanent Military Forces?
If so, will he give consideration to the question of placing these men on the same footing (with regard to marriage allowances) as other arms of the Service?

Mr.Thorby - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

Yes. but the Navy and Air Force rates are fixed on the basis of a daily rate of pay and allowances, while the Army pay is fixed on a consolidated annual basis similar to that for the Commonwealth Public Service, including child endowment.

The system of pay for each service is designed to meet the conditions of the particularservice concerned and aims at equality of treatment for married men as far as possible.

See answer to No. 1.

Invalid Pensions.

Mr.Ward asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

How many applications for the grant of invalid pensions were received in each State for the year ended 30th April, 1938?

How many of the applications received in each State were successful?

How many invalid pensioners in each State were medically re-examined in the same period?

How many invalid pensions in each State were cancelled asa result of such reexamination?

Mr Casey:
UAP

y. - Inquiries are being made and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible.

Manufacture of Motor Car Engines

Mr Forde:

e asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

When was the question of the manufacture of motor car engines in Australia referred to the Tariff Board for consideration?
When was the Tariff Board’s report received?
When was the matter referred back to the Tariff Board?
On what date was the Tariff Board’s further report received by the Minister?
Can he give an assurance that a decision will be made on this matter before the end of the present session?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

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

The question was first referred to on the 10th November, 1936. That reference, however, was superseded by a later reference dated 1st December, 1936.
7th September, 1937.
23rd February, 1938.
22nd March, 1938.
I am not yet in a position to give such an assurance.

Ex-Soldiers : Ailments Due to Gas Poisoning

Mr Thompson:
CP

n. - OnWednesday, the 1st June, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr.Ward) asked the following question, upon notice : -

What are the ailments suffered by ex-soldiers which are accepted by the Repatriation Department as being attributable to the effects of the inhalation of various forms of poisonous sud other gases whilst on active service?

The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The inhalation of the various forms of gas gave rise to varying symptoms and clinical signs in different men. In many cases, the disability in respect of which an ex-soldier is now pensioned can be clearly traced to the effects of such gassing, whilst, in other cases, there is no possible association between the present incapacity and the gassing. It is impossible to say in general terms that any particular ailments are necessarily the result of gassing, and the question has to be determined on the facts in each individual case. Of importance in arriving at such a decision are (a) the records of the clinical condition oi the ex-soldier following evacuation from his unit and treatment in hospital, and (b) the subsequent service, health and medical history in the year3 intervening between the date of the gassing and the date of the claim under consideration.

Essendon Aerodrome: Extension of Area

Mr McEwen:
CP

n. - On the 26th May, the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

How many blocks of land have been resumed by the Government for the extension of the area known as the Essendon Aerodrome?
What, in each case, was the price paid or contracted to be paid by the persons from whom the land was resumed?
What was the price offered by the Government in each case?
Is it a fact that, as a result of the resumption by the Government, some purchasers, who have paid off more than £50, will receive nothing ?
Is it a fact that some purchasers who have paid approximately £100 have been offered £15 for their blocks?
In how many cases were the prices offered by the Government accepted?
In how many cases were the offers made by the Government dealt with by arbitration ?
What waa the price paid in each case in final settlement for each of the blocks resumed?

Iam now is a position to supply the following information : -

Twenty-four blocks have been acquired by the Commonwealth in Grange-road and Bowesavenue, Essendon.
The purchase prices, as far as can be ascertained from search, vary from £40 to £93 a lot.Seachesagainst titles do not disclose in every instance the purchase price paid for certain of the lota acquired. 3.£15alot.
Yes.
Yes.
Three. 7.None. Thecases where settlementhas been effected were conducted by negotiation between the parties. 8.£15 a lot, plus statutory interest, viz., 3 percent. from date of acquisition to the date of settlement.

FootballinCanberraSchools.

Mr Green:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Is it a fact that St. Christopher’s School is prohibited from playing the Australian gameoffootballin Manuka Park on Friday afternoons?
If so, what is the reason for this prohibition?

Mr McEwen:
CP

n. - The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : - 1and 2. An application for permission for boys from St. Christopher’s School to practise the Australian game of football at Manuka Oval on Friday afternoons was refused. The reason for the refusal was not because the Australian game was to be played, but solely because the grassed surface is already too severely taxed by the number of footballers of both codes already using the oval. The oval is already occupied extensively (luring the week for training and match purposesby adult sports organizations and the senior section of schools’ sports organizations.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 June 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1938/19380603_reps_15_156/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 3 June 1938

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr JENNINGS:WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

SYDNEY WATERSIDE WORKERS

Mr BEASLEY:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

QUESTION

TIMBER SUPPLIES

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

NON-OFFICIAL POSTMASTERS

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr PERKINS:UAP

QUESTION

EX-GERMAN COLONIES

Mr HAWKER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

STATUS OF WOMEN

Mr FORDE:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr FORDE:

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

MELBOURNE AIRPORTS

Mr HOLT:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr THORBY:Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

ALLEGED BOYCOTT OF AUS TRALIAN WOOL

Mr CLARK:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

LANDING OF JAPANESE TROOPS NEAR HONG KONG

Mr FAIRBAIRN:FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE

Mr JAMES:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY ORDINANCE No. 2 OF 1938

Mr BLAIN:NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN DEFENCE FACTORIES

Mr HAWKER:

Mr THORBY:CP

QUESTION

BOOCK BREAK-OF-GAUGE DEVICE

Mr HARRISON:

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

DEATH OF LEADING SEAMAN STORER

Mr JAMES:Hunter

Mr Lane:

Mr JAMES:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr JAMES:

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G J Bell:DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr Ward:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr THORBY:CP

Mr James:

Mr THORBY:

Mr James:

Mr THORBY:

Mr Brennan:

Mr THORBY:

Mr James:

Mr THORBY:

Mr James:

Mr THORBY:

Mr Curtin:

Mr THORBY:

House of Representatives
3 June 1938

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr THORBY:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr THORBY:
CP

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G J Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr THORBY:
CP

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1934; ALP from 1936

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1934; ALP from 1936

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney