House of Representatives
20 August 1940

15^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- WET CANTEENS IN MILITARY CAMPS
MINISTERIAL CHANGES
- Hon. A. W. Fadden, M.P., Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation
IMPORTS OF TOBACCO
QUESTION
- HONORABLE B. S. B. STEVENS
QUESTION
- PETROL RATIONING
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN MINISTER TO JAPAN
QUESTION
- APPLES AND PEARS
QUESTION
- WAR AIR LOSSES
QUESTION
- WOOL APPRAISEMENT
QUESTION
- PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA: DEFENCE BOARD
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- MUNITIONS ANNEXE, LAUNCESTON
QUESTION
- WHEAT ACQUISITION
QUESTION
- POWER ALCOHOL
QUESTION
- BOMB-PROOF SHELTERS
QUESTION
- WOOL CONTRACT
QUESTION
- MAGNESIUM ALLOY
QUESTION
- CENSORSHIP
QUESTION
- GENERAL ELECTIONS
QUESTION
- HOUSING CONDITIONS IN DARWIN
LEAGUE OF NATIONS ASSEMBLY
- Report of Australian Delegation
- League of Nations - 20th Assembly - December 11th to 15th, 1939 - Report of Australian Delegation
QUESTION
- MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
- Repatriation Hospital, Randwick
QUESTION
- PETROL IMPORTS
QUESTION
- INTERNMENT OF ENEMY ALIENS
QUESTION
- BARLEY ACQUISITION SCHEME
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT
- Motion to Disallow Regulations
- Toolmaker
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE
COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL (WAR-TIME) BILL 1940
DISSOLUTION: GENERAL ELECTIONS
TARIFF PROPOSALS 1940
- Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3) ; Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2) ; Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 3)
- In Committee of Ways and Means:
HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL 1940
- Second Reading
RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1940
- Second Reading
SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1940-41
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Industry - Petrol Rationing - Imperial Chemical Industries, Deer Park: Offensive Effluent
- Hon. R. G. Menzies, P.C.,
- Prime Minister,
- Canberra
- Dear Sir,
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTION’S
- South Australian Munitions Works
- Postal Department : Melbourne Offices
- Loan Applications
- National Insurance
- Airport Site Near Melbourne
- Workmen’s Homes
- Importation of Bombers

Mr. Speaker (Hon.G.J. Bell) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 418

QUESTION

WET CANTEENS IN MILITARY CAMPS

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware’ that members of the Military Forces are committing breaches of the law in different places by reason of the unrestricted quantity of alcohol that they are able to obtain in hotels when on leave? Seeing that the establishment of wet canteens in military camps would have a restrictive influence, is it the intention of the Government to take this action and thus enable the rank and file, as well as officers, to obtain alcohol in those camps? If this action is proposed, will it be taken before the ensuing elections are held, or does the right honorable gentleman intend to leave it to a Labour government after the elections?

Mr MENZIES:
Minister for Defence Co-ordination · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

– I was not aware of the existence of the state of affairs described by the honorable member. The second portion of his question relates to a matter of policy, to which it is not customary to reply.

page 418

MINISTERIAL CHANGES

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

– I desire to inform the House that, consequent on the deaths of the Honorable G. A. Street, M.C., Minister for the Army and Minister for Repatriation, of the Honorable

Sir Henry Somer Gullett, K.C.M.G., Vice-President of the Executive Council, and of the Honorable J. V. Fairbairn, Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation, the following appointments were made by His Excellency the Governor-General on the 14th August. -

Senator the Hon. P. A. M. McBride, Minister for the Army and Minister for Repatriation.

Hon. A. W. Fadden, M.P., Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation

Senator the Hon. H. B. Collett, C.M.G., D.S.O., V.D., Vicepresident of the Executive Council.

Senator McBride and Mr. Fadden will, by virtue of their office, be members of the War Cabinet.

Senator Collett will be the Minister in charge of Scientific and Industrial Research.

page 418

IMPORTS OF TOBACCO

Mr SPENDER:
Treasurer · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– During the last period of the session the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) asked that I should place before the Minister for Trade and Customs a suggestion that, before any licences for the importation of tobacco leaf from the United States of America are issued, a full statement regarding the position, particularly in relation to local stocks of both imported and local leaf, be submitted to Parliament.

The Minister for Trade and Customs has now supplied me with the following information : -

The stocks of tobacco leaf held by manufacturers in Australia on the 30th June, 1940, were -

During the year ended the 30th June, 1940, the quantity of tobacco leaf used in manufacture of tobacco, cigars and cigarettes in Australia was -

The production of tobacco leaf in Australia during the last two seasons was -

Apart from the tobacco leaf purchased in the United States of America before the outbreak of war, practically no licences have been issued for tobacco leaf. From the figures furnished above it will be observed that Australian manufacturers are using approximately 2,000,000 lb. of Australian leaf more than is produced in Australia annually. Yearly consumption of locally-grown leaf represents 50 per cent. more than the total Australian annual production. Therefore, even in normal circumstances without the assistance of licensing, a considerable opportunity exists for tobacco-growers to increase production. The only qualification I would make is that the increased production must be a good quality smokable tobacco.

page 419

QUESTION

HONORABLE B. S. B. STEVENS

Interview with Prime Minister.

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister clear up the mystery surrounding the interview that recently took place between himself and the Honorable B. S. B. Stevens,at one time Premier of New South Wales? Did the right honorable gentleman invite Mr. Stevens to interview him at either Canberra or Melbourne? If not, did Mr. Stevens invite himself?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I can well understand the honorable member’s curiosity concerning what was, after all, a purely private conversation. If he will be good enough to place his question on the noticepaper for one day next week, I shall be pleased to furnish him with an answer to it.

page 419

QUESTION

PETROL RATIONING

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MINISTER TO JAPAN

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In connexion with the appointment of Sir John Latham as Australian Minister to Japan, will the Minister for External Affairs state whether important discussions in relation to Pacific problems will, in future, be negotiated direct with Japan, or in collaboration with the British Government?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for External Affairs · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– The appointment of an Australian Minister to Japan will in no sense alter the very closest collaboration between the Governments of Australia and the other dominions and the Government of the United Kingdom, in reference to all matters affecting foreign policy, and especially Far Eastern policy. The Government of Australia doubtless will be better informed by reason of this direct representation in Japan. Certainly it will be more intimately and more immediately informed, in relation to matters of interest in the Far East. The reciprocal appointment of a Japanese Minister in Australia will add to the effective ness of the exchange of information. As to the actual devising of Empire policy, I can say that the policy of close consultation and collaboration which has been followed in the past will be continued.

Later:

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for External Affairs noticed the press controversy respecting the legal propriety of appointing the Chief Justice of Australia, Sir John Latham, as Australia’s representative at Tokyo, Japan? Can he say whether, before making the appointment, the Government satisfied itself that the appointment would be perfectly legal?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I have not noticed any newspaper controversy on the subject, but the Government is convinced that the step taken is a proper one.

Mr Rosevear:

– Is it proper in a legal sense?

Mr McEWEN:

– It is proper in every way. Legislation will be introduced during this session to deal with certain aspects of this matter.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

page 422

QUESTION

MAGNESIUM ALLOY

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– In view of the fact that Great Britain and Australia are dependent on the United States of

America for supplies of magnesium alloy for the production of aircraft and that the United States of America will allow only limited supplies to come to Australia, which has urgent need of the metal, will the Prime Minister take the necessary steps to establish in Australia an industry for the production of magnesium ?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I am aware of the honorable member’s interest in this matter, because he has spoken to me about it himself. The matter is at present under investigation. As soon as I am able to give him a reply I shall do so.

Mr Mahoney:

– Will that be before the elections?

Mr MENZIES:

– Oh, yes.

page 423

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

American Journalists

Mr JAMES:

– Has the Prime Minister seen in the Sydney Morning Herald and other newspapers, reports that the journalists from the United States of America, who are visiting Australia, had interviews with the Director-General of Munitions Production, Mr. Essington Lewis, and took newsreels of various Australian munitions works? Has the Prime Minister also seen photographs which show that some of these journalists carry cameras? Will the pictures that have been taken by these journalists be allowed to go out of Australia? If so, how can that conform to the regulations that were issued early in the war forbidding citizens to approach defence works with cameras? I do not raise this matter in a hostile way, because we welcome these people, and are friendly to them and their nation, but does the Prime Minister not think it extremely dangerous for photographs of important defence works to be taken out of this country?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– The journalists, and presumably the photographers, referred to, were accompanied by the Director- General of Information, who administers the censorship. I assume that the ordinary rules of censorship have applied, but I shall ascertain whether that is so.

page 423

QUESTION

GENERAL ELECTIONS

Mr PERKINS:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior inform me whether, for the pur poses of the next general elections, members of the Australian Imperial Force and Royal Australian Air Force at present on service in Darwin will be enrolled as electors of the Northern Territory or of the electoral divisions in which they resided prior to going to Darwin?

Mr NOCK:
CP

– I shall obtain the information for the honorable member.

Mr GANDER:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior able to tell me the last day upon which citizens will be able to secure enrolment on the supplementary rolls for the purposes of the coming elections?

Mr NOCK:

– The information will be made available in due course, and in good time.

page 423

QUESTION

HOUSING CONDITIONS IN DARWIN

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior been drawn to the appalling housing conditions prevailing at Darwin which require two or three families to live in one small house, and, in many cases, the husbands to live in tents apart from their families? If so, what does he intend to do to improve such conditions?

Mr NOCK:
CP

– My attention has not been drawn to the matter referred to by the honorable member, but if he will furnish me with a statement relating to the conditions of which he complains. I shall submit it to theMinister for the Interior for inquiry.

page 423

LEAGUE OF NATIONS ASSEMBLY

Report of Australian Delegation

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I lay upon the table the following paper: -

League of Nations - 20th Assembly - December 11th to 15th, 1939 - Report of Australian Delegation

Ordered to be printed.

page 423

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Is the Prime Minister able to say whether there is any foundation for current rumours that Australian Consolidated Industries Limited has entirely dropped its plans for the establishment of the motor vehicle manufacturing industry in Australia? If there is no foundation for these rumours, will the right honorable gentleman inform me whether the company intends to commence operations before the end of the war?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I do not know what the position is at the moment, but I shall make inquiries from the company to ascertain the exact situation.

page 424

.- I move -

That regulations 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the National Security (Employment) Regulations (contained in Statutory Rules 1940, No. 128, made under the National Security Act 1939- 1940) be disallowed.

I have moved this motion because the regulations constitute a definite and indisputable step in the direction of industrial conscription. From time to time legislation has been passed dealing in a general way with the control of labour and industry, but these regulations leave no possible room for doubt regarding the Government’s intention. Parliament met on the 6th August, and that was the first opportunity which presented itself to move a motion for the disallowance of the regulations. My, motion was lodged on the 7th August, so it cannot be said that I jumped the claim of any one else who might have desired to move a motion of this kind. Since notice of my motion was given, the Australasian Council of Trade Unions has become interested in the matter. According to a press report, a telegram has been despatched by the council urging the Federal Labour party to move for the disallowance of Statutory Rule 128 under the National Security

Act. I cite that not to canvass support for my motion, but to controvert certain statements made in the Senate that the trade union movement supported the regulations.

It is interesting to trace the development of this matter. Two previous pieces of legislation have a bearing upon it - the National Security Act 1939-1940 and the National Registration Act 1939. They may be regarded as pointers indicating the general trend of Government policy regarding the control of labour. Upon the introduction of the National Registration Bill, the Opposition vigorously objected on the ground that the Government was preparing the way for industrial conscription. This was emphatically denied by members of the Government, and by all honorable members supporting the Government who took part in the debate. The then Minister for the Army, the late Mr. Street, when moving the second reading of the National Registration Bill, said -

There are, I believe, some who say that this is a form of industrial conscription, that it is proposed to do something that is foreign to the spirit of democracy, something thai is abhorrent to Australians.

Those are strong words, stronger perhaps than those used by many who condemned the bill as a step in the direction of industrial conscription, but they were used by a responsible member of the Government. The next step was taken when the Supply and Development Bill was introduced. The Opposition was again suspicious of the Government’s intentions, because of the special manner in which it was proposed to treat servants of the Crown. The Opposition believed that, under the powers conferred in the bill, the Government could apply industrial conscription to persons in the service of the Crown, In order to allay fears of that kind the Government on 30th September, 1939, adopted the rather unusual procedure of supporting amendments moved by the Opposition to the Supply and Development Bill and designed to remove all doubt on this point. It is also important to remember that an amendment of section 13 of the National Security Act, passed on the 20th June of this year, gives the Government power over all persons, and “ all persons “ means, I take it, persons of all ages and both sexes. Therefore, every one, irrespective of age or sex, is covered by Statutory Rule No. 128 and its regulations, which I have moved to disallow, because they constitute a definite instalment of industrial conscription. These are the earliest regulations issued in pursuance of the enormous powers recently granted to the Government under the National Security Act. They supersede regulation 59 a of the 24th May, 1940, which was cancelled by Statutory Rule No. 157. What was the effect of regulation 59 a, which has now been cancelled ? Regulation 2, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which I am now moving to disallow, are precisely the same as 59 a, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, up to a point, but here is the difference: Paragraph 2 of 59 a contains these words -

But nothing in this regulation shall authorize the imposition of industrial conscription.

– The Labour movement has the same deep-rooted objection to-day to delegates being selected as the men have been selected for these particular boards, which are typical of the committees that will guide the Minister in making his decisions. I cast no aspersion on the patriotic endeavour of the members of these boards; they may bo impelled by the highest patriotic motives. But it must always be remembered that the interests which they represent, and will continue to repre sent after the termination of the war, are interests that have fought the Labour movement from time immemorial. The Labour movement has expended hundreds of thousands of pounds in fighting them in the courts in order to secure for the workers in industry the wages, the hours of labour, the customs, and the usages, that they have. The advantages the workers have derived have been dragged from the employing class. Those interests have been fought tooth and nail. Yet to them is being given the power to destroy all that has been achieved. These conditions in industry have been a thorn in the side of the interests which these persons privately represent, and they would not be human if they did not take some advantage of the powers that they will be able to wield. It may be argued that these regulations cover only certain defined trades. In reply to such a contention I would point out that paragraph 4 of regulation 2 makes the following provision: -

For the purpose of this regulation “ munitions of war “ includes the whole or any part of any ship, submarine, aircraft, tank or similar engine, arms, ammunition, bomb, torpedo, mine, or other article, material or device (whether actual or proposed) intended or adapted foruse in war.

It will therefore be seen that sufficient power is given to enable every sphere of industrial activity to be covered. To say that the regulation merely covers whatwe usually regard as munitions of war is an exaggeration. It covers the whole of the organizations which might, in even the remotest degree, be engaged in war effort. Any factory could be covered, no matter how small its contribution might be to the war effort. Regulation 3 provides that no employer can employ a man without a clearance from his former employer or from the Director of Labour. That places the workers practically in the position of ticket-of-leave men. Paragraph 1 of regulation 4 prevents an employer from offering more than the basic wage for which provision is made in the schedule. This, I contend, is a denial of the first principle of arbitration, under which the practice has been merely to fix the minimum wage tobe paid. This regulation compulsorily makes the minimum the maximum, and. consequently, is opposed to every principle of arbitration. When the Arbitration Court makes an award for the workers, from the labourer to the highest skilled tradesman, it always fixes the minimum wage, and leaves it to the discretion of the employer to compensate a man for any additional skill or ability he may possess. Ry compulsorily making the minimum the maximum, this regulation leaves no margin for the recognition of extra skill or efficiency. It will destroy individuality and initiative, and will lead to a form of passive resistance on the part of those workers in factories who are compelled to give their labour for the wage fixed in the schedules. It is true that any higher marginal rate being paid to an existing employee will be maintained; but any new men who are engaged, no matter how high may be the degree of skill or efficiency they possess, cannot be paid more than the minimum provided in the schedule. That will lead to discontent, and will not make for greater efficiency in this industry, at which the Government professes to aim. We do not propose that there shall be any interference with either the first or the second schedule; that is a simple and an ingenious trap into which we shall not be led. The schedules represent merely classifications and marginal payments for which provision is made in the respective arbitration awards or ‘agreements. These could be safeguarded, in any case, by the policing of the awards. Consequently, the inclusion of the schedules in the regulations does not afford any additional protection. So far, the Government has not attacked those standards, but in all probability they will next be attacked. Speaking on the National Security Bill on the 20th June last, the Prime Minister said -

No government has any desire to impair the industrial standards and conditions that the trade unions of Australia have obtained and now enjoy. Of course not.

He was asked, “ Will you stick to that ? “, and his reply was -

But I say to the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. McHugh) and to the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) whose voice I hear, that it would be sheer humbug for any Prime Minister- of Australia to stand in his place to-day and say that those standards will never be impaired.

In the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 27th June last, the right honorable gentleman is reported to have said -

In speeding up the production of munitions, there are bound to be cases of excess spread of hours. Payment for overtime and working conditions generally will be affected.

Clearly, the right honorable gentleman anticipated that there might be reached the stage when these brilliant munitions committees, which are so effectively providing munitions in New South Wales that many of the troops are only partially clothed and armed, would make further recommendations, under which the minimum standards now provided would be attacked. I believe that this will not be the last attack upon the conditions of the workers in industry, but that it is merely the initial step and that other steps will be taken at a later date further to impair those conditions. We shall resist any attack that might be made. We regard the schedule as the irreducible minimum, beyond which the Government is not prepared to go. We now know exactly the intentions of the Government when it introduced the national register and the Supply and Development Bill. It then told this House and the people of this country that it had not the slightest intention to introduce industrial conscription in Australia. The provision which gave a guarantee to the workers was enacted for the purpose of lulling the suspicions of the Opposition. The Government even then had designs on the conditions of the workers. I do not think there can now be the slightest doubt in the mind of any person as to its real purpose, namely, industrial conscription. We warn the Government that “ thus far shalt thou go, and no farther “.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

– I congratulate the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) on his extremely interesting pre-election speech. True, it had very little relation to the regulations which received formal mention in the motion moved by the honorable member. Its great value, particularly to honorable members who sit on this side of the House, and possibly also to some honorable members of the Opposition, lies in the fact that, for the first time, we have had expounded to us the policy of the new

– I have done so.

Mr MENZIES:

– It is true that the honorable member made some academic reference to them. What do these regulations do? Regulation 2 provides for the training and employment of persons for the production of munitions or supplies. The regulation reads -

– (1.) If it appears to the Minister of State for Munitions that the productionof munitions of war or supplies required for the efficient prosecution of the war is likely to be seriously prejudiced by reason of a shortage of persons skilled in any particular trade, he may make such arrangements as he considers necessary for the training of a sufficient number of persons in that trade or in any branch of that trade, and for the employment of persons so trained in connexion with the production of munitions of war or supplies.

Does the honorable member for Dalley quarrel with the principle of ministerial responsibility? Does he quarrel with the idea that a Minister of State, who is responsible to this Parliament, shall be satisfied about these things? If that be his quarrel, the honorable member is worse than I thought he was, for his quarrel is with democracy. That regulation is based upon a realization of the fact, which no honorable member can challenge, that from time to time in war a nation may find itself short of skilled tradesmen of one class or another. Before that regulation was promulgated the Government conferred with the two great engineering unions, the Amalgamated Engineers Union and the Australasian Society of Engineers, which frankly recognized that some steps had to be taken to increase the number of skilled tradesmen.

Mr Rosevear:

– Does the Prime Minister say that they asked for this regulation ?

Mr Holloway:

Mr Rosevear:

– No.

Mr MENZIES:

– Regulation 3 imposes restrictions upon the transfer of certain employees from one place of employment to another. To what classes of employees does it refer? The list is given in the first schedule, which I am grateful to know the honorable member for Dalley proposes to leave standing. The list is as follows: -

Electrical fitter.

Electrical mechanic.

Forger and/or faggoter.

Instrument maker.

Machinist (Engineerings - First-class).

What am I to do? Life is short. Time goes on and these problems are pressing. So we . got a man whose standing, personally, as a head of a great union, is so high that nobody, the Australasian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Workers ‘Union, the Maritime Council, the Australian Labour party (non-Communist), or any other group professing, or calling itself a representative of, unionism, could quarrel with the choice. Does anybody, in fact, quarrel with the standing or authority of the president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union as a representative of unionism, or with the standing and authority of any of the men who are on the State committees of management? Not at all. But my friend yonder, saying to himself, “ The regulation does not matter, but the election does”, comes along and says, “You have not gone through the right channel “ ; and it is as difficult to select the right channel through which to -approach the trade union movement as it is, on any given day, to write down a list of the new groups which have formed themselves on the much-haunted flanks of the political Labour party of Australia.

Mr CURTIN:
Leader of the Opposition · Fremantle

– This is a practical problem. It is not a problem of platitudes or catch cries. It is a question as to how the Government is to give effect to the powers which it sought to enable it adequately to defend Australia. It is perfectly true that the Opposition decided that the entire resources of this nation should be at the disposal of the Government. That was a decision, not only of the party here, but also of the authoritative body of the Labour party as it exists in Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) welcomed that decision as a manifestation of the readiness of the responsible and authoritative people of Australia to co-operate with the Government in the face of the common danger, and he said, “ We are taking compulsive power, but the best way to exercise that power is co-operatively.” We have sought to give in respect of the defence of this country, the maximum degree of co-operation, so that there would be at least, to the citizens of this country, regardless of individual political opinions, the spectacle of the Parliament and Government doing their best to save them in the face of a dreadful situation. I shall mot debate that declaration myself. It stands. I say that the Opposition could more effectively defend this country than the Government can, having regard to the policy which it is applying. That is merely my opinion ; I allow for another opinion. But that is our positive declaration and, if we come into power to-morrow, we shall not repeal the National Security Act, because there could not be any defence for this country if it were repealed. We say that we shall operate the law cooperatively.

– Well, once more the family is displaying a little discord.

Having outlined the circumstances that led to the drafting of this regulation, I submit that now that the panel has been constituted, the right thing to do is to clean the slate. Let us disallow the regulation and permit the panel to give unhampered consideration to the rates of pay and the general conditions that should apply to the classes of work involved. The importance of work of the kind under discussion cannot be overemphasized. It is of major significance in relation to the capacity of Australia to produce munitions. That there must be some regulation of this class of work appears to be obvious. I know that a good deal can be said pro and con on this subject, and I resent the idea that any government should use arbitrarily, in respect of labour, its power to provide for the defence of the nation. I have accepted and still accept the view that the Prime Minister has never had any intention to do so. I do not think he has any such intention at this moment. I should be surprised to know that he had ever wished to apply his own ipse dixit to labour. He has sought consultation, and has set up the requisite machinery to obtain all advice that is available. He has drawn a very fair line between ministerial responsibility and the obligation that rests upon a Minister to satisfy himself that unfair burdens are not placed upon the people. I have supported the constitution of the trade union panel, and, now that it has been established, I urge that this regulation should be disallowed and that the panel should be asked to deal with the whole matter, in which case I should expect a regulation to be gazetted which would be satisfactory to all concerned.

Mr BEASLEY:
Leader of the Australian Labour party - nonCommunist · West Sydney

– I shall touch upon only a few points. I draw the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to the fact that, although he referred in his remarks to the discussions that took place some time ago between the honorable member forFawkner (Mr. Holt), when he was Assistant Minister, and the Amalgamated Engineering Union, in relation to the dilution of labour, he did not tell the whole story. The Amalgamated Engineering Union feared the possible results of referring the subject of dilution to the Arbitration Court, for it was not pleased with the attitude that the court has previously adopted on the subject. It also feared that if it agreed to the dilution of labour by means of the adoption of the machinery of the court, it might find itself in the position in which labour organizations in Great Britain found themselves after the last war. During the last war, the engineering unions of Great Britain agreed to certain dilutions of labour on the understanding that immediately the war ended the status quo would be restored. That agreement was not honoured. I doubt whether the status quo was ever restored. Even such restorations as were made were the result of continuous agitation. Having that experience in mind, the workers of this country were not willing to take a similar risk. If the employers of Great Britain were unwilling after the last war to restore the status quo, the workers considered that it was quite on the cards that the employers of Australia would not be willing to do so after this war. For that reason, among others, the workers were not prepared to agree to the Arbitration Court dealing with the subject. An agreement was ultimately reached without the intervention of the court, but I do not think that it was an agreement to which the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers were parties with the Government. I do not think that all the unions concerned were consulted. At any rate, many metal trades organizations were not represented at the preliminary discussions. As a matter of fact, the whole subject became a very live issue among the members of what is known as the metal trades group. The Iron Trades Union, the Moulders Union and the Electrical Trades Union were not called into the consultations, which led to the agreement being adopted. The Amalgamated Engineering Union only was responsible for whatever agreement was made, and I am informed that it was resolved that the agreement was not to form the subject-matter of a regulation at the later stage. We object to the regulation because, in our opinion, it gives the Government the power to override the agreement which it made with the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and also gives it the power to set aside the conditions that were finally endorsed by that union.

We contend that as the Government had made an agreement with the unions in respect of the classes of work referred to, there was no reason for the gazettal of the regulation. The Prime Minister simply drew a red herring across the trail when he suggested that our opposition was actuated by a desire to withhold the services of skilled men from munition-making enterprises. The fact is that the workers have freely offered their skilled services for munitionmaking services, but the Government has not as freely accepted them. Many workers qualified to engage in munitionmaking are to-day still working at other and less essential occupations. It has been said that there is a shortage of skilled labour for munition-making, but that has never been proved. We have challenged the Government again and again on the point and our challenge has not been accepted. We say that the workers have never refused any request made for their services for munitionmaking work. They are, as a matter of fact, prepared to do their utmost to ensure that Australia shall be fully prepared to defend itself. The Prime Minister will recollect that in discussing munitions production some weeks ago I referred to the transference of workers from one employer to another. I mentioned specifically the case of five fitters employed by Australian Consolidated Industries Limited who wish to offer their services to the Railways Commissioner of New South Wales for work in the manufacture of aircraft. These men were employed by Australian Consolidated Industries Limited in fitting and setting up moulds in connexion with the glass industry. This was not essential work and had nothing to do with preparations for defence. The men wished to transfer their services to the aircraft manufacturing industry but were not allowed to do so. The regulation that we are now discussing was invoked by Australian Consolidated Industries Limited to prevent their transfer to the more essential work of aircraft manufacturing, for the company refused the men the necessary permits.

Acting under instructions from the Amalgamated Engineering Union, these men stopped work, and refused to go back to the glassworks.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Two hours having elapsed since the moving of the motion, I must, under the Standing Orders, call on the Orders of the Day.

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) - by leave - agreed to -

That Standing Order No. 119 be suspended to enable the debate to be continued.

It is cheap for the Prime Minister to suggest that the workers do not realize the seriousness of the situation at the present time. They realize it all too well. Many of them, indeed, are of the opinion that the Government has not realized it to the degree that it should, as otherwise our defence preparations would not have been so lamentably backward. It has been suggested that we are talking to the electors. Well, I trust that we shall be able to convince the electors that we are right. The workers of Australia will not be found wanting when every ounce of energy is wanted, whether in the workshops or on the battlefield in the defence of this country.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- I support the motion moved by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear). To-day we are seeing this system of government by regulation working at its best. These regulations were made six weeks ago, and now we have an opportunity to discuss them, and to reject them if we see fit; but it is quite possible for regulations to be issued just after the prorogation of Parliament, so that an opportunity to review them might not present itself for six months, or even longer.

I was one of those who voted against the National Security Bill, and I make no apology for my action, because that was intended to give to the Government of the day, without consulting Parliament, power to control the working conditions of the workers, and to break down their standards. I felt strongly on the matter because, at a conference of representatives from all parts of Australia, which sat only the day before, it had been declared that one of the planks of the Labour party’s defence policy should be “full recognition of trade unionism, and the safeguarding of industrial standards “. Knowing what had happened in this country, and in England, I was convinced that these powers would be used to break down industrial standards. The portion of the regulations to which I take the greatest objection is that which prevents a worker from freely changing his employment. When the Supply and Development Bill was under discussion honorable members on this side of the House were successful in having inserted in it a provision that no regulation made under the act should fetter the freedom of movement of workers. Honorable members on this side of the House were very concerned that nothing should be done to interfere with the freedom of workers because of the English experience of similar legislation. In Great Britain at the commencement of the last war not merely did the Political Labour party make a truce with the Government but also the Trade Union Congress entered into a Treasury Agreement by which it consented to a suspension of trade union rules and agreed that there should be no strikes and that all matters in dispute should be submitted to arbitration. Taking advantage of the Treasury Agreement and the acquuiescence of the Trade Union Conference, an act was passed in 1915 entitled the Munitions Act which contained a “ notorious section “ establishing leaving certificates which is the basis of these regulations. That section provided that no worker employed on munitions could change his job, nor any employer give him a job, unless he possessed a certificate from the employer by whom he was last employed that he left work with the consent of his employer, or else a certificate from the Munitions Tribunal that the consent had been unreasonably withheld. According to Maurice Dobb from whose pamphlet Trade Union Experience and Policy 1914-1918 I am quoting, the system of certificates aroused more opposition among the trade union rank and file than perhaps any other single measure brought down during the war years. Dobb says -

The report of the Commissioner for the North Eastern area to the official Committee of Inquiry into Industrial Unrest declared it to he “ one of the most fruitful causes of discontent”. This report proceeded to quote complaints that workers resented being tied to a job and “ as they sometimes put it, virtually in a state of slavery “.

Mr LANE:

– No. The honorable member and his colleagues should show loyalty to the great Labour movement by helping to win this war and refrain from efforts to make party political capital out of actions which the Government takes iri order . to ensure that its war effort will be unimpaired.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must discuss the motion.

Mr LANE:

– It is false to say that these regulations mean the conscription of industry. They have been gazetted merely because the Government must have latitude to meet any emergency that may arise. If honorable members opposite ask the House to disallow these regulations, I have the right to put the other side and to say that their motive is not to help the trade union movement and to preserve its integrity and honour, but rather to destroy political machinery to which they are opposed. If these regulations are disallowed, 95 per cent, of the unionists will be disappointed that the Government has not firmly held to its right to rule and to ensure that we shall play our part alongside Great Britain. The honorable member for Dalley and the honorable member for Fremantle, make a great mistake when they say, “ Disallow these regulations “. The only purpose of the regulations is to weld together the industry of this great country. “We are told that this war will be won in the workshops, and the purpose of these regulations is to see that our workshops continue uninterruptedly in production. I am sorry that this motion has been moved and I am convinced that, before the House will agree to it, much better reasons than have been given will have to be advanced.

– The honorable gentleman is now introducing an element of discord. I suggest that because regulation 3 was introduced into the regulations without discussion with the panel, these regulations should be withdrawn altogether. I propose to vote in favour of the motion, and to take no risks.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has put the matter clearly on behalf of the Opposition. These regulations must be withdrawn and redrafted, so as to remove all possible cause for objection. I believe that, if the matter were referred to a properly constituted industrial panel for consideration, proposals could be evolved which would satisfy everyone. The regulations would then work without friction, and that is what we all want. When the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) said that he proposed to vote against the regulations, he made it clear that, in doing so, he had no wish to hamper or delay the nation’s war effort. That applies to all of us, and I suggest that the Government, having heard the opinions and arguments of members of the Opposition on this matter, should now withdraw the regulations. The Government will admit that honorable members on this side of the House represent practically all the trade unionists of Australia, to whom we must look for the production of munitions of war. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) and the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) have put the position clearly from the legal point of view, and have shown how the regulations can and do operate to the detriment of men engaged in the production of munitions. As an example, in Victoria there is, according to reports, great dissatisfaction among the men employed in the Newport workshops, because of the manner in which the regulations are being applied. Certain men have been allowed to transfer to the munitions annexe at increased wages, while others, just as competent, and engaged on the same kind of work, are refused permission. They are asking that this anomaly be removed.

Criticism was offered here to-day against the Director of Labour, Mr. J. B. Chifley. I have been in close touch with the secretary of the Munitions Workers Union, who has assured me that, whenever representations have been made to Mr. Chifley, the unions have been given prompt consideration and satisfaction.

Mr Rosevear:

– I merely said that, on one occasion, he stood for a reduction of wages, and that is true.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– On that occasion he was merely applying as a Minister the policy of the Government of the day, and I do not think that any reflection could fairly be cast upon him on that account. His- work as a member of the Royal Commission on Banking reflected credit upon himself, and upon the Labour party, of which he was a member. His activities as Director of Labour cannot be challenged. I am convinced that if he is given an opportunity to administer the regulations, as we desire to have them altered, he will do an excellent job both for the men and for the Government.

The men in the Newport workshops have a legitimate cause for complaint. Certain men who wish to transfer to munitions work are refused permission, while others, junior to them, are allowed to go and earn more money on the munitions side. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) asked by interjection whether we were prepared to close down private workshops engaged on munitions work. My reply is that the Opposition would have the Government take control of all munitions factories throughout Australia so that there would be no exploitation of the public under war conditions. When this work is handed over to private interests, trouble always occurs. I was recently informed by a manufacturer that he was asked to quote a price for the manufacture of certain war materials. After he had stated a price, he was asked whether he was prepared to do the job at 5 per cent, on cost. He agreed to do so, but he was not given the job. Some time later, however, he was rung up by another company, which I understand is a subsidiary of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and asked whether he would do the work for that company at 5 per cent, on cost. I have not gone into the matter extensively, but, on the face of it, it would appear that there was to be a percentage of profit for the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited subsidiary, as well as a profit for the actual manufacturer. I asked a question in the House on this matter, but though there has been plenty of time in which to prepare a reply, no reply has been forthcoming. I believe that there should be an investigation into the methods employed in the manufacture of munitions. There should not be more than nominal profit-making On munitions, let alone excessive profits.

Mr Collins:

– Yet you say that skilled men should receive extra pay.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I say that they should receive what is stipulated in the award or agreement which determines their rates of pay. I would have no objection to regulations providing for that, but it is wrong to prevent a man from transferring from one job to another for which he is better qualified.

Mr Rosevear:

– But does the honorable member suggest that the prescribed minimum, wage should become the maximum wage?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– No; but I say that the conditions prescribed by the award or agreement should be those which apply, and I say further that no one man should be prevented from going to a better paid job while a junior or less qualified man is allowed to do so.

Mr Nairn:

– The honorable member means that if the worker is able to sell his labour at inflated war-time prices, he should not be prevented?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The honorable member’s argument supplies its own answer. No question of that kind would arise if all munitions factories were controlled by the Government, as the Labour party suggests. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said that it was difficult to find out who really did represent the unions. I remind the Prime Minister that he also had difficulty, apparently, in finding out who represented the motorists and the motor trade, when plans were being discussed for imposing restrictions on the consumption of petrol. A rationing scheme was evolved which was not acceptable, but when a more representative committee was appointed, a scheme was devised which has met, more or less, with the approval of all sections concerned. No one can deny that the Australasian Council of Trade Unions is one of the most representative Labour bodies in Australia. It was suggested on this side of the House that the Australasian Council of Trade Unions should have been consulted regarding the formation of this industrial panel, but even those who put that proposal forward advocated that persons outside the Australasian Council of Trade Unions should also have been on the panel. I am not saying anything against those who are on the panel. Some of them are known personally to me, and I know that they are well qualified and are anxious to do a good job; but I believe that if the view of the central body had been accepted, a more representative panel could have been appointed. The Government should endeavour to secure the co-operation of the workers, and to that end it should withdraw these regulations, and substitute others - after reconsideration by its representatives and those of the workers - that will give satisfaction to every one.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- in reply - I regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) devoted so much of his time to the discussion of matters that had nothing to do with the points which I raised when moving my motion. He employed a good deal of flowery and flippant language in the course of what was obviously an electioneering appeal. He charged my party with taking an unreal view of the war situation. Let me assure the Prime Minister, and the members of his party,, that we take just as real a view of the situation as does the Government, the difference between us being as to how Australia’s best effort should be made in defence of democratic institutions. In this respect, we are not satisfied that the Government has done the best job possible. As a matter of fact, our party can take credit to itself for being largely responsible for exposing the unsatisfactory position in regard to munitions annexes, which had resulted in leaving Australia virtually unprotected. If that is not taking a realistic view of the situation, I do not know what is. I desire further to inform the Prime Minister, and the members of his party, that they have no monopoly of patriotism in this House or in the country, nor do the people of Australia believe that the Government parties are alone capable of taking a realistic view of the situation. That was demonstrated clearly in the recent Corio by-election, and in the State by-election for Tamworth, in which the interests which support the Government made an issue of the Government’s win-the-war effort. The Prime Minister also uttered cheap gibes against the Opposition on the ground of its lack of unity. The cheap gibes of the Prime Minister regarding the disunity in the ranks of the Opposition will not heal the obvious breaches in the ranks of the Government parties. We realize and appreciate the struggle for world domination by the powers of reaction with all its implica tions. We know that the workers of this country will lose materially mote than any other class in Australia should the dictator powers succeed in their ambition. We know, too, that the people we represent in this House are called upon to make the greatest sacrifices in blood and sweat to preserve this Commonwealth against invasion. Because the big financial and business interests of this country are making nl) sacrifices comparable to those made by the workers, and because they have shown, no disposition to make any sacrifices in money or property for the defence of thi* country, we are determined that there shall be a levelling up of sacrifice before the workers are asked for more.

The Prime Minister claims that my criticism of Mr. Essington Lewis, Sir Phillip Goldfinch and Mr. Kneeshaw of the Munitions Board in New South Wales, and those of similar kidney who control the munitions boards in other States is based on- personal hatred. I went to great pains to point out that there was neither personal bias nor animus in our criticism of these gentlemen. We do not question their patriotic motives. We do claim, however, that they influence the decision of the Minister and in their advisory capacity wield enormous autocratic powers. It is ridiculous for the Prime Minister .to say we believe that Mr. Essington Lewis would not care if Australia lost the war. We know very well that that gentleman’s material interests are wrapped up in the success of this country just as much as are those of the people whom we represent. What we do say is that these gentlemen are only human beings who, because of their past interests and environment, would not hesitate to use their enormous powers to effect some sort of breaking down of the conditions of the workers. The Prime Minister professes childish innocence as to who should he consulted as to the appointment of the workers’ representatives on the munitions boards. The right honorable gentleman said that it was difficult to determine who could speak with responsibility on behalf of the trade union movement. It is true, as has been pointed out by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Curtin) that there is a considerable division of authority in the industrial labour movement. The Australasian Council of Trade Unions does not represent all the trade unions of Australia, nor does it represent all the States of Australia, but at least that body does represent the vast majority of the organized trade unionists in Australia, and the Prime Minister might well have consulted the Australasian Council of Trade Unions before the appointments of workers’ representatives on federal boards were made. It is equally “true that the Trades and Labour Council in each of the States does not represent 100 per cent, of the trade union movement because many unions are not affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Trades and Labour Councils represent the vast majority of organized labour in the States, and satisfaction would have been given to a majority of the workers if the Trades and Labour Councils had- been consulted before the appointments of workers’ representatives were made. The Government might even, as a last resort, have consulted representatives of organizations connected with major industries. On the admission of the Prime Minister, however, neither the Australasian Council of Trade Unions nor the Trades and Labour Council in any State, nor any responsible body of trade union opinion was consulted in the matter. “We, and the. workers generally, are expected to accept as the workers’ representatives on these State boards men who were appointed, not on the recommendation of the trade union movement, but on the recommendation of people who over the last half a century have been the executive officers of the enemies of organized labour in Australia. It is an interesting fact that, although the Prime Minister did not deny that these regulations represent the first instalment of industrial conscription, he endeavoured to split straws as to how the bringing about of industrial conscription was accomplished. I said that regulation 59 a of the 24th May 1940 contained a definite safeguard which protected the workers against industrial conscription. I pointed out that that regulation contained a proviso that nothing in ft should authorize the imposition of any form of industrial conscription. I said, further, that Statutory Rule No. 127 of the 5th July repealed regulation 59 a. I further pointed out that on the 20th June the principal act was amended to give the Government compulsory powers over labour. I then pointed out that Statutory Rule No. 128 was identical with regulation 59 a with the exception of the omission of those vital words which gave the workers protection against industrial conscription. In denying the accuracy of the statement I made regarding the means utilized for the introduction of industrial conscription the Prime’ Minister is merely splitting straws. The right honorable gentleman was uncharitable enough to those who supported the amendments to the act in June to say that the damage was done when the amending National Security Bill was passed on the 20th June last. I am not particularly concerned whether the Prime Minister is technically right in saying that the amending bill passed on the 20th June brought about the abolition of the safeguard against industrial conscription or I am right in saying that regulation 59 a, which contained the safeguard, is superseded by those regulations which I now propose should be disallowed. We already have conscription of labour, and conscription of man-power for service in the Militia, but up to date the Government has made no effort to conscript wealth or property for the defence of Australia. Yet the Government, at the behest of the representatives of capital on the munitions boards, demands further sacrifices from the organized trade union movement. The Prime Minister did not substantiate the claims of the Government that there is a genuine shortage of skilled labour in Australia. He says that these regulations arose out of an agreement with the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I do not wish to do the right honorable gentleman an injustice when I say that he sought to imply that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers was au fait with what was contained in these regulations; in fact I think he would have us believe that that body is entirely in favour of the regulations which we now ask the House to disallow. I challenge the accuracy of that statement. I do not think that any part of the industrial or political labour movement in Australia was consulted in connexion with this matter. I challenge the right honorable gentleman to demonstrate that any section of any union in Australia has shown any inclination that it is prepared to support the regulations lock, stock and barrel. Our party will not quibble over regulation 3. We say thatthe whole of the regulations should be thrown out, because one paragraph is entirely dependent on the other.No Labour man would vote for their retention. Much has been made of the schedules appearing at the end of the regulations. Irrespective of whether or not the regulations go by the board, the wages fixed in the schedules will still prevail. The schedules are merely a sugar coating to make a bitter pill appear more palatable to the workers. I am pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition and his party will support us in our endeavour to have these regulations disallowed. The only regret I have is that the honorable gentleman and his party are not prepared to vote against the whole of them unconditionally.

Question put -

That regulations 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the National Security (Employment) Regulations (contained in Statutory Rules 1940, No. 128, made under the National Security Act 1939-1940) he disallowed.

The House divided. (Mb. Speaker- Hon.g. J. Bell.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 33

Majority . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 451

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment;-

Papua Bill 1940.

Gold Mining Encouragement Bill (No. 2) 1940.

page 451

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL (WAR-TIME) BILL 1940

Bill received from the Senate and (on motion by Mr. Nook) read a first time.

page 451

DISSOLUTION: GENERAL ELECTIONS

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

– I desire to inform honorable members that I propose to recommend to His Excellency the Governor-General that a dissolution of the House of Representatives be granted, with a view to the holding of the general elections on Saturday, the 21st September.

I have informed His Excellency that the necessary financial provision is being made for the carrying on of the public services of the Commonwealth during the period that must elapse before Parliament can re-assemble.

It is proposed that the date of issue of the writs shall be Friday, the 30th August; that the closing date for the receipt of nominations shall be Saturday, the 7th September; and that writs shall be returnable on or before Saturday, the 26th October.

In accordance with established practice, the elections for the Senate will also bo held on Saturday, the 21st September.

page 452

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1940

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3) ; Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2) ; Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 3)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr SPENDER:
Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs · Warringah · UAP

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment No. 3.]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that on and after the twenty-first day of August, One thousand nine hundred and forty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs becollected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 as so amended. That in this Resolution " Customs Tariff Proposals " mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 2nd May, 1940 ; and 22nd May. 1940. [Excise Tariff Amendment No. 2.] That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1939, as proposed to be amended by the Excise Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the second day of May, One thousand nine hundred and forty, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that on and after the twenty-first day of August, One thousand nine hundred and forty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Excise be collected in pursuance of the Excise Tariff 1921-1939 as so amended. [Excise Tariff Amendment No. 3.] That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1939, as proposed to be amended by Excise Tariff Proposals, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that on and after the twenty-fiist day of August, One thousand nine hundred and forty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Excise be collected in pursuance of the Excise Tariff 1921-1939 as so amended. That in this Resolution " Excise Tariff Proposals " mean the Excise Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 2nd May, 1940; and 20th August, 1940 (other than these Proposals). These proposals provide, first, for concessional tariff and excise treatment in respect of diplomatic representatives of foreign countries in Australia and, secondly, for giving effect to the decision of the Government, announced some weeks ago, to accord protection to local producers of petrol and petrol substitutes from indigenous shale and coal. Consequent upon the arrival in Australia of the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America in Australia, and the intention of the Government of Japan to appoint, in the near future, a similar diplomatic representative to Australia, the Commonwealth Government has given consideration to the insertion of appropriate items in the Customs and Excise tariffs so as to accord to those representatives immunity from customs and excise duties, in accordance with the usual diplomatic practice. The Commonwealth Government is pleased to accord those facilities to these distinguished representatives. Advice has recently been received from the Australian Minister to the United States of America, that he has been granted similar privileges and immunities in that country. The time was also considered opportune to examine other items involving external representation, with the result that customs tariff items providing for concessional tariff treatment of goods for Consuls, High Commissioners and Trade Commissioners have been redrafted. Only minor amendments, however, are involved. The excise tariff proposal in relation to petrol and petrol substitutes produced from indigenous shale and coal brings into operation the decision of the Government to assure to producers of those goods, protection for a period of fifteen years to an amount of 7.4d. a gallon over imported petrol and 5 1/2d. a gallon over petrol produced in Australia from imported crude petroleum, subject to the provision that the protection applies only to production commenced within the next two years. To implement this decision, all petrol produced locally from shale is now made dutiable at the rate at present applicable to petrol produced by the National Oil Proprietary Limited, namely 4d. a gallon, a reduction of 5 1/2d. a gallon, but no quantitative restriction applies. The excise duty on petrol substitutes produced from coal - for example, benzol - has been reduced from 5-Jd. to 4d. a gallon. At the end of fifteen years the duties will revert to those operative up to the present. The object of the concession is to encourage and speed up production of liquid fuels in Australia. The amendment will also provide a stable basis upon which this industry may be developed, all producers, including the National Oil Proprietary Limited, being placed on an equal footing for a period of fifteen years. To obtain the concessional duty, however, it will be necessary for companies which intend to engage in the production of liquid fuels to have their plant established and in production within two years. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 455 {:#debate-34} ### HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL 1940 Motion (by **Mr. Nock)** - *by leave -* agreed to - That he have leave to faring in a bill for an act to amend section 9 of the High Commissioner Act 1909-1937. Bill brought up, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK:
Assistant Minister · Riverina · CP -- I move - That the bill be now read a second time. The proposal embodied in this bill, to amend section 9 of the High Commissioner Act 1909-1937, provides for an alteration of procedure in connexion with appointments to the staff of the High Commissioner's Office, London, consequent on the decision to grant permanent status to certain officers of the staff. Section- 9 of the act provides, *inter alia,* that the High Commissioner may appoint officers for the purpose of any duties in the execution of the act, and sub-section 3 of that section provides that every such appointment shall cease to have effect at the expiration of six months from the date of appointment, unless the Governor-General in the meantime confirms the appointment. The section further stipulates that officers so appointed shall not be subject to the Commonwealth Public Service Act but, subject to the provisions of sub-section 3, shall be engaged for such periods and be subject to such conditions as are prescribed. Honorable members will be aware that in 1937 security of tenure, together with rights of superannuation, furlough, and other benefits, were extended to officers of the High Commissioner's staff whose duties were of a permanent nature. These privileges are not accorded to temporary employees in the High Commissioner's Office, nor are they granted under the Commonwealth Public Service Act to temporary employees in Australia. Under sub-section 3 of section 9 of the act it is necessary that action be taken to secure confirmation by the GovernorGeneral not only of appointments of a permanent nature but also of appointments of persons to perform work such as that of female office cleaners, floor polishers, window cleaners, &c. The occupants of such positions are. however, regarded as temporary employees, and confirmation by the Governor-General of their appointments is considered to be unnecessary. Moreover, such confirmation of the appointment of persons engaged in a temporary capacity is likely to create in the minds of these appointees the false impression that it carries with it a degree of permanency which was never intended. Actually, confirmation by the Governor-General does not, of itself, grant permanency of tenure to any officer, whether his duties be of a permanent or a temporary nature. Before permanent status can be accorded to an officer, it is necessary under sub-section 6 of section 9 of the act that the Minister, on the recommendation of the High Commissioner, shall direct, by notice in the *Commonwealth Gazette,* that that officer shall be deemed to be an " employee " within the meaning of section 4 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1934. In order that there should be no misunderstanding as to the particular officers of the High Commissioner's staff to whom permanent status has been given, it is considered that the necessity for obtaining confirmation by the GovernorGeneral of appointments of persons in a temporary capacity should be dispensed with. It is proposed, however, that appointments of officers to the permanent staff in London shall still be confirmed by the Governor-General, but it is thought that such a provision is not nownecessary in the act, and could more conveniently be provided by regulation, i point out that control over expenditure on temporary employment at Australia House will still be maintained, as the funds required for such purposes must be appropriated by Parliament. Debate (on motion by **Mr. CURTIN)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 456 {:#debate-35} ### RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1940 {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 7th August, *(vide* page 281) on' motion by **Mr. Spender** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- Phis bill provides for the payment of a bounty on raw cotton produced during the years 1941 to 1945 inclusive. The basic rates of bounty for each successive year will be 4 3/1d. 4id., 4id., 4d., and 3 1/2d. per lb. respectively when the Liverpool spot price of American middling raw cotton is 6d. per lb. The Opposition will support the measure, its only regret being that the bill was not introduced at, a. much earlier date. The unnecessary delay, hesitation, and vacillation that took place in regard to this industry struck a blow at the confidence of cottongrowers, and greatly retarded the development of the industry. My only objection to the bill is to the limitation imposed by clause 6 (1) which reads - >The total amount of bounty paid under this act in respect of raw cotton produced during any one calendar year shall not exceed the sum of £150,000. In view of all the circumstances, and the fact that the cotton industry is so bound up with the important subject of defence, it is a pity that the Government saw fit to limit the expenditure to that sum since it will restrict to about 25,000 bales the crop in respect to which the bounty will be paid. As it is estimated that the area under crop this year will be 80,000 acres, the 25,000 bales should easily be produced. Next year we hope the production will be much greater, say, 50,000 bales. If the proposed restriction remains, a point will soon be reached when no further development will take place. At the present price of 7.75d. for spot middling cotton, I am assured by the Queensland Cotton Board that a production of 25,000 bales would mean a return of 4.4d. per lb. of seed cotton. If the price fell to 6d. per lb., and the production reached 25,000 bales, the return to the growers would be only 3.64d. per lb. of cotton, which would be lower than the average of 4d. per lb. paid for the last six years. It is confidently expected that the demand for cotton will increase year by year and that in 1941 Australian factories will require 100,000 bales of cotton. In 1939 the Australian production was 12,500 bales; this year it is expected that the crop will yield about 9,000 bales. It is true that, as the result of the campaign inaugurated by the Queensland Cotton Board and encouraged by the Queensland Government, approximately 80,000 acres will be under cotton before the end of this year. That should increase the production from 9,000 bales for the crop just harvested to approximately 25,000 bales. It is a pity that any restriction should be imposed on the development of this industry, in which. 2,700 growers, 1,000 field workers and' 2,000 cotton pickers are employed, in addition to 170 persons employed in the ginneries. Altogether, the industry gives direct employment to about 5,870 persons. It is estimated that the cotton industry is the largest individual industry in the world; it certainly is destined to become one of Australia's most important industries. Cotton-growing has had a checkered career in this country, but I believe that it is now on the threshold of big developments. There is a better understanding of its importance, cultural methods have been improved, and the Queensland Government intends to expend large sums of money on water conservation and irrigation schemes. When I was Minister for Trade and Customs I found that this industry was in the doldrums. Although it had been given a substantial impetus by the Queensland Government, per medium of a guaranteed price of 5-Jd. per lb. in 1920, the measure of assistance had not been continued on a sufficiently liberal scale. In 1930, the Scullin Government introduced the Cotton Industries Bounties Act, which provided for a sliding scale rate of bounty on seed cotton for five years. There was also an import duty of 3d. per lb. on imported raw cotton, together with sliding scale duties on cotton yarns made from the raw cotton. In addition, an undertaking was given by the Commonwealth Government progressively to increase the scope of protection on cotton manufactured goods so as to provide a constantly increasing market for Australian raw cotton. The plan was to increase the output of both raw cotton and cotton manufactured goods, in order to reduce overhead costs and stabilize the industry. That bill, which I introduced into this chamber, was for a period of five years from 1931-32, but in May, 1932, the Lyons Government abolished the duty on cotton, yarn and brought in a new bounty act on raw cotton as from 1934-35 at 5jd. per lb. of raw cotton. The next year the rate was 4 3/4d., and for the following three years it was 4 1/4d. per lb., with the reservation that in the first of those three years the bounty was subject to the financial emergency reduction of 20 per cent., making the net rates 4.2d., 3.8d. and 3.4d. per lb. in the respective years. The provisions of the Financial Emergency Act in respect of cotton were abolished for the 1937-38 and 1938-39 crops, so that the bounty was 4id. per lb. In 1939, the Lyons-Page Government introduced a bill based entirely on the Tariff Board's recommendation, which provided for a bounty for five years at the rate of 3 1/4d. per lb. That was a reduction of 3£d. per lb. on the bounty previously paid. But as that bill would certainly have been defeated in this House had a vote been taken, the then Government withdrew the measure, and two months later introduced a further bill which provided for a bounty of 4 1/4d. per lb. on raw cotton for one year only. In order to give some idea of the hostility to the legislation introduced in 1939 by the Lyons-Page Government, I shall quote from a number of messages that were sent to me. One of them, which came from the general manager of the Queensland Cotton Board, read - >Raw cotton bounty payments announced by Government as 3id. per lb. with maximum payment in any year of £130,000 is a reduction of Id. from present payment, and will limit production to 15,000 bales, though there is market here for 35,000 bales. New cotton bounty payments will definitely mean the extinction of cotton-growing in Queensland. **Mr. Fleming,** a member of the Queensland Cotton Board, sent the following telegram : - >Proposed bounty legislation at present before the House will mean the extinction of cotton-growing industry and the Callide Valley as a closer settlement area. Only increased assistance over present rates of bounty will assure expansion. Suggest no maximum limitation of funds for bounty payments. Proposed legislation means limiting the crop to 15,000 bales. These statements showed the hostility to previously ill-considered legislation resulting from ignorance of the economics of the industry. The Queensland Cotton Board is opposed to the limitation contained in clause 6 (1). There is no doubt that lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of the Government in 1939, leading to delay and hesitation, left the cotton-growers in doubt as to what they could expect for Hie future, with the result that many of them went out of cotton-growing. They believed that there was no stability in the industry. The Government came to n decision in 1939 without a thorough investigation of the industry. The then Minister was ignorant of the problems confronting the industry and of the effect of a reduction of the bounty. Many of the growers went in for dairying and pig raising and gave up cotton growing altogether, and the area under cotton fell in one year from 66,000 to 38,000 acres. It can easily be seen that there was some good reason for that. The reason was that the industry was not properly handled by the Commonwealth Government. As the representative of a district which produces 80 per cent, of the whole of the cotton grown in Queensland, I protested. The Government came in for criticism, not only from this side, but also from its own supporters, and the Minister for Trade and Customs was prevailed upon to allow the measure to stand over until he had received a deputation from the Queensland Cotton Board and, if possible, had made a personal inspection of the cotton growing areas. It is unfortunate that he was unable to make that inspection, but he did receive the deputation. Unfortunately other matters supervened, and the whole question was shelved, giving, I believe, a substantial setback to the development that was destined for the cotton growing industry if more generous consideration had been given to it by the Commonwealth Government. There have been too many changes of policy, and the lack of understanding of the problems confronting ike industry has caused successive governments to make many wrong decisions. I am glad that this bill has been brought forward. It is an improvement and I feel that my advocacy on behalf of the cotton-growers has not all been in vain. We must develop a far-sighted policy in regard to the cotton industry. No one will try to say that everything has been done by way of improved cultural methods, but a great deal has been done to improve those methods. The Queensland Government is alive to this question and is tackling it in a statesmanlike way. Australia will never produce its requirements of raw cotton until we go in for water conservation and irrigation in Queensland in a big way. In certain seasons of the year we get too much rain at the wrong time. We han rivers and creeks that could be dammed and the water conserved, by which means 100,000 acres of irrigable land could be put under cotton. In that way I believe we could produce the whole of Australia's cotton requirements. For years before and during the last war we were unable to produce Australia's requirements of sugar, but by an improvement of cultural methods, and a more scientific development of the industry in Australia sugar production has been so expanded that we now export more sugar than we use locally. By " Australia " I really mean Queensland, because 820,000 tons of the 8S0,000 tons of sugar that Australia produces is grown in Queensland; about 20,000 tons is produced from beet in Victoria and probably another 20,000 tons from sugar cane grown in northern New South Wales. What was done in the sugar industry can easily be done in the cotton industry. Individual cotton-growers can be given the necessary assistance for individual irrigation plants in areas where a big scheme of water conservation and irrigation could not be established. In certain States of the United States of America, Soviet Russia, Egypt and Peru, all of the cotton is grown under irrigation and the yield per acre is three or four times more than can be obtained from any dry-farming country. In what is known as the Theodore irrigation area, about 100 miles from Rockhampton, the irrigated land produces four times the quantity of cotton per acre that is produced under dry-farming methods. The average yield to the acre in that country is 1,200 lb. as against the average last year for the whole State of 320 lb. to the acre. Several new irrigation schemes are under consideration. What is known as the Wura irrigation scheme in central Queensland which would cost £400,000, would make available 60,000 acres of irrigable land suitable for cotton growing. Then further out, by damming the Dawson river, the Theodore irrigation area could be considerably increased. Individual plants could be installed with beneficial results in other localities. *A* special word of praise is due to the Queensland Government and, particularly, to the Premier of Queensland, for the statesmanlike manner in which they have realized the importance of the cotton industry and have agreed to take steps to assist in developing what one day will be one of the most outstanding primary industries of Australia. The Queensland Government has undertaken in writing that its plans for improving the efficiency of the cotton growing industry will pre-eminently and exclusively provide for - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The quickest possible conversion of cotton production from dry farming to irrigation by the most economic means for each selected locality; 1. A special campaign by enough thoroughlyqualified men to instruct all farmers personally and quickly *as* to the absolute need for practising correct rotations and other essential cultural methods ; such campaign to be followed up persistently with the object of ensuring that the best practices are adopted by the bulk of the farmers in the shortest possible time. This campaign will include the circulation of suitable literature. I believe that the campaign will play an important part in the initial -stages. A lot of the farmers, many of them quite inexperienced in cotton-growing, went on the land without proper instruction. Mistakes were made and losses incurred. That will be obviated when this campaign is pursued. I, however, cannot overlook the fact that cotton production has made possible closer settlement of the great scrub lands in the Callide, the Dawson and the Upper Burnett districts. Where previously there were only 30 or 40 families engaged in pastoral pursuits, to-day there are about 9,000 persons operating on closer settlement holdings. In the initial stages of that development, when the farmers, many of them formerly labourers on the labour market, were unable to raise the necessary funds to buy cattle and pigs and carry out extensive improvements, they felled the scrub, burnt off the rough and between the stumps planted cotton crops. They were able to get an immediate return. They lived under primitive conditions in tents or galvanized humpies by the roadside. I am pleased to say that it was with the money from the cotton cheque they were able to improve their holdings, fence their properties, in many cases with wire netting, to keep out the wallabies which eat everything, buy a few more cows, improve their herds, install milking machines, grow a few more pigs, and go in for mixed farming. Some of them to-day, in addition to running cattle and pigs, have 20, 30 or 40 acres under cotton, and the existence of the cotton industry in that area has enabled farmers who went on the land with stout hearts, but very little capital, to accumulate quite a competence. But they had to work from daylight to dark. As the great majority of them came from the labour market themselves, they are most anxious to give a fairer deal to the cotton-pickers than they have been able to do, for instance, in providing better camping accommodation. To-day, unfortunately, many pickers have to live in tents, sleep in stables and so on, not because the growers want them to do that, but because the great majority of the growers are themselves poor men struggling to ,pay off debts incurred in improving their holdings. If this industry is stabilized and we go in for water conservation and irrigation, on a big scale, and increase production and reduce overhead costs, everybody in the industry will benefit. The Queensland Government is playing its part in bringing about this very substantial improvement. Another way in which the Queensland Government is assisting is - >By providing for a substantial increase of quality and number of the personnel of the cotton research station for the specific purpose of accelerating vital scientific work on plant breeding, pests, diseases, soils, fertilizers, cultural practices and especially the new problems that are sure to be encountered with production under irrigation and anything related to those measures. {: .speaker-JPT} ##### Mr Blain: -- I understand that the Queensland Government is sending cotton ginneries to the farmers to enable them to gin their own cotton. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I am not aware that that is so. Ginneries cost a lot of money to establish. The ginneries are now controlled by the cotton-growers through their elected representatives on the Queensland Cotton Board. When the British-Australian Cotton Association established ginneries at certain centres throughout Queensland many years ago, it established quite a number of ginneries that have never been used. It was an eloquent person who floated that company. Ginneries which have never been used were established at Gayndah and Gladstone. Ginneries that are in work are at Glenmore, Rockhampton and Whinstanes, Brisbane. The establishment of ginneries will not be undertaken by the Government. That is left to the growers themselves, because under co-operative control the Queensland Government encourages the growers to buy out the British-Australian Cotton Association. The growers also have a mill for the production of cotton oil, for which there is an increasing market in the other States. That is an important adjunct to this industry. The ultimate cost to the Queensland Government of fully implementing its undertakings will be at least £650,000. That Government has also agreed to ensure " complete co-operation between its Department of Agriculture, the Queensland Cotton Board, the cottonspinners and the Department of Trade and Customs on all relative matters, particularly in regard to the supply at all times of raw cotton of the types needed by Australian users. A fully representative committee will soon be appointed to advise both the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government on these matters, especially on the growing of raw cotton of the types required to meet the requirements of spinners in the southern States, which is a very important question. There was a time when the cotton industry was not well organized, and the growers had difficulty in obtaining the right plants to produce the types of cotton required. During that period considerable friction occurred between the buyers of the raw cotton and the Queensland Cotton Board. The Government of Queensland has, however, realized that it is necessary that varying types of cotton shall be grown to meet the requirements of the spinners. Evidence of the recognition by the Queensland Government of the economic burden, and the grave risk of continuing to produce raw cotton in Australia wholly under dry-farming conditions, and also of its good faith in relation to the undertakings to which I have referred, is that it provided £65,126 during the 1939-40 financial year for scientific research and for loans to cotton-farmers, including £21,500 for irrigation works and experiments. It will provide a much larger sum for similar work during 1940-41. The Premier of Queensland has also signified that it is the intention of his Government to proceed with plans for the exploitation of underground water supplies and the provision of finance for individual pumping schemes, and the construction of an additional irrigation weir on the Dawson River, north of the town of Theodore. The Government of Queensland has already inaugurated a scheme to ensure the adoption by cOtton-f farmers of the best cultural methods. The personnel of the Queensland Cotton Research Station is being augmented for the specific purpose of facilitating work on plant breeding and the control of pests. A special soils officer from the Waite Institute at Adelaide is at present actively engaged in the Callide and Theodore areas on the location of soils most suitable for cotton production. I am glad to learn that the Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research will assist in locating better rainfall areas. The Premier of Queensland has advised the Prime Minister that his Government is endeavouring, in every possible way, to improve and intensify the cotton yield, in order to develop this important Australian primary industry, with consequential beneficial effects in the reduction of overseas purchases, and the maintenance of adequate supplies for Australian manufacturers, thus endeavouring to bridge the gap between the quantity of raw cotton produced in Australia and the annual demand of the factories of the southern States, lt was after the Premier of Queensland had given the undertaking to which I have already referred that the Commonwealth Government took steps to introduce this hill, realizing that the development of the cotton industry of Australia was interwoven with our whole defence policy. I am sorry that the Government has seen fit to limit the expenditure under clause 6 a of the bill to £150,000 per annum, because there can be no doubt that cotton production should be closely related to the defence policy of the country. Although we do not know how long this war will last, we know that it must result in an increasing curtailment of imports, with almost inevitable difficulty to Australian manufacturers of cotton goods of various kinds. If we were manufacturing in Australia the whole of the cotton goods required by our people, we should require not 25,000 hales but 300,000 bales of raw cotton a year. I shall not say that Queensland is the only State in which cotton can be grown. I believe it can be grown elsewhere in Australia, but climatically Queensland offers the best prospects at present. I notice that the honorable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr. Blain)** is showing interest in this subject, and has what appears to be a sample of cotton with him. I believe that cotton could be grown successfully in many parts of the Northern Territory. I assure him and other honorable members that the people of Queensland have no wish to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude in respect of the cotton industry. I should like to see cotton grown wherever it can be grown in Australia, for the more widespread an industry becomes the more likely are the representatives of the people in this Parliament to take a broader view of it. State boundaries should not influence our views on a subject of this description. I believe that the Australian cottongrowing industry, which is still in the embryo stage, will become one of the greatest of our primary producing activities. The passing of this bill and the setting up of the proposed committee should, with the able assistance of such competent officers as **Mr. A.** R. Townsend of the Trade and Customs Department, give the cotton-growing industry a new lease of life. With the conversion of cotton-growing from a dry-farming operation to a process of irrigation, many of the problems which have been encountered in the past will disappear. The improved methods of cultivation which will be made possible by water conservation and irrigation schemes will undoubtedly bring to the industry a stability which, given continued protective assistance and the elimination of the hesitation, vacillation and procrastination that have characterized various Ministers who have been associated with it from 1931 until quite recently, will enable it to become one of the most important industries of the Commonwealth. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton .- I appreciate the action of the Government in introducing this bill for the continuance of the bounty on raw cotton for another five years. Cotton-growing is a very important industry in Queensland, and I feel certain that the passage of this measure will give to the growers a feeling of security that will encourage them to plan and organize with confidence. There are now approximately 2,700 growers, 1,000 field workers and 2,000 cotton pickers engaged in the cotton-growing industry in Queensland. The ginneries employ 170 persons. Direct employment is, therefore, provided by the industry for 5.,870 people. It is anticipated that 80,000 acres will be planted to cotton in Queensland for the next year's crop, as against only 38,000 acres for the 1940 crop. If this estimate should be realized the cotton-growers will have rendered good service to the Commonwealth in connexion with its war effort, and will, undoubtedly, haVe gone a long way towards providing for our local requirements. It is worth remembering that the cotton industry, in all its phases, is the largest single industry in the world. Under conditions of the highest efficiency, in both its primary and secondary branches, it has every chance of becoming one of the largest industries of the Commonwealth. The yield to the acre of cotton in Queensland has steadily fallen during the last ten years, after having been fairly good from the inception of the industry in 1920 until 1930. Unfortunately, for some years now the yield has been among the lowest recorded in cottongrowing countries. After consultations with the leading officials of the Queensland Cotton Board and of the cotton section of the Department of Agriculture in Queensland, the Tariff Board found that this retrogression was largely due to inferior cultural methods, the increased incidence of pests and diseases, and the variable rainfall and heat in the cotton-growing belt. The board also deplored the lack of co-operation between the Department of Agriculture of Queensland and the Cotton Board in respect of the provision of cotton plants required to produce the types of cotton most suitable for Australian manufacture. This gradual reduction of the per acre yield of seed cotton is to be regretted. Up to the time of the introduction of this bill, the Commonwealth Government had helped the cotton-growing industry by the payment of £170,000 as its half share of the losses incurred under the guaranteed price system that operated from 1924 to 1926, and by the provision of £1,100,000 subsequently for seed cotton and raw cotton. This bill provides for the payment of an additional £750,000, under the terms stipulated, during the next five years. The grand total of Commonwealth assistance to the industry is therefore about £2,000,000. This, I suggest, is most generous. In view of the serious state of the industry, the Commonwealth Government, after amicable negotiations with the Government of Queensland, agreed to endeavour to find means to eliminate the weaknesses referred to in the report of the Tariff Board. The Government of Queensland has now agreed to take steps to convert cotton culture from a dryfarming to an irrigation operation as soon as possible, to specialize in teaching growers the best cultural and rotation principles, and to increase scientific research activities so as to cope with cotton pests and diseases, breed new and better plants, test soils., and advise farmers as to fertilizers. Such co-operation between the Commonwealth Government and a State authority is altogether praiseworthy. The Government of Queensland will incur considerable expense in carrying out the undertakings it has given to the Prime Minister, but its efforts in that direction, together with the bounty now being provided by the Commonwealth Government, should open up for the cotton-growers a new vista of success. We have every reason to believe that this industry will one day become one of Australia's greatest assets. Irrigation is undoubtedly the key to the problem. The rainfall of Queensland, as, in fact, of most of the Australian States, is too variable to be relied upon for cotton-growing. In other parts of the world irrigated cotton areas yield from three to four times as much cotton as the best of the dry-farming areas. Similar results can be obtained in Queensland. The Government is to be highly complimented upon its foresight and wisdom in insisting upon a fully comprehensive irrigation plan as the basis for successful cotton-growing in Australia. With this vital reform, plus the provision of adequate scientific services by the Department of Agriculture of Queensland, the industry must prosper. When cotton-growing has been converted almost wholly to production under irrigation, the cost of producing raw cotton will become substantially lower than it has ever been in Australia. This should ultimately enable the industry to be maintained on a much larger scale, and at lower rates of bounty, or, alternatively, a measure of tariff protection. Incidentally, a great expansion of cotton-growing would create opportunities for farmers who may, through stress of war or the shrinkage in the exports of their present products, find it necessary to seek another vocation. {: .speaker-KLC} ##### Mr Mahoney: -- This bill will help only one State. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- I disagree with the honorable member. It will help Australia as a whole. Seeing that our imports of goods containing cotton are valued at £15,000,000 per annum, the expansion of cotton-growing of this country must open a wonderful field for further expansions in secondary industry. I believe the cotton industry to be one of the few remaining hig industries which can be developed in Australia on both the primary and secondary side with advantage to the whole community. If the industry is developed in the right way it will provide many new channels of employment. Hitherto it has had a chequered career in Australia. The first efforts to develop it were made as far back as 1860, during the time of the American Civil War, when cotton was scarce. Ten years later, the area under crop had increased from 14 acres to upwards of 14,000 acres. For 30 years it had many ups and downs. In 1903, and again in 1913, fresh interest was shown in the cotton crop, but a determined effort was made to resuscitate it in 1920, when the system of a guaranteed price was introduced. The Queensland Government at that time guaranteed the price of cotton, and continued to do so until 1925 or 1926, when it withdrew its support, and threw the whole responsibility for protecting the industry upon the Federal Government. Up to that time the Federal and State Governments had shared the losses incurred in the marketing of cotton at the guaranteed price. It was only after the Tariff Board had made a thorough investigation into the industry that comprehensive proposals were brought down by the then Minister for Trade and Customs, the late Honorable H. E. Pratten, with the object of putting it on a firm footing. Prior to that time, endeavours had been made to establish the industry in Australia by growing the seed cotton here, and marketing it overseas in competition with cotton grown in black-labour countries. A great deal of difficulty was experienced in selling our cotton on the London market. **Mr. Pratten** devised the scheme of granting a bounty for both primary and secondary cotton production. The measure he introduced provided for the payment of a bounty of £900,000 over a number of years. Of that amount, £600,000 was to be paid in respect of seed cotton produced in Australia, and £300,000 in respect of manufactured yarn, half of the material of which had been produced in Australia. That scheme pointed the way to ultimate success. The Commonwealth Government's expenditure under the guaranteed-price scheme from 1923-24 to 1925-26 was £170,900. Bounty payments on seed and raw cotton under Commonwealth Cotton Bounty Acts have been as follows : - This bill provides for the payment of bounty on raw cotton produced during the years 1941 to 1945 inclusive. The basic rates of bounty for each successive year will be 4 3/4d., 4£d., 4H, 4d. and 3* per lb. respectively when the Liverpool spot price of American middling raw cotton is 6d. per lb. As the Liverpool price varies up or down from 6d. per lb., each basic rate of bounty will be reduced or increased by an equivalent amount, except that in no circumstances will the bounty be allowed to exceed 5 1/2d. per lb. The bill also provides that the basic rate of bounty, and therefore all adjustments thereof in accordance with fluctuations in the Liverpool price, will be reduced at any time to the degree that any customs duty may be imposed on imported raw cotton. As it is possible that the Liverpool Cotton Exchange may close during the war, the bill enables the Minister to use the New York spot price of American middling raw cotton, and other factors, as a basis for determining an equivalent Liverpool price, so that Australian cotton-growers may receive equable rates of bounty. An annual sum of £150,000 will be provided from Consolidated Revenue for paying the bounty and, as usual, the unexpended balance in any year will be available for bounty in any future year under the act, in addition to the £150,000 provided for that year. Existing raw cotton bounty legislation expires on the 30th November next, with the completion of the harvesting and ginning of the 1940 cotton crop in Queensland. Early adoption by Parliament of the present bill is essential, in view of the great need for substantially increasing local cotton production for war-time needs. These needs particularly apply to summer uniforms, and various items of equipment, including tents, canvas, &c, for all the fighting services, and for the manufacture of certain high explosives. Australia's raw cotton requirements have advanced from 35,000 bales for the year ended on the 30th June, 1940, to at least 65,000 bales for the coming year. The 1940 Queensland crop will produce only 8,000 bales. "Were it to remain at 8,000 bales, much of the balance of 57,000 bales wouldhave to be imported from the United States of America, causing a serious drain upon the Empire's sterling funds in that country. Largely increased production of raw cotton in Australia would permit of a considerable reduction of American imports, as both countries produce similar types of raw cotton. Hence, more of our foreign exchange resources would be available for the purchase of aeroplanes, machine tools and other American commodities of great importance to Australia's war effort. No single plant is playing so important a part in the war as the cotton plant. Let us consider for a moment some of the things the cotton plant distributes. The four outstanding things required by a soldier in any war are food, clothing, shelter and ammunition. Second only in importance to the nitrogenous foods for soldiers are the fats that they must have. Most of the lard consumed by our armies is compound lard made from cotton-seed oil. Much of the butter the British armies are eating is margarine, of which cotton-seed oil is one of the principal components. The Australian Imperial Force is rightly provided with real butter, though, in my opinion, the allowance *per capita* is far too small. The dairy products and meat which our armies consume come from cattle largely fed with cotton-seed meal and hulls. Much of the clothing of our soldiers, particularly khaki, is made of cotton. Soldiers' hats are made of felt, a product of cotton linters. The buttons on their uniforms, when not metal, are celluloid, also a product of cotton linters. The artificial leather used in their equipment is made from cotton linters, and the real leather comes from cattle which are fed on cotton-seed meal and hulls. The tents which shelter our soldiers are made of cotton, the mattresses upon which the soldiers sleep are stuffed with cotton, and the soldiers' bedclothes are made either from cotton or from the wool of sheep which are fed to a large extent on cotton-seed meal. The basis of explosives is cellulose and glycerides, one coming from cotton linters and the other from cotton oil. This was such an important factor during the last world war that the "War Department took over all the cotton-seed oil-mills and operated them under licence. Can we find one other single source that contributes so much to the welfare of our soldiers as does the cotton plant ? It may not have won the last war,but we certainly could not have won without it. It will play an equally important part in the present struggle. Cotton production in Australia has risen by steady increases from 296,139 lb. in 1921 to 8,769,510 lb. in 1934, although it fell to 4,773,936 in 1936, the latest year for which figures are available. The Australian demand for cotton over the last ten years wasas follows : - Ihis shows the scope for further production in Australia. Production during the peak year of 1934, amounting to 8,769,510 lb., would have to be doubled to reach the demand for 1937-38 of 16,507,584 lb. The demand for the present year will be further substantially increased to meet our extra war requirements. I have said sufficient to show how important is this industry to the general development of Australia, and particularly at this time, because of its special relation to war needs. I regret the fallingoff of production in Queensland during the last ten years, but I am happy to say that the Commonwealth Government has prevailed upon the Queensland Government to look after the cultural side of the industry, and to co-operate with theWaite Institute and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in seeking a solution of the problems that confront the industry? {: .speaker-KZX} ##### Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936 -- Did the honorable member say " prevail " on the Queensland Government? {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- I did. {: .speaker-KZX} ##### Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936 -- But has not the Queensland Government all along been assisting the industry? {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- If the honorable member will read the report of the Tariff Board on the cotton industry he will see there, particularly on pages 5 and 6, statements which reflect no credit on the Queensland Government. The report points oat that the acreage production iu Queensland is only a fraction of what it is in other countries, due largely to lack of co-operation, and failure to attend to the cultural side of production. Therefore, I am justified in expressing my pleasure that the Commonwealth Government has been able to prevail upon the Queensland Government to co-operate in this work. The honorable member will recollect that I said earlier that the Queensland Government deserved praise for having undertaken to co-operate with the Commonwealth authorities in the future developmental programme. When this programme is under way, I feel sure that production will increase rapidly to meet an ever-expanding demand. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-JPT} ##### Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory -- I support this bill, the purpose of which is to stabilize the cotton-growing industry in Queensland by providing for the payment of a bounty on production for a period of five years. I realize that if the industry is stabilized in Queensland it will, before long, extend over the border to the Northern Territory, where already a group of farmers is engaged upon cotton-growing along one of the rivers. I congratulate the honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Forde)** upon his consistent advocacy of the cotton-growing industry in Queensland. The Government has arrived at this scheme of assistance by method of trial and error. This is a scientific age, and we are entitled to expect the application of scientific methods to the encouragement of necessary industries. It is something which I have advocated for a long time. Most of our problems should be approached scientifically. The first step is to collect the facts. Then we should analyse the facts, and synthesize, or build up, from the facts. Thus, finally, we evolve our programme. I urge the Government, therefore, to set up a supreme authority which will be in a position rapidly to obtain exact information regarding any matter referred to it. This bill proposes to subsidize the cotton-growing industry for a period of five years, unfortunately on a descending scale, the rate of bounty being based upon the Liverpool price of cotton. It has been stated that the failure of the cotton industry in Queensland has been due to three reasons : the incompetence of the farmers, the ravages of pests, and the vagaries of the seasons. When considering the question of incompetence we must remember that many farmers in the Northern Territory and Queensland, who are cultivating marginal lands, are more or less compelled to engage in a diversification of crops in order to make a living. In contrast, many grandsons of the original owners of orchards and sugar plantations are highly efficient, not only in animal husbandry, but also in the production of specialized crops, by virtue of the experience handed down to them by their forefathers. Therefore, I resent any suggestion that the cotton industry in the Northern Territory has failed through the incompetence of the farmers. I come now to deal with pests. In common with Queensland, we are troubled - or are supposed to be troubled - with the boll weevil. I wish to pay a tribute to **Mr. Townsend** and **Dr. Cumpston** for the help they have given me in endeavouring to place the cotton industry in the Northern Territory on a basis that would enable it to compete with the southern States. Some time ago a regulation was gazetted which provided that no cotton could be sent from the Northern Territory to Queensland. This restriction was imposed because as far back as 1912 it was found that boll weevil existed in the Northern Territory, and at that time it was thought that the pest did not exist in Queensland. As a matter of fact, however, as has been pointed out in a brochure issued by the Queensland Cotton Board, the boll weevil had already been found in the bottle tree which is indigenous to Queensland, and the fear of its importation from the Northern Territory was unfounded. Subsequently I was successful in having the regulation modified. If cotton is grown and ginned in the territory, the ginned cotton or lint may be sent to Queensland, but only on the condition that it is converted into oil. The regulation now also provides that the heating process need not be applied in Darwin but may be applied in Brisbane for purposes of fumigation. So we were able to get over one stile. This concession has been of great benefit to the cotton-growers in the Katherine and Adelaide river districts of the Northern Territory. I have endeavoured to get the Minister for the Interior **(Senator Foll)** to provide for the cotton-growers of the territory single ginneries similar to those provided by the Queensland Cotton Board. The honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Forde)** said that the Queensland Government was not providing sufficient ginneries for the Queensland cottonfarmers apart from those at the large centres. As a matter of fact the Queensland Cotton Board is making available a large number of single gins for the use of farmers so that, over a period of years, the seed never leaves the district. I suggest that a similar ginnery should be made available for the cotton-growers of the Northern Territory. Only a relatively small amount of money would be involved in granting this request. The manager of the Queensland Cotton Board informed me that the cost of a single ginnery is £300 f.o.b. Brisbane. If I asked for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds to be wasted in the territory it would be provided. {: .speaker-KA9} ##### Mr Jolly: -- Would it ? {: .speaker-JPT} ##### Mr BLAIN: -- The honorable member is the chief critic of money wasted by government departments including, I think, the Department of the Interior. 1 ask the Assistant Minister **(Mr. Nock)** representing the Minister for the Interior to bring to the notice of his colleague the desirability of securing these single ginneries from the Queensland Cotton Board as a means of developing the large areas of first-class land in the territory suitable for cotton-growing. There are millions of acres of light soils in the Northern Territory on which cotton thrives. We should do our utmost to develop the cotton-growing areas of the Northern Territory because most of the choice lands in other parts of Australia have already been selected. I believe that if we utilized all of our second-class lands suitable for cotton-growing Australia could produce the whole of its requirements of cotton for local consumption. A good deal of the land along the Northern Territory rivers is at present wasted or used only for the grazing of a few ticky cattle. Much of it could be profitably used for the production of cotton if a regulation were gazetted providing that unginned cotton grown in the Northern Territory could be sent to Queensland or if a ginnery were established on the Katherine River. It is anomalous that whereas unginned or ginned cotton may not be imported to Brisbane from abroad through the factories at Sydney or Melbourne, the entry of unginned or ginned cotton from the Northern Territory is also prohibited. I believe that the present policy of the Government in this regard is retarding the establishment of the secondary side of the cotton industry in Queensland. I point out to the Assistant Minister that he has a very real problem to deal with in connexion with those small farmers who planted 120 acres of cotton in mid-December. I have here a sample of cotton planted in midDecember in the Katherine River district. This sample, which shows prolific growth, was reported on very favorably by the Waite Institute. Similar samples have been sent to the Queensland Cotton Board. I urge the honorable gentleman to give very favorable consideration to my request to the Administrator at Darwin tha t a single ginnery be shipped to the Northern Territory from Brisbane by the next boat. The encouragement of the cotton industry in the Northern Territory will result in the population of the sparsely settled areas of the north and enable irrigation plants to be proceeded with which will also be of great benefit in opening up land suitable for the production of green vegetables the supply of which is such a problem to Darwin residents. Thousands of soldiers are being sent to Darwin and no provision has been made for the local supply of green vegetables. Some of the soldiers are so disgusted at this failure of the Government to provide for their needs in this respect that they are thinking of establishing their own farms on the Adelaide River for the production of green vegetables, which could be grown all the year round if an irrigation scheme were put into operation. Ministers whose interests are mostly concentrated inthe southern States should not be unmindful of their obligations to those who live in the north. I urge the Assistant Minister to give very serious consideration to the representations which I have made. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS:
Herbert .- Whilst I agree that there may be some truth in the statement of the Queensland Cotton Board that pests are causing a great deal of damage to the cotton crops, the greatest pests with which the cottongrowers have had to deal are the present Commonwealth Government and the one which preceded it. From year to year, this Government has merely meddled with this industry. It has been suggested that the cotton-growers are not as efficient as they might be. One can only gain efficiency through experience. If any industry is efficiently operating to-day it is only because those engaged in it have had long experience and because it has had a reasonable assurance of assistance over a number of years. At one period the quantity of cotton produced in Queensland was very large. A great deal more could be produced to-day if the cottongrowers were guaranteed against loss for four or five years. I do not agree with the honorable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr. Blain)** that all of the good land in Queensland has already been selected. Quite a lot of land just as good as that which has been opened up is still in the grip of the jungle. The failure of the cotton-growing industry has been due to the failure of successive governments to evolve a long-range plan for its protection. Some time ago a number of people thought that they could make fortunes growing cotton in the Marlborough district; their efforts were unsuccessful because of the uncertainty of the assistance to be granted from year to year and a few are still struggling there to eke out a living. Cotton is grown in the Burdekin River district. I have shown samples of Burdekin River cotton to experts, who have reported very favorably upon it. The man who grew those samples said that one of his greatest troubles was that he could not afford to extend his irrigation scheme to the cotton area until he had some guarantee " that he could carry on over a period of years. The difficulty in that area is the doubtful rainfall. Where irrigation is available the success of cotton growing is assured. There is plenty of room for an expansion of cotton-growing activities in the Burdekin River district and I have no doubt that more extensive crops of cotton would be planted if the Government adopted a long-range plan for the assistance of the industry. The same remarks apply to the tobacco industry, which now becomes increasingly important because of the necessity for the conservation of dollar exchange. We were told some time ago that only a small percentage of the cotton grown in this country would be of use for manufacturing other than coarse cloths. I do not think that there is any substance in that contention. Those who have produced cotton, even in a small way, have proved that *lit* is not correct. The idea originally held, that only coarse cloths could be made from Australian cotton, will not stand investigation. If those who are engaged in the industry be given the opportunity to study the varieties of cotton that need to be grown, and to acclimatize them, they should be able to produce in sufficient abundance to provide all the materials that Australia requires for any purpose. If they continue to receive a reasonable measure of support, they will become, in a few years, as efficient as those who are engaged in any other industry. I am not in agreement with the suggestion of the Tariff Board in regard to inefficiency. Efficiency is gained as the result of study of the different problems that are encountered. *No* individual investigator or body of investigators can become thoroughly efficient without the opportunity to study whatever problems arise. It is regrettable that some years ago, when there seemed to be a really good opportunity to establish the cotton industry in Australia, and make it of real use, it did not receive sufficient encouragement. Had it then been properly encouraged, it would now be well established, and we should be producing all the cotton that we need. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-KA9} ##### Mr JOLLY:
Lilley .- After the comprehensive survey of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** and the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Francis),** I do not propose to say very much. I was impressed with the rosy picture of the great future of this industry painted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and could not help thinking that the industry affords a good opportunity for the employment of the energies of some honorable gentlemen who will in all probability find themselves without an occupation after the 21st September next. I wish to refer particularly to the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in which he deplored the fact that the bounty to be paid in any one year is not to exceed £150,000. I point out that that sum represents an increase of 50 per cent. on the average payment during the last five years. The highest amount paid in any one year has so far been £115,000. {: .speaker-K0K} ##### Mr Conelan: -- The honorable member does not object to the raising of the amount ? {: .speaker-KA9} ##### Mr JOLLY: -- I do not. In fairness, however, it must be borne in mind that the proposed amount of the bounty represents a substantial increase on what has been paid previously. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr Martens: -- What was paid previously merely kept the cotton-growers in a state bordering on starvation. {: .speaker-KA9} ##### Mr JOLLY: -- It must not be overlooked that if, owing to adverse conditions, the aggregate amount of the bounty in any one year does not reach £150,000, the sum by which it falls short may be expended in succeeding years. I repeat what I have said previously in connexion with this industry, namely that we are not justified as a national Parliament in agreeing to the payment of a bounty to any industry that is not conducted efficiently. I am gratified that satisfactory arrangements have been made between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government with a view to placing this industry on a sound basis. Past results have not been very encouraging. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr Martens: -- Because of the meanness of the Commonwealth Government. {: .speaker-KA9} ##### Mr JOLLY: -- I am not blaming any particular government. What I emphasize is that, whether the industry concerned be in Queensland, or in any other State, the Commonwealth Government is not justified in paying a bounty to it, unless it be conducted on an efficient basis. The Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government are endeavouring to achieve that purpose under the provisions of this bill. This industry can be of great value to Australia, not only for defence purposes, but also from an economic aspect. I pay tribute to the Commonwealth officers who have taken such a keen interest in it in the past, and congratulate this Government on having come to a definite arrangement with the Queensland Government to place it on a sound footing. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 468 {:#debate-36} ### SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1940-41 Message recommending appropriation reported. *In committee* (Consideration of Governor-General's message) : Motion (by **Mr. Spender)** agreed to - >That there be granted to His Majesty for or towards defraying the services of the year 1940-41 a sum not exceeding £6,732,000. Resolution reported. Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted. *In Committee of Ways and Means:* Motion (by **Mr. Spender)** agreed to - >That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the services of the year 1940-41, there be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum not exceeding £6,732,000. Resolution reported and adopted. *Ordered -* >That **Mr. Spender** and **Mr. Nock** do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution. Bill brought up by **Mr. Spender,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr SPENDER:
Treasurer · Warringah · UAP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. Supply Act No. 1 covers a period of three months up to the 30th September next. Supply is now sought for a further period of two months, that is, to the 30th November next. This measure makes provision for the sum of £6,732,000 to meet expenditure under the following heads : - The amounts included in the bill are based on the rates of expenditure approved in the appropriation for 1939-40, except in the case of defence requirements, where it is necessary to make increased provision to meet war conditions. Only in a few isolated items in connexion with which the expenditure is heavier in the earlier part of the year has the proportion of five-twelfths of last year's provision been exceeded. Honorable members will note that £1,000,000 has been provided under the heading, "Advance to the Treasurer". With the amount of £4,000,000 already included in the first Supply Act, a total of £5,000,000 will now be available under this head. It is necessary to finance from this vote all works except defence works which were uncompleted at the 30th June last, and to continue the payment of special grants to States. Appropriationsfor works and special grants to States are normally sought shortly after the presentation of the budget, and are thus available comparatively early in the financial year. This year these appropriations will not be obtained until a much later date than usual. In the meantime, the expenditure must be borne by Treasurer's advance. It is essential, in case of emergency, for the Treasurer to have at his disposal a fund sufficient to meet any reasonable contingency that might arise. The invariable practice is that information regarding the annual Estimates of expenditure is given to Parliament when the budget is brought down. There are reasons why some tentative information should be given at this stage regard ing war and defence expenditure for 1940-41. It should be understood that until the budget is brought down no final Estimates can be given. All that is possible is to convey an indication on the basis of such information as is now available. As honorable members know, it is impossible to present a completely reliable forecast because of changing conditions, and because of the difficulty in estimating at this stage what will be the actual expenditure in respect of the munitions drive. In the circumstances I can only, at best, submit a tentative estimate, and I estimate the figure at £145,000,000 in Australia and £32,000,000 overseas, or a total of about £177,000,000 Australian currency. For 1939-40, the expenditure in Australia was approximately £46,000,000, and overseas £9,000,000, or a total of £55,000,000. On the 1st July we had a cash balance of £28,000,000 in hand to meet defence and war expenditure. Loan appropriations already made are sufficient to meet the defence programme of armaments and works for some weeks. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Makin)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 469 {:#debate-37} ### ADJOURNMENT Employment of Italians in Sugar {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Industry - Petrol Rationing - Imperial Chemical Industries, Deer Park: Offensive Effluent Motion (by **Mr. Spender)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS:
Herbert .- I desire to draw the attention of the House to a letter forwarded to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** by **Mr. C.** J. Fallon, secretary of the Queensland Branch of the Australian. Workers Union. During recent months bitterness has 'been engendered in northern Queensland with regard to certain employees in the sugar industry, because a newspaper, which one might describe as filthy, has frequently referred to those employees as " dagoes ". The newspaper to which I refer is *Smith's Weekly,* which has charged the Australian Workers Union with collecting money from these employees in order to make them financial members of the union. The letter is dated the 26th July, 1940, and reads as follows - {:#subdebate-37-1} #### Hon. R. G. Menzies, P.C., {:#subdebate-37-2} #### Prime Minister, {:#subdebate-37-3} #### Canberra {:#subdebate-37-4} #### Dear Sir, I respectfully suggest for your consideration that articles published by *Smith's Weekly* which circulates in Queensland, will probably have results which may prove an embarrassment to the Federal Government and to Australia, and cause serious industrial and racial conflict, in Queensland and elsewhere. I refer to articles directed against a section of workmen who are consistently referred to as Dagoes by *Smith's Weekly.* The articles published by this paper are written without any regard to the facts, and could be described as ahotch-potch distortion and deliberate falsehood. As regards the sugar industry, so frequently referred to in these articles, it is true that a substantial number of foreign workmen and farmers, including Italians, are engaged in the production of sugar cane. Practically the whole of the employees, including foreign workmen, have been members ofmy union for many years. In 1920 the Australian Sugar Producers Association and the Queensland Cane-growers Association entered into an agreement with my union to control the percentage of foreign cane-cutters to be employed in each sugar mill area each year. This agreement is identified as " The Gentlemen's Agreement ". One of the reasons which actuated the three organizations in seeking to exercise this control was to prevent employment of an undue number of foreign cane-cutters, and to reduce the percentage of such cane-cutters who were employed. The agreement achieved our intention and the number of foreign cutters have been substantially reduced. As a matter of fact, that agreement applies, not merely to Italians, hut also to all persons other than Britishers. The number of foreigners among the employees in this industry is decreasing every year. The letter continues - >For the purpose of the agreement all perrons, other than persons born in the United Kingdom or Australia, were regarded as foreigners. > >In addition to the intention referred to, the parties to the agreement were desirous of preventing generation of racial bitterness, and securing industrial peace. The agreement achieved this objective, and has been of inestimable value to the industry. > >The practice when employing cane-cutters is that the employers select their own cutters, whosign agreements as provided for in the Sugar Industry Award, in the presence of a representative of the Employers Association and a representative of my union, who cooperate together to prevent more than the permitted percentage of foreign cutters from being employed. All cutters must produce the current Australian Workers Union mem bership ticket (as proof of his membership in the Australian Workers Union) at the sign on for scrutiny by the representatives of the two organizations referred to. > >As the sign on usually takes place in May or June, and our tickets are issued in the previous September, it follows that the persons employed already possess their union tickets before the sign on, and no union tickets are issued to cane-cutters at the sign on, or at any time immediately preceding the date of the sign on - That practice has prevailed for a number of years - >The system briefly outlined herein is a result of many years of experience, and that it is of immense value to the sugar industry and the State is indicated by the fact that, whereas previous to this system being inaugurated, the sugar industry was a hot-bed of industrial unrest, and strikes were frequent and bitter, the industry has now enjoyed many years of industrial peace. > >All organizations interested in the sugar industry are anxious to preserve industrial peace, and also the efficiency which is a feature of the industry, but the falsehoods published in *Smith's Weekly* will positively generate racial bitterness, and destroy the industrial peace and efficiency which we have been at such pains to foster. > >The sugar industry employs many thousands of seasonal employees, a very large number nomadic workers. Men of almost every nationality are to be found amongst the thousands who man the mills and harvest the crop. > >The work is very arduous and climatic conditions are harsh, consequently there is a great deal of inflammable material amongst this very large body of men. > >Amongst Italian workers are a substantial number who literally hate Fascism. Many of them were victims of Fascist brutality in Italy before they came to Australia. > >Except for a few undesirables, they are honest and industrious and very glad to be in Australia. > >With the approach of the commencement of the harvest season, my executive gave attention to the danger of racial feeling being generated as a result of the war, and decided that, notwithstanding the war, the Arbitration Court award and the " Gentlemen's Agreements " already referred to must be enforced irrespective of the nationality of the cane-cutters to be employed. > >In arriving at this decision, we were influenced by - > >1 ) Our legal obligation to law-abiding members of the union, irrespective of nationality. > >We understood that a powerful nation, in comparatively close proximity to Australia, is under certain treaty obligations to Italy. > >That any racial demonstration or offence to innocent foreigners might seriously embarrass the Federal Government and Australia. > >That the problem of dealing with foreigners is one for the Federal Government. > >That if a number of individuals were permitted to take it upon themselves to inflict hardship upon innocent people in north Queensland, it would be contrary to British justice; any crowd elsewhere would be equally entitled to take the law into their own hands. > >The decision of my executive was conveyed to all officials and members of my union in the sugar districts, and the employment of cutters was completed without friction. But in one sugar-mill area (at Tully) a representative of an insignificant and discreditable political organization attempted to exploit the position for political gain by inflaming British cane-cutters against their workmates from overseas. > >Officers of my union at Tully prevented what might have developed into an ugly situation. > >After the sign on had been completed, the mischievous person already referred to again attempted to cause trouble, and advertised a meeting for that purpose, with the result thatI communicated with Melbourne and the Federal Cabinet took action to prevent further mischief, and work is now proceeding smoothly through the vast area in whichthe sugar industry is carried on. > >The Prime Minister and the Premierof Queensland have both personally expressed to me their approval of the manner in which my executive handled a position which might easily have been fanned into something fraught with grave possibilities. > >It is quite apparent that the industrial peace which exists in the sugar industry must be repugnant to *Smith's Weekly,* because that paper has published articles each week since the 20thJune. 1940, which are grossly insulting to members of my union whom the paper describes as " Dagoes " and which reek with shocking falsehoods and are calculated to destroy the confidence of our members in my union, and thus prevent us from rendering the valuable services we are rendering in the interests of industrial peace. > >Recently, the Federal Government prohibited the publication of newspapers and roneoed sheets by the Communist party. I am reliably informed that since the Communists are prohibited from publishing their own newspaper!), they have adopted a plan of campaign as a result of which statements are made to and published by *Smith's Weekly* without any inquiry as to their authenticity. For example, the latest issue of *Smiths Weekly* states that probably 15,000 foreigners, including thousands of unregistered aliens, are being given preference of employment by the Australian Workers Union over good Australians on the northern cane-fields. > >The total membership of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Workers Union is more than60,000. The total number of Italian members is less than 3,000 employed in all kinds of industries. > >As to the statement that unregistered aliens are being given preference, I may state that at Tully, where the attempt was made to create difficulty on the question of' nationality, more than 490 men who were born in the United Kingdom or Australia were employed as cane-cutters as against 90 born in countries other than the United Kingdom or Australia. > >My information from our office at Tully, and also from the employers' organization, is that not one unnaturalized person was employed as a cane-cutter in that area. > >I would most earnestly suggest that serious consideration be given to the danger of racial conflict and the destruction of industrial peace which is almost certain to result if *Smith's Weekly* or any other paper continues to publish mischievous and false matter such as that recently published by *Smith's Weekly.* > >In making this appeal, I am actuated solely by a desire to prevent industrial or racial conflict, which would almost certainly reach dangerous proportions, and I respectfully suggest that that danger can be avoided if *Smith's Weekly* is prohibited from publishing deliberate and mischievous falsehoods in future. > >Yours faithfully, > >G. Fallon, Branch Secretary. My reason for reading that letter is that I desire to give to the people of this country some clear idea of the number of persons employed in the industry. The individual who endeavoured to stir up this trouble was prevented by the Government from doing so, following representations made by me. I appreciate the action taken. He also tried to do another dirty piece of work when he sought to establish a branch of the Protestant Labour party in that centre. I know the area referred to in the letter, as does also the Minister for Air **(Mr. Fadden),** who I am sure will agree with me that there is no considerable number of foreigners at the mill at Tully. Until the last year or two the gentlemen's agreement was not necessary in Tully, as only Australians and Britishers were employed there. To-day, of about 700 men belonging to the Australian Workers Union working in that locality, there are employed less than 100 aliens, naturalized and unnaturalized. {: #subdebate-37-4-s0 .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr NAIRN:
Perth .- Earlier to-day I referred to petrol rationing, with special reference to tradesmen, such as bakers and milk vendors, who will be severely handicapped if the scheme as published in the press is put into operation. Vehicles used for suburban and country deliveries, such as those used by storekeepers, bakers, milk vendors and others, are to be restricted to 5,000 miles a year, or approximately 100 miles a week. In respect of a baker, that represents about 16 miles a day, and in respect of a milkman about 14 miles a day, which is far below the normal requirements of the trades people concerned. The treatment of these persons who are engaged in essential industries, and are supplying food to the people, will compare most unfavorably with that proposed in respect of the owners of cars used for private purposes. A car used exclusively for private running is to be allowed a minimum of 4,000 miles a year; cars used for business and pleasure may be granted sufficient petrol to enable them to travel from 4,000 miles to 10,000 miles a year, according to the distance travelled last year. I should like the Minister for Supply and Development **(Sir Frederick Stewart)** to explain why the owners of cars used for private running are to be treated more generously than owners of commercial vehicles which are used exclusively for business purposes. The restriction of the quantity of petrol which may be used in a private car does not necessarily put the vehicle out of action, but the rationing of petrol may make a commercial vehicle uneconomical. A motor vehicle used in a business represents a costly overhead charge, and if it is to be allowed to travel only two-thirds of the distance normally travelled, it becomes an uneconomic unit. The Minister said this afternoon that if I studied the schedule I should find that there would be no injustice under the proposed rationing scheme. I have perused the schedule, but I am unable to obtain from it any assurance such as that given by the Minister. I shall be glad, therefore, if he will amplify the statement which he made earlier to-day on the subject. {: #subdebate-37-4-s1 .speaker-KCF} ##### Mr DEDMAN:
Corio .- I wish to deal with a matter which I understand comes under the control of the Minister for Supply and Development **(Sir Frederick Stewart).** On behalf of the people of Altona, I protest against the construction of a pipe line in that district for the discharge of an offensive effluent into Port Phillip from the annexe attached to the works of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited at Deer Park. In passing, I might say that I strongly ob ject to the building of an annexe on private ground at all. A wealthy concern like Imperial Chemical Industries Limited can well afford to neutralize any effluent from its works. I know that the Minister will tell me that his experts are of opinion that this effluent will be entirely harmless. However, as the result of a previous experience, the people of Altona are not inclined to accept that view. About twelve years ago a pipe Hue was run by the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited to the bay. On that occasion the people were told that the effluent would he entirely innocuous, but the discharge from this pipe destroyed excellent fishing grounds. According to health officials fish now caught in this area are unfit for human consumption. Consequently, the people of this district refuse to accept the view that the effluent from the new pipe line will be harmless. Undoubtedly, it will destroy another good fishing ground which at present is very popular with people of the 'bayside. Originally, it was intended to use the pipe line to discharge an effluent consisting mainly of dilutes of sulphuric acid which could easily be neutralized. Now, however, the pipe line is to take an offensive discharge from the leather works attached to the same factory, which it is quite impossible to render innocuous. I ask the Minister to look into this matter and to compel Imperial Chemical Industries Limited to purify any effluent from its works into the pipe line. {: #subdebate-37-4-s2 .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Minister for Supply and Development · Parramatta · UAP -- In reply to the honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Nairn)** I repeat, as I indicated in reply to a question to-day, that the petrol allowance for private cars, which are not used for business purposes, is strictly limited to a maximum mileage of 4,000 per annum regardless of the normal mileage of such cars. It is true that in respect of cars which are used for business purposes, a graduated scale of rationing is provided in respect of extra mileage. It is also true that the petrol allowance for business vehicles of the class to which the honorable member refers, namely, suburban delivery pane) vans, used by milkmen and bakers, has been fixed on a basis of 5,000 miles a year. I point out, however, that this mileage has not been fixed arbitrarily by some public official, but has been fixed by the Liquid Fuel Control Board which consists of seven persons, five of whom directly represent petrol users. It is significant that the Advisory Committee, after examining the board's formula, did not object to the particular item to which the honorable member refers. Representations have been made to me on this subject by the honorable member, and other honorable members from Western Australia, and only to-day I forwarded their representations for sympathetic consideration by the Liquid Fuel Control Board. Incidentally, I point out that although tabulated allowances are set out in the data which have been supplied to honorable members, the State transport organizations, which will act as agents for the Commonwealth Government in implementing the rationing of petrol, have been vested with a good deal of discretion, particularly during the initial months of the operation of the scheme. The matter mentioned by the honorable member for Corio **(Mr. Dedman)** now comes under the control of the Department of Munitions. However, I had something to do with the subject inits initial stages. I have discussed it with the honorable gentleman. He has anticipated me by suggesting that the technical officers of the Department of Supply would testify that the effluent which it was proposed to discharge from the annexe at Deer Park would be innocuous. They are of that opinion, and in those circumstances it was considered that the Government would not he justified in incurring an additional expenditure of £10,000 on the construction of another line to discharge the effluent at an alternative spot further along the bay. I have given assurances, which will be honoured by the Minister now in charge of the Munitions Department, that this pipe line will be used only so long as the annexe is being utilized for defence purposes. One of the many objections raised was that the pipe line was being constructed in the interests of. Imperial Chemical Industries of Australasia Limited. I deny that imputation. I again give the assurance that this pipe line will be used for the discharge of effluent from the annexe only so long as the annexe is being used for war purposes. I also gave the undertaking that after the pipe line had been in operation for one month, I would visit the works in company with the honorable member, and if it could then be demonstrated to me that the effluent was offensive, action would be taken to remove the pipe line. In those circumstances, it could not be considered that we would be justified in spending a further £10,000 until at least the evidence and the opinions of the departmental experts had been proved tobe wrong by actual demonstration. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 473 {:#debate-38} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - >Nauru - Report to Council of League of Nations on Administration of Nauru during 1939. > >New Guinea - Report to Council of League of Nations on Administration of Territory of New Guinea for year 1938-39. Ordered to be printed. Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1940 - No. 19 - Amalgamated Postal Workers' Union of Australia; Australian Postal Electricians' Union; Australian Third Division Telegraphists and Postal Clerks' Union; Commonwealth Telephone Officers' Association; Fourth Division Postmasters, Postal Clerks and Telegraphists' Union; Meat Inspectors' Association, Commonwealth Public Service; and Commonwealth Public Service Artisans' Association. No. 20 - Commonwealth Temporary Clerks' Association. No. 21 - Australian Postal Electricians' Union. No. 22 - Arms, Explosives and Munition Workers' Federation of Australia. Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act - R egulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1940, No. 153. Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1940, No. 157. Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department - Attorney-General - K. N. Rimington. H. A. Roberts, J. M. A. Stirling. Civil Aviation - E. C. Johnston, H. A. Mann, A. R. McComb. Interior - J. A. Campbell, H. V. Davies, F. J. Doolan. Defence Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1940, No. 150. Royal Military College - Report for 1939. Iron and Steel Products Bounty Act - Return for year 1939-40. Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired - For Defence purposes - Bankstown, New South Wales. Puckapunyal, Victoria. For Postal purposes - Carlton, Victoria. Warren, New South Wales. Motor Vehicle Engine Bounty Act - Return for year 1939-40. National Security Act - Regulations Amended -Statutory Rules 1940, Nos. 151, 152, 158, 159, 160. Post and Telegraph Act and Wireless Telegraphy Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1940, No. 156. Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinances of 1940 - No.16 - Real Property. No. 17 - Canberra Community Hos pital (No. 3). Regulations Amended - 1940 - No. 6 (Public Baths Ordinance). Supply and Development Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1940, No. 154. Tractor Bounty Act - Return for year 1939-40. {: .page-start } page 474 {:#debate-39} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTION'S *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {:#subdebate-39-0} #### South Australian Munitions Works {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When is it anticipated that munitions works will be started near Salisbury and Gawler in South Australia? 1. How many men is it anticipated will be employed annually in such works, and will the additional shell production in South Australia increase the plant and staff of the shell-testing range at Port Wakefield? 2. Will the Government favorably consider the question of house-building because of the increased labour needed in these works? {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It is anticipated that the erection of the works will be commenced during the present month. 1. The number of persons employed in the works will depend upon the requirements of the defence services, but the works will be capable of employing several thousand people. The Department of the Army will no doubt find it necessary to conduct its tests more frequently at the Port Wakefield range to cater for the increased production of munitions. This should involve additional employment. 2. It is expected that the munitions works will absorb a number of persons displaced from other industries as a result of the war, and it is, therefore, considered that the residential accommodation available in towns adjacent to the works will be sufficient to meet requirements. House-building is accordingly not contemplated. {:#subdebate-39-1} #### Postal Department : Melbourne Offices {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he approve of the leasing of the Melbourne Tramways Board's offices by the Postal Department? 1. Were any inquiries made by the Postal Department regarding the rental being received by the Melbourne Tramways Board for these premises? {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. These premises were leased in 1938 and, therefore, prior to my appointmentas Postmaster-General. 1. No, because all negotiations regarding the acquisition of property either by purchase or lease are conducted by the Department of the Interior. {:#subdebate-39-2} #### Loan Applications {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the names of the individuals and organizations (private and public) that have, since the 1st September, 1939, applied to the Treasurer for authority to raise loan money, and/or increase capital? 1. What amount did each apply for, and for what purpose was the amount required? 2. How many of the applications were dealt with direct by the Treasurer? 3. How many were referred for report to the Advisory Committee on Capital Issues? {: type="1" start="1"} 0. With respect to numerous inquiries regarding the fishing industry, can the Minister indicate whether the Ship Bounty Act 1939 is to be amended to apply to wooden ships or whether government loans covered by a mortgage over fishing vessels will be arranged? 1. Will the Government undertake to render financial assistance to this promising industry, which affords the sole means of consumers obtaining tinned fish which is denied to them by licensing restrictions ? {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The questions of the desirability of a mending the Ship Bounty Act 1939 so that bounty may be payableon woodenflashing ships, and of the Government granting mortgage loans on such ships, have been referred by the Minister for Trade and Customs for investigation and report bythe Director of Economic Co-ordination and the Tariff Board in its capacity as the Government's Advisory and Consultative Committee. 1. The Government will further consider these matters when the reports of the authorities mentioned are received. War-time Boards. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the personnel of all boards and authorities set up by the Government in connexion with the war effort ? 1. What payment, in each case, is received by such persons for such services? {:#subdebate-39-3} #### National Insurance {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the total amount expended to date for (a) claims by organizations, and (b) administration charges, in connexion with the suspended scheme of national insurance? 1. What is the total amount of outstanding claims not paid? {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Approximately £22,000. This represents claims in excess of authorizations. {:#subdebate-39-4} #### Airport Site Near Melbourne {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he lay on the table any reports from Commonwealth officers relating to land available for an airport near Newport, or any other place adjacent to Fisherman's Bend? 1. Was a request for reports made by **Mr. Thorby,** when he was Minister for Civil Aviation, and was his request complied with? {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Areas near Newport and at other places in the Melbourne metropolitan area have been reported upon by Commonwealth officers in connexion with investigations relating to sites for an airport. These reports are still under consideration and it is regretted that it is not possible to accede to the request to lay these reports onthe table. It is not likely thatany action will he taken during the war towards" the construction of an additionalcivil aviation aerodrome in or near Melbourne. 1. *So* requests for specific reports were made by **Mr. Thorby** when Minister for Civil Aviation, but he was fully aware of the various relevant proposals concerning the question of establishment of a second aerodrome tor Melbourne. {:#subdebate-39-5} #### Workmen's Homes August, the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Mulcahy)** asked the following questions, *upon notice: -* 1.In view of the statement that the Commonwealth Bank is prepared to advance £50,000 to a building society at Glen Davis, will the Treasurer consider making finance available for the provision of houses for workmen at Lithgow andPortKembla where men engaged in defence work of national importance are living under shocking conditions? {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Will he also extend the same financial assistance to building societiesin Sydney, where there is considerable shortage of workmen's homes? The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I am informed that all concrete propositions submitted to the Commonwealth Bank are considered on their merits, and in the light of other calls on the resources available. 1. While it is not practicable to approve all applications received, the bank has given substantial support to the Co-operative Building Society movement in New South Wales, and has agreed to advance some £1,700,000 to such societies. {:#subdebate-39-6} #### Importation of Bombers I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that in order to facilitate the local production of Beaufort aircraft, the Air Ministry arranged for the Bristol Aeroplane Company to supply ten sets of fabricated parts and ten sets of raw materials and equipment, shipment to be made prior to the 31st December, 1939. Due to the conditions which arose after the outbreak of war, the company had failed to complete the delivery of the full quantities required, when early in May an embargo was placed by the 1 United Kingdom Government upon the exportation from England of any further aircraft, aircraft materials or equipment. On the 29th July, however, cabled advice was received that the Ministry of Aircraft Production had authorized the company- to supply tho items necessary to complete these twenty aircraft sets, and that shipment would be made as early as practicable. House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 August 1940, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1940/19400820_reps_15_164/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives20 August 1940

QUESTION

WET CANTEENS IN MILITARY CAMPS

Mr JAMES:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:Minister for Defence Co-ordination · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

MINISTERIAL CHANGES

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

Hon. A. W. Fadden, M.P., Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation

IMPORTS OF TOBACCO

Mr SPENDER:Treasurer · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

HONORABLE B. S. B. STEVENS

Mr GANDER:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

PETROL RATIONING

Mr NAIRN:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:Minister for Social Services · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ANTHONY:

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

Mr MENZIES:UAP

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MINISTER TO JAPAN

Mr JENNINGS:WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:Minister for External Affairs · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Mr ROSEVEAR:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

Mr Rosevear:

Mr McEWEN:

Mr BEASLEY:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr FROST:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

WAR AIR LOSSES

Mr BADMAN:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

WOOL APPRAISEMENT

Mr MARTENS:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:CP

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Sir CHARLES MARR:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr NOCK:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for the Interior · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA: DEFENCE BOARD

Mr THOMPSON:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr JOHN LAWSON:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr MENZIES:UAP

Mr LANE:BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:

QUESTION

MUNITIONS ANNEXE, LAUNCESTON

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

WHEAT ACQUISITION

Mr PROWSE:FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:CP

QUESTION

POWER ALCOHOL

Mr WARD:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

BOMB-PROOF SHELTERS

Dr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

WOOL CONTRACT

House of Representatives
20 August 1940

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
Minister for Defence Co-ordination · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

Mr SPENDER:
Treasurer · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Minister for Social Services · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for External Affairs · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr FROST:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

Mr BADMAN:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr MARTENS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr NOCK:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for the Interior · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr THOMPSON:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr LANE:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr PERKINS:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr NOCK:
CP

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr NOCK:
CP

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
UAP

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP